The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (293 page)

Whig history, as it is usually called, was both a methodology and a message, or rather a series of messages, about Britain's past. Its methodological assumptions were two: the study of British history should be rooted in political or constitutional developments; and the past could, indeed should, be assessed with the present, or present controversies, constantly in mind. These assumptions are now regarded with disdain by most professional historians. The general messages promoted by Whig history included the notions that Britain's past was the history of progress, that ‘things’ went well (certainly better than ‘elsewhere’), that this progress was largely the work of accommodating élites and popular support for liberties, that its prime domestic product was the ‘matchless’ British constitution, and, finally, that the benefits obtained were graciously extended to other peoples scattered around the globe.
Whig history went through various phases. It started life in the seventeenth century as partisan history; English history as seen by those who opposed, in the name of the ancient constitution, the attempts by all Stuart monarchs between 1603 and 1688, to subvert that constitution and impose a foreign model of government: namely, absolutist monarchy. In the eighteenth century it became party history, that is to say, the Whig party's interpretation of the curious and embarrassing events of 1688 and 1714, when an essentially conservative national élite ditched kings they disliked for others (foreigners) they thought they would like. These episodes required an explanation and justification. Whig (party) history provided it. In the nineteenth century Whig history became the orthodox history of professional historians (that is, those who wrote books for profit). Of these Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–59) was undoubtedly the most important. His five volume
History of England
published between 1848 and 1861 promotes with some style most of the general themes mentioned above. Whig history has survived well into the twentieth century in popular history, the history of hotel bar conversations, British films in the 1930s and 1940s, and what remains of the working class in the 1980s and 1990s.
Taking the nineteenth-century professional historian's phase as our reference point we can note four criticisms commonly levelled at Whig history. First, that the past should be studied for its own sake (and in manageable chunks), not as historical overviews designed to make a point about the present. Secondly, Whig history was winners' history, the history of the successful—wealthy conservative English Anglicans—and it has little to say about Ranters (or ravers), the lower orders, the ‘crowd’, Catholics, the Scots, and so on. Thirdly, it was altogether too contemptuous of foreign models of political development. Finally, it completely ignored, or was unable to digest, Britain's decline since the late nineteenth century.
All these criticisms are plausible. However, they need to be taken with several health warnings. One is that Whig history was never designed to be neutral history: there was always a considerable propaganda component in its make-up. In short, after the seventeenth century Whig history became state history (and remains so today). Again, the popular ‘Britain in Decline’ thesis, a kind of inverted Whig history, has its own methodological problems and its own partisanship; it is employed by parties and groups in opposition as a weapon to attack whichever group of politicians is in office. Finally, the rush by academic historians into history for its own sake is not without its drawbacks. In place of a general sense of the past we are now given micro messages about the doings of unimportant people. Faced with this, we can perhaps see some of the advantages of the old macro, partisan, Whig history style. It may have been ‘wrong’ and methodologically naïve, but it was interesting.
JBu

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

A member of a legislature appointed to facilitate party organization within the legislature. Generally, parties will each appoint a chief whip and one or more junior whips. The term is derived from the ‘whipper in’ of English hunting parlance, whose role it is to keep the pack together in chasing its quarry. In the UK House of Commons the whips' intentions are made clear by the weekly circulation of a document detailing important votes, three lines being scratched under an item indicating the whips' strongest call for support. In many legislatures the job of the whips has expanded to take some responsibility for the management of the legislative timetable itself, as well as facilitating the communication of views between party leaders and back-bench representatives. Whips also become the means through which opposing parties can communicate over the management of the work of the legislature. In the UK House of Commons this is known as the ‘usual channels’.
The power of the whips is dependent upon the importance of consistent party loyalty to personal political advancement for members of a legislature. Where the latter is not critical, as in the US Congress, the power of the whips is weak. Where it is key, as in the UK House of Commons, the whips have much more power. The ultimate sanction against an MP who votes against the party line is the withdrawal of the party whip, which effectively spells an end to parliamentary ambition. For those who are appointed as whips and are seen to be successful, the position generally provides valuable experience in party management and a stepping-stone to ministerial appointment.
JBr

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

Primary election in which blacks are excluded. In the Southern states of the United States, where nomination in the Democratic primary was tantamount to election, ‘white primaries’ were used to exclude blacks from the electoral process. Declared unconstitutional in 1944.

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

(1856–1924)
Began his career as a university politics teacher; President of Princeton University, 1902–10, Governor of New Jersey, 1910–12, and President of the United States, 1913–21. As President he first distinguished himself by presiding over an impressive programme of domestic reform legislation. After re-election in 1916 he led the United States into the First World War and was one of the main architects of the peace settlement negotiated in Paris. For Wilson the creation of machinery to preserve international peace was an essential part of that settlement, but he suffered a humiliating personal and political defeat when the Senate rejected the Treaty of
Versailles
, thereby ensuring that the United States would not participate in the League of Nations.
Wilson was something of a rarity in that he began his career as an academic student of politics, attained considerable distinction in that field, and then had the opportunity to put into practice at the highest level some of his theoretical musings. In his early writings Wilson was severely critical of the US Constitution and bemoaned the lack of opportunities for effective national leadership in the American political system.
Congressional Government
, first published in 1885, was trenchantly critical of Congress and bleakly pessimistic about the possibility of real leadership from the White House. This work remains to this day a constantly cited classic critique of Congress.
Constitutional Government in the United States
, published in 1908, had a distinctly more optimistic tone with Wilson now encouraged by the entrance of the United States on to the world stage and the example of Theodore Roosevelt's Presidency to believe that strong leadership by the chief executive was, after all, possible. Through his writings, his role as an opinion leader at the turn of the century and his actions as President Wilson may be seen as one of the founders of the modern Presidency.
DM 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search