The Historians Who Are Supporting Donald Trump

Trump Gingrich

By now you have heard of Historians Against Trump.  But what about historians who are for Trump.  Rick Shenkman and Sharon Arana have managed to find six historians who support Trump.  They are:

Victor David Hanson

Timothy Furnish

Derek Boyd Hankerson

David Barton

Eric Metaxas

Newt Gingrich (He has a Ph.D in history)

I don’t know much about Hankerson apart from the fact that he thinks blacks fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Readers of The Way of Improvement Leads Home are probably aware of the fact that I do not classify Barton or Metaxas as historians.  (Click on the links above).

I also found it interesting that Wilfred McClay was initially part of the pro-Trump list. Read the article to see McClay’s e-mail exchange with Shenkman and Arana.

ADDENDUM:  I just learned that Larry Schwiekart of the University of Dayton is also supporting Trump.

5 thoughts on “The Historians Who Are Supporting Donald Trump

  1. Those are the Big Five: Donald Trump’s historians.

    But there’s also one more: Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Gingrich is indeed a historian. He possesses a Ph.D. in history and long ago taught history at the college level. But he clearly is in a class by himself. Historian? Activist? GOP bomb thrower? You decide.
    – See more at:

    Masterful. Pyromania in a field of strawmen.

    Round up secularist whipping boy David Barton [BA, Oral Roberts University], some black “historian” guy who is easily discredited, throw in pop inspirationalist Eric Metaxas who makes no claim to being a[n] historian, throw in brother Gingrich, a universally despised figure by the [left] elite for neutering the [first] Clinton Administration, and I’ll still give better-than-even odds on classicist Victor Davis Hanson one-on-one against the academic mob’s best representative in a fair fight.

    But let’s define the terms of the debate.

    Stipulated that Donald Trump sucks, but since this is a two-horse race–let’s see the 600 “historians” [museum workers with BAs in History, really?]–let’s see these historians and “historians” put their reputations on the line behind Hillary instead of just against Trump.

    Shooting fish in a barrell and the fish don’t shoot back. What a sweet game–Trump loses, no harm done; Trump wins and it’s “I told you so.” Endorse Hillary and let’s talk in a few years. Put some skin in the game.

    In the meantime, we should be examining Historians Against Reagan. Surely they existed. The conscientious historiographer would already be at work. ;-P

    As if. Oh, and

    His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad.

    He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president.
    I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

    A New Republic article proclaimed “Yes, Romney’s Vision for America Really Is That Scary” and the Huffington Post headline read “The Severe Danger of a Romney Presidency.” Rolling Stone explained “Why ‘President Romney’ Would Be a Disaster for Women” and Nick Kristof in The New York Times pontificated on “How Romney Would Treat Women” (spoiler alert: not well).

    Mitt Romney was, of course, far from the first Republican presidential candidate to get this treatment. George W. Bush, John McCain, and any Republican who has the audacity to challenge a Democrat for the presidency are treated to ever more alarmist rhetoric. Every gaffe, every uncorroborated story is blown up by a media seemingly unaware of its extreme bias.

    So it goes. Mercy.


Comments are closed.