Who would historians have voted for?

[NewLeafsFan]

Do you think that most historians would have voted for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Do you think that they are over cautious or do they have valid concerns?

In my opinion, most historians would vote for left wing or Liberal Parties. Liberals have brought on the French revolution, faught to give women the right to vote, and act more progressively against discrimination. Not to mention the similarities in policy between Trump and other historical far right leaders, I don't think any historians voted for Trump.

[mattsmith48]

I think they made their own decisions based on their own political beliefs and knowledge like everyone else. While they have better knowledge of the past and of who and what made these things happen they still need to be in favour of those things. So even with the comparison and troubling similarities between Trump and Hitler, it doesn’t mean they all disagreed with it, or maybe they didn’t think it could happen in the US and it would stop to yelling racist and xenophobic shit at klan rallies.

[Sailor Mars]

Hm... well it really depends. You go far back into American history, the first presidents and around that time it wasn’t democrat and republicans, ykno? It was federalists and antifederalists. Those who wanted a stoing central government and those who wanted stronger state governments. Those who followed the constitution to a T and those who interpreted it more loosely. So when you’re talking about during the French Revolution, who those guys would vote for, it’s a toughie. On one hand you’ve got a woman, although educated, yes, still a woman, and on the other hand you have someone who doesn’t have a clue about politics and I’m sure Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would’ve despised.

And again, you’re talking about how liberals have fought for women’s rights to vote, but that only happened semi-recently. Women couldn’t vote in America until the 1920s when the 19th amendment was passed. And even still, many voters did not vote for Clinton BECAUSE she was a woman, so asking who historians would vote for is kind of ridiculous... it would be a blowout and a landslide win for any other male candidates (seeing as women couldn’t vote, blacks and coloured couldn’t vote, and immigrants couldn’t vote, who would honestly vote for Clinton besides MAYBE like 2 people?).

(also, idk if u guys cud tell im in APUSH :P)

[ShineintheDark]

I think it's an impossible question because we cannot know what would have happened if things had gone differently. Even forgetting the most recent election, if we go back further to, let's say, Al Gore vs Bush. 9/11 would probbaly have happened just the same, no matter who was in. Would Al have gone to war in Iraq? Probably. Would he have dragged in all the nations that Bush did? We don't know. A historian isn't psychic: they can't just predict an entire different course of history just from what was predicted at the time. A Hillary presidency could have cured cancer in 0.002 seconds or have ended in nuclear war with NK, there's no legitimate way of telling.

[Stronk Serb]

On a global scale it would hardly make any difference. Despite being of opposing parties, the President sort of has a rough guideline which he follows for maintaining and projecting power of the US across the globe.

Sure, Jerusalem might not ve declared as capital of Israel, or Hillary would not alienate so much Muslim allies of the US, but the status quo would be maintained. Israel would shell palestine for throwing plastic bottles, Saudi Arabia would continue to behead women for leaving their home, Assad would keep pushing ISIS out, the US would continue arming everyone who plays into their interests right now (with disregard to future consequences), it would all be the same.

[PlasmaHam]

I think it is far more complicated than saying historians will vote for people on whether or not they are liberal or conservative. There are many more nuances that need to go into it, based upon our present events. For instance, a historian may vote for a more hawkish president, as they believe aggressive action and/or war is the best option. Or they may vote for a dove-like president, if they see diplomacy as the best option.

And to say that liberal governments and leaders have always been a positive would be quite an incorrect statement. The French Revolution, like you said earlier, may have deposed a despot, but was also an extremely violent period, and ultimately resulted in a series of dictatorship and military occupation. Or FDR, for instance. Many modern economists have started to accept that his economically-liberal way of dealing with the Great Depression just prolonged it. It wasn't until a return to more conservative economics post-WWII that the economy really recovered. And of course you can't ignore the numerous communist dictatorships that have killed millions. Not saying that liberal governments are all bad, but simply siding with the more liberal politician is not a guarantee of prosperity.

But in reality, I think historians would vote like a normal person. Historians are not all of one mind, there isn't some secret political and historical consensus among them. They have personal opinions and interpretations that can guide them to make their own choice.

[Tim the Enchanter]

I think they would have voted whatever political party they supported.

[NewLeafsFan]

I think they would have voted whatever political party they supported.

Well, obviously that wouldn't have nearly as much to do with this election as it has previous ones. Many people refused to vote for Secretary Clinton because of the national security issue with the emails and avoided Mr. Trump because he seems to lack both experience and morals. For example, we saw previous two previous Republican Presidents refuse to vote for Trump.

[Stronk Serb]

Honestly, when I think about this question more seriously, they would have voted Trump. Trump would be a known factor to historians in the future and by simply changing him with another candidate, we would alter the course of history so much that we would feel it in the future.

[NewLeafsFan]

Honestly, when I think about this question more seriously, they would have voted Trump. Trump would be a known factor to historians in the future and by simply changing him with another candidate, we would alter the course of history so much that we would feel it in the future.

I meant historians that are alive today; not historians in the future.

[Stronk Serb]

I meant historians that are alive today; not historians in the future.

I don't know. Probably based on their political beliefs.

[Sword of the morning]

Most historical figures would have leaned more conservative bases on the times they lived on. Even JFK would be more conservative bases on today's standards, he was against racial quatos like most liberals today. George Washington would have leaned more conservative bases on his beliefs. I could be completely wrong and they go completely away from what they thought while they lived. With most historical figures they were a product of there time and beliefs.