Interpreting Obama’s History Lesson on the Crusades

President Obama recently made headlines with some off-the-cuff historical commentary at the National Prayer Breakfast. In discussing the challenge posed by terrorist groups like ISIS, Obama cautioned: “Lest we get on our high horse and think (violence in the name of faith) is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

The responses to this statement from both the Left and the Right were predictably divergent. Liberals considered the statement unremarkable. (Religion has often led to violence and extremism no matter which group wields it; who could object to such an obvious truth?) Conservatives, however (especially Christian ones) took offense to the comparison as both historically inaccurate and irrelevant to the present conflict: what could be gained by the President of the United States appearing to draw a moral equivalency between the obvious present evil of ISIS and the possible sins of a handful of Christians committed almost a thousand years ago?


Of course, it is always useful to recognize that no one person or group of people has a monopoly on morality; I have never met a Christian who would argue otherwise. We know Jesus’ message of humility and forgiveness was more often directed at hypocrites like the Pharisees who went about proclaiming their good deeds, unlike the prostitutes and tax collectors who made no such pretensions. There is plenty of biblical and historical evidence that good and bad individuals (or if you prefer, behaviors) exist in all groups.

However, if this was Obama’s intended point, it failed for several reasons.

First, the Crusades were morally ambiguous. They provide neither a clear-cut case of Christian vice and Muslim virtue, or the reverse. The Crusades were also not a single event, but rather a series of rather disorganized and disparate military campaigns that occurred over a period of centuries. This makes them especially difficult to teach, and even more difficult to employ as straight-forward lessons in morality.

Contemporary historians have often failed to understand what motivated individual Crusaders. Many western Christians sacrificed their fortunes to go and do battle against the enemies of Christendom, believing wholeheartedly in the rightness of their cause and the promise of receiving indulgences for their sins. Though some have imagined them to be harbingers of 19th century European imperialism, the Crusades were not motivated primarily by economic and political greed dressed up in religious justifications.

Some Crusaders did commit atrocities, most notably the slaughter of Jews in the Rhineland Massacres. But according to Wikipedia:

The massacre of the Rhineland Jews by the People’s Crusade, and other associated persecutions, were condemned by the leaders and officials of the Catholic Church. The bishops of Mainz, Speyer, and Worms had attempted to protect the Jews of those towns within the walls of their own palaces, but the People’s Crusade broke in to slaughter them. Fifty years later when St. Bernard of Clairvaux was urging recruitment for the Second Crusade, he specifically criticized the attacks on Jews which occurred in the First Crusade.

The Fourth Crusade was the most infamous failure, as Latin Christians sacked, pillaged, and plundered the already-Christian Constantinople. The full story is a lot more complicated than that, but it is important to realize that there was no single leader, not even the pope, directing the actions of the Crusaders. In fact, they were so disorganized it is almost a miracle that they even arrived at their destination, much less established short-lived Christian kingdoms.

Adam Gopnik writes a thought-provoking article in the New Yorker about the nature of history, though I disagree with some of his conclusions. History simplifies, he observes, but “restoring complexity doesn’t always make things clearer.” Gopnik writes: “the forces in history are always multiple, complex, and contingent, much more so than the fables make it seem. The forces in any particular historical event are always almost infinitely divisible into smaller and often contradictory parts, with a lot of fuzzy cases and leg room.” The Crusades are a perfect example of this.

Second, historical context is especially important here. If one is determined to use the Crusades to illustrate some contemporary political point, one must first understand where they fit into the larger pattern of interaction between Christians and Muslims that has been unfolding for the past fourteen hundred years.

For over four centuries prior to Pope Urban II’s call, Christians had been fighting a series of defensive battles against Muslim expansion, and losing more often than not. Charles Martel did lead the French to victory at the Battle of Tours in 732, halting the Muslim advance into Europe, but only after all of Spain had been lost (Over 700 years would pass before it was reclaimed.). When the recently converted Seljuk Turks (and not the original Arab carriers of Islam, who had controlled the Holy Land for centuries) began threatening the safety of Middle Eastern Christians and the survival of what was left of the Byzantine Empire, this prompted Pope Urban II to call for Roman Christians to assist their brothers in the East, reclaim the Holy Land, and make the birthplace of the Christian faith safe once again for Christians. They failed on nearly all accounts.


It is hard to see why a failed Christian campaign to retake their faith’s holiest sites could continue to anger present-day Muslims, as most Christians that I know have forgiven Muslim victories in the Middle East, Spain, the Balkans, and Anatolia, to the extent that they were even aware of them.

While Christians and Muslims have coexisted peacefully at several times in history (usually under Muslim rule, with Christians paying for the privilege), Islam has more often than not acted as the aggressor. Even after the threat of the Seljuk Turks abated (the ones who provoked the Crusades), the Ottoman Turks continued to threaten and enslave European Christians for centuries until a couple key defensive victories halted their advance, most notably at Vienna and Lepanto.

It is beyond the scope of this post to adequately expand on this point, but Islam and Christianity have very different beliefs and histories. Jesus never led men into battle or governed an empire, while Mohammad did both. Jesus famously instructed his followers to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” while Mohammad established a caliphate with no distinction between religious and political authority. Early Christians were severely persecuted for their beliefs with many dying as martyrs for their faith, while Islam from its inception spread by the sword and attracted converts seeking political, social, and economic advancement. While Christianity developed within the cultural context of Judaism and the Roman Empire, Islam incorporated many of the pre-existing traditions of the Arab people. All this context matters if we are to really learn from the past. We can’t just cherry-pick isolated events, neglecting the bigger picture.

Third, when attempting to draw lessons from history, it is important to ask whether this is the right time to bring that back up. Is Past Event A really the right parallel for Current Situation B?

Imagine a married couple having a fight. A wife has just discovered that her husband is having an affair. He counters that yes, he has been cheating on her for years, but remember that time a decade ago when she forgot his birthday? The wife’s oversight might be true in the historical sense, but clearly not helpful at the present moment and no excuse for his greater misdeeds.

So is Obama the right person, the Prayer Breakfast the right place, and our current conflict with radical Islam the right occasion to bring up the sins of a relatively small number of Christians operating largely independently of any central control over 800 years ago? I would have to answer no on all accounts. In fact, that Obama did so shows a great lack of understanding of our present crisis.

Do we think ISIS cares about all the times in history that Muslims have murdered Christians and Jews, or even other Muslims? Of course not; they are too busy beheading all enemies of their radical totalitarian ideology.

Can we imagine FDR bringing up America’s past sins of slavery and broken treaties with Native Americans, just as he was trying to inspire Americans to fight the Japanese and Germans? Didn’t think so.

President Obama is the wrong messenger to get Christianity off its supposed “high horse,” just as Mitt Romney proved an ineffective messenger in championing the middle class. Here are just a few other statements from the president that provide the context by which Christians now judge his remarks.

Obama on Islam:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

“Islam has always been part of America.”

“As a student of history, I know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

Obama on Christianity:

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

The list goes on. After so many statements downplaying or criticizing Christianity, with so many others appearing to celebrate and excuse Islam, many Christians aren’t cutting him any more slack.

My fourth and final point about the failure of Obama’s Crusades comparison is this: bad historical analysis runs the risk of obscuring truth by promoting cynicism and moral relativism.

Gopnik claims:

We welcome complexity because it makes the moral points stand out more clearly against their background… The President’s point turned out to be not just exactly right but profoundly right: no group holds the historical moral high ground, and no one ever will. But this is not because a moral high ground doesn’t exist. It’s because we’re all still climbing.

Again, I would counter that while no group has an absolute monopoly on morality, there is such a thing as a historical moral high ground. No one is perfect, but this does not mean we are all the same.

During World War II, the United States was not perfect. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilians, and humiliatingly interned in camps thousands of Japanese-Americans thought to be untrustworthy simply because of their race. Even as we fought dictatorship abroad, we denied African-Americans and women equal rights at home.

Did we still occupy the moral high ground? Absolutely. We were fighting an enemy in Japan that carried out the infamous Rape of Nanking and had imperial designs on all of Asia. In Nazi Germany, we fought an enemy that systematically killed eleven million innocent people, including six million Jews. After the war, instead of exacting revenge, we invested millions of dollars in rebuilding both countries to help the Japanese and German people whose soldiers had just claimed thousands of our own.

Despite all our mistakes during the Cold War, we most certainly occupied the moral high ground in our fight against the Soviet Union and its dehumanizing communist ideology. Only one side of this fight had to build walls to keep their people in.

Despite all our mistakes in the Middle East, we most certainly occupy the moral high ground in the current struggle against ISIS, which isn’t saying much, as they seem determined to discover ever deeper lows.

Yes, we are all “still climbing,” but some of us have come further than others, and it is important to recognize this. Societies that still condone female genital mutilation, pedophilia, torture, and draconian limitations on individual freedom have much further to go. We should assist them so far as we can, while resisting any and all attempts to erode the liberties we have fought so hard to secure.

Occasionally, calling to mind the sins of our ancestors provides a valuable inoculation against self-righteousness, as well as hope for those who would like to make similar social and political progress. But sometimes it does nothing more than provide our enemies with ammunition to use against us. It creates ambiguity and doubt, when what we really need are moral clarity and resolve.

Finally, some parting thoughts on recent events:

Even as I wrote this post, two things have happened that tragically serve to illustrate some of my points. First, ISIS beheaded 21 Egyptian Christians. In the official Obama administration statement, these brave martyrs were identified merely as “citizens.” The fact that they were Christians who died for their faith was not mentioned.

Second, more information has come out about the man who killed three Muslim young people in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. While many in the media were eager for a story featuring a Christian extremist as the bad guy and clamoring for a hate crime investigation, the killer has been identified as a militant liberal atheist. This counters the pervasive fallacy that religion is the primary cause of violence both past and present, one that will require a separate blog post to refute.

How Much Can We Really Learn from History?

“Why do we bother to study the past?”

Like many other teachers, I sometimes begin the new school year by putting this question to my eager young pupils. It could be considered The Great Challenge of All History Teachers Everywhere—getting kids to see the relevance of something that happened a thousand years ago, when they (like most of us) are much more focused on what happened fifteen minutes ago. To make things more difficult, fifteen years is all most of them have in the way of life experience. It’s a small window of context.

Most students dutifully respond with some version of the old cliché that “We study the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them again in the future.”

For me, this answer does nothing to elicit the little bubbles of history teacher joy that some might expect. On the contrary, it often shows just how far we have to go.

This is not because I necessarily share Hegel’s pessimistic counter that the only thing “we learn from history (is) that we do not learn from history.” The problem is, different people draw different lessons from the past. The Great Depression is often cited as proof both that government intervention in the economy works, and that it doesn’t. In more recent history, some claim Obama’s economic policies helped to avert a second Great Depression, while others counter that they needlessly prolonged the Great Recession and continue to hinder robust economic growth. Who knows which view historians will ultimately choose.

Even when we attempt to avoid the mistakes of the past, we often focus on the last mistake and not the ones that precipitated it. The satirical magazine The Onion succeeds brilliantly in illustrating just how short-term our memories are in this hilarious article, entitled: “Obama Assures Americans that This Will Not Be Another 1456 Siege of Belgrade.” Enjoy the following delicious morsels:

“I can promise you this: My administration and I will not repeat the mistakes of Sultan Mehmed II,” Obama continued. “Believe me, we have all learned the lessons from the campaign to subjugate the Kingdom of Hungary following the fall of Constantinople.”

“When I heard we were getting involved in Syria, right away I thought, ‘Well, here we go, it’s 1456 Belgrade all over again,’” said Seattle resident Matt Haggerty, 42, who, like millions of Americans, says he “in no way supports the idea” of getting entangled in any military campaign even remotely similar to the Ottoman invasion of the Catholic Balkans. “Look, we all know what happened in Belgrade: Mehmed II thought he had everything under control, but Hungarian nobleman John Hunyadi organized a peasant army of roughly 50,000 soldiers and relied on the strength of the city’s castle to breach the Ottoman’s formidable naval blockade, which prevented any further imperial advances into Europe for roughly 70 years. And frankly, like most of my friends and neighbors, I see very little separating what we’re about to do in Syria and what the Anatolian corps did during their all-out assault on the Belgrade fortress from the Danube River. ”

For more serious evidence of the limits of learning from history, look no further than the World Wars. Hitler “studied” the causes of German failure in World War I and arrived at conclusions so disastrously flawed that they resulted in an even more destructive war. World War I provides a cautionary tale against rushing into war; World War II against appeasing aggressors. If we really learned from the lessons of the past, World War I would have remained “The War to End All Wars,” instead of just the first act in a blood-drenched century featuring total warfare and genocide.

A basic understanding of human nature assures us that greed, mistrust, and pride are not going extinct anytime soon; thus, neither is war or the immeasurable human suffering it causes. Those who predict that a better understanding of history will lead to its end are fooling themselves.

I think a better answer to the question of “Why study history?” is that the past is capable of providing a broader context in which to better understand our own lives. Most of us will walk the earth for at most a hundred years, while mankind has been around for perhaps 100,000. Many of the challenges of our times are not unique, but paralleled at various points in history. While we may not succeed in avoiding the same mistakes as our ancestors, we can still learn from them, but only if we are very careful.

Whenever history is called upon to settle present debates, it is important to remember that the people of the past were real people just like us, with all their desires and fears, shortcomings and virtues. We too often resurrect their ghosts just to be used as mouthpieces for the advancement of our own agendas.

Mark Twain insightfully observed that there are only three types of lies: “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This quote illustrates that sometimes stating a supposed “fact” can often obscure a larger truth. It is just this sort of danger in which amateur historians (which includes most politicians and commentators) can find themselves.

We need real historians to correct our narrow misconceptions and short-sightedness. Even then, we can never fully escape the limits of our own time and perspective, not that this invalidates the effort. If I didn’t believe in the many benefits of a responsible study of the past, I would have chosen a different line of work.

In my next post on the topic of the usefulness of history, I will discuss what this means in light of President Obama’s recent comments about the Crusades at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Conflict, the Constitution, and Compromise: Six Takeaways from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

Many Americans are frustrated by the gridlock and lack of cooperation in Washington. Some blame Republican “obstructionists” in Congress, while others point to an insular and dysfunctional White House. There have even been attempts to lay our current troubles at the feet of James Madison, Father of the Constitution. But does it really have to be this way?

Last night I heard Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison speak at Roanoke College. The talk was part of a series on the Constitution, the question: “Can the President and Congress work together?” The answer was a predictable “no.” However, the lecture did shed light on several important issues. My six “takeaways” include insights from Senator Hutchison, as well as my own reactions to her points.

Hutchison-090706-18278 0016

  1. The tension between the executive and the legislature is built into our Constitutional process, for good reason.

It would be extremely misguided to read the last six years as proof that we need to radically amend or bypass the Constitutional process. The first three articles of the Constitution lay out a separation of powers with checks and balances wisely designed to prevent too much power from being concentrated in too few hands—the definition of tyranny. Yes, it’s inconvenient and cumbersome at times; however, the tension between the executive and the legislature is necessary to prevent rule by an elected king. All presidents are tempted to overstep their bounds. It is the prerogative of all Congresses to rein them in.

Senator Hutchison recalled her experiences with fledgling democracies, including former Soviet republics. The freedom fighters always think it’s about the vote, she said, but they are wrong. Voting is the easier and less essential piece to building a strong democracy. More importantly, a good Constitution is needed to provide the structure through which free and open debates can play themselves out.

The Senator provided many historical examples of the tension between the President and Congress, including the War Powers Act. All presidents have used executive orders. However, President Obama cannot be judged on the number of executive orders alone, as he has greatly expanded the use of executive memoranda, directives to agencies that have the practical effect of law without the benefit of the legislative process. Also, not all executive orders are created equal; some represent minor changes, while others radically alter policy. Recent examples include Cuba and immigration.

Nevertheless, Congress has stopped President Obama from carrying out some of his plans, including closing the Guantanamo Bay prison. The judiciary has stepped in as well, declaring Obama’s “recess” appointments to the NLRB unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to confirm appointments. Thank you, James Madison.

  1. It is important to build relationships with members of the other party.

Despite the tension between President and Congress, and despite the tension between the two major political parties (which the Constitution did not even envision), our elected leaders still have an obligation to handle the nation’s business. This requires negotiation and compromise.

But in order to achieve anything involving two competing sides, there must be a basic foundation of trust. You don’t have to be best friends. You don’t even have to like each other. But you do need to respect each other.

According to Senator Hutchison and other sources, President Obama does not seem to have invested much time or energy in cultivating open and collegial relationships with members of Congress. Even Democrats complain that he doesn’t invite them over to the White House. He doesn’t solicit their opinions. He doesn’t call, unless he wants something.

Senator Hutchison recalled one telling example—the so-called “fiscal cliff.” President Obama was getting nowhere. Neither were Harry Reid and John Boehner. Congress had been recalled after Christmas for the third time in history, the other two coming after the Pearl Harbor attack and the JFK assassination. In the end, it fell to Republican Senator Mitch McConnell to hammer out a deal with Vice President Joe Biden, the two having developed a good relationship in the Senate.

  1. It is important for public servants to have private sector experience.

Two questions during the Q&A portion were particularly telling. When Hutchison was asked if term limits would help for members of Congress, her answer was a resounding yes. Our Founding Fathers were against the idea of career politicians. Congressmen should have to do something else other than make rules the rest of us have to live by. The latter results in detachment from the concerns of everyday Americans and the desire to stay popular at any price to keep winning elections.

I thought Senator Hutchison’s best answer came when she was asked what advice she would offer a young man or woman who wanted to be a U.S. Senator. Hutchison advised against simply hopping from local to state to national office. She claimed to have been often struck by how disconnected politicians can be from “the real world,” and the business world in particular. If most congressmen had actually run a business, they might not be so eager to saddle them with burdensome regulations.

“Do something else first,” she suggested. Get a job in the private sector. Volunteer in your community to gain a better sense of their needs, so that if you ever get the honor of serving in elected office you can be a good representative.

  1. We need to move away from “comprehensive” legislation.

Why does it seem so difficult to get stuff done, even when a proposal enjoys overwhelming support from both parties? Hutchison explained how popular ideas are delayed by quests for “comprehensive” solutions. For example, both sides agree the corporate tax rate should be lowered: Republicans to 25%, Democrats to 26%. What keeps this from happening is the insistence by some that nothing be done on the corporate side (where there is some agreement) until a deal is also reached on the individual side (where there is far less).

Popular solutions should not be held hostage for more controversial or contentious ones. I personally think pieces of legislation should be limited to 50 pages or less, the shorter the better. Anything over that is likely to have been written by lobbyists, to include wasteful spending from both parties, and to be unnecessarily complex when the simplest rule is often fairest.

  1. There is a unique hostility between the Obama Administration and Congress.

Both Clinton and Bush made much more of an effort to reach out to the other party in Congress, while the opposite has been the case with Obama.

President Obama is uniquely bad at compromise due to a combination of inexperience and narcissism. Some have observed that he seems to dislike politicians, much preferring the company of close friends, celebrities, and professional athletes. He thinks negotiating is when you explain your position to the other side for as long as it takes for them to concede that yours is the only reasonable view. If they still can’t see the light after repeated attempts at persuasion, they are either ignorant or malicious. So you move on without them.

Before assuming the office of President, Obama never brokered a deal. He never had to run anything, other than a campaign. It is very unfortunate that in first two years of his administration, Obama didn’t have to compromise due to Democratic supermajorities in Congress. Thus, he made little effort to include Republican ideas in the stimulus, Dodd-Frank, or Obamacare. This understandably left a bad taste in the mouths of Republicans, who were more than happy to spend the next two years blocking his proposals.

This is not to let Republicans off the hook entirely, but they haven’t had much to work with. According to Hutchison, Republicans read the 2014 midterm elections as a mandate from the American people to work together on important issues like the economy. Unfortunately, the White House does not seem to see it this way, and is instead proposing additional liberal policies like free community college that are unlikely to get any traction in Congress.

  1. It is still inspiring to see strong female leaders.

Maybe we should be at the point in history where seeing a strong female leader is no more remarkable than seeing a strong left-handed leader. However, it is still inspiring to me to meet a woman with such a wealth of experience who manages to embody both strength and conviction. Whether or not you agree with her on every issue, Kay Bailey Hutchison is a role model for this reason.

Conflict is built into our Constitution, along with the need for compromise to overcome it. Wisdom lies in knowing when to stand your ground and when to sit down and work with the other side. As our politics becomes more polarized, there is even greater need to elect leaders with the experience and maturity to know the difference. Those aspiring for ideological purity would be better suited for philosophy or religion, as politics remains the art of the possible.