Steve Richards writes:
The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is the Tony Benn of the current
cabinet.
Like Benn, he began his career at the BBC before leaving journalism
for politics; he is also unfailingly polite at all times, he is ideological
while being admirably curious of those with conflicting ideological
convictions, and he is also always provocatively interesting and sometimes
almost wilfully silly.
Gove’s silliness reached a new peak in his comments
on the First World War in which he attacked left-wing historians for
failing to blame Germany for causing the conflagration.
Gove is an avid and
promiscuous reader. He knows as well as anyone – and virtually everyone knows –
that the origins of the war are a source of endless debate.
In the 1960s, it
was a German historian, Fritz Fischer, who caused a sensation (and another mountain
of revisionist accounts) by ascribing culpability to Germany. Some British
historians, from right and left, have differed with Fischer. Some have agreed.
There will never be resolution, which is why the debate is eternally
compelling. Like a detective story with a vividly ambiguous ending, the debate
about the origins of war shows why history can be so accessibly interesting a
subject.
Benn was a hugely significant figure. Gove might become one.
But when he
writes polemical journalism in an area over which he holds responsibility in
power, he harms himself far more than the historians he vilifies.
A study of
British political history shows that the challenge for the few national
politicians who dare to be interesting is sensing when to avoid being too
silly.
No comments:
Post a Comment