In a word, no. His big promises are about bringing back "sound science." And I agree with him--to a point. It is a fresh of fresh air knowing that, at least in federal policy-making circles, ideology will now be subservient to the findings of solid research. This heralds a revolution in so many areas, especially in health, education, and welfare. But where does that leave the humanists?

The humanities used to occupy a prominent place in the minds of the American public. Just recall how many American families bought the"best books" or invested in encyclopedia, because they believed in the value of great literature and the traditional human arts and sciences. Our fortunes in the humanities have certainly fallen since then. Now Americans complain about being bored by history classes, watch reality TV on the history channel, and avoid scholarly history monographs like the plague.

I think we have a chance with this new president. He has made a major commitment to funding research. Some of this will be made available to historians through the National Endowment for the Humanities. Yet how many us would be brave enough to challenge the National Science Foundation to fund more historians? But ultimately tapping into increased federal funding will not be enough to persuade the public that the work of academic historians is really that important.

What we need are both bold initiatives and individual actions. For the former, you can find some great suggestions in a recent essay by Gabriel Paquette. At the individual level, we need to reach more students through our teaching and write for larger audiences. Public history and employment in the public sector are also important avenues for communicating the importance and usefulness of history on a daily basis. If we intend to pull academic history out of its slump, we will ultimately have to make history relevant once again for the American public.