In April the American Historical Association invited Mr. Zelizer to deliver the inaugural address for the National History Center's Congressional Breakfast Seminar Series. The series introduces members of Congress and their staff to historians who discuss pertinent issues of the day ranging from congressional reform to Social Security.HNN interviewed Mr. Zelizer by email.

Do you know how you happened to be picked to deliver the first talk?

I am not sure how the selection was made. However, I have spent the first part of my career writing about the history of the American Congress, a field that has not received the attention it deserves, and I assume this was part of the selection process.

Were there an equal number of Democrats and Republicans present?

I am not sure of the partisan composition of the audience.

Who picked the topic? You or the AHA?

Since this was the inaugural lecture, the AHA allowed me to select the topic.

How did you decide what you were going to cover? Did you approach this as you would a regular class? Did the members have homework?

I decided to talk about issues I had tackled in my recent book, On Capitol Hill, since they are at the front and center of the news these days. The book deals with the effort to reform Congress in the 1970s and what happened as a consequence of the reform. Since I dealt with issues like the filibuster, ethics rules, and partisanship, I thought this would be useful to them as they wrestle with the current challenges on Capitol Hill.

Were you hoping to get across certain points or were you trying to provide a kind of encyclopedia approach?

I was trying to get across certain points, bringing out of the history specific issues that would be useful rather than just conveying a lot of historical data.

The two points I really wanted to convey were: First, real institutional reform requires linking these technical issues to broader social questions or the public does not get engaged in these sorts of questions.

Second, I wanted to show how reforms often produce very different things than expected, not just in terms of unintended consequences but that different political groups can take advantage of reforms passed by their opponents. This is what happened when the conservative movement thrived as a result of reforms that liberals pushed in the 1970s. For instance, I talked about how conservatives made a great use of the televised Congress, a product of the 1970s reforms, in championing their issues and challenging the older leadership of the GOP. While a minority, they also used the ethics rules to bring down powerful leaders of Congress.

My talk also examined how filibuster reform had been a central issue for liberal reforms in the 1950s and 1960s as they called for a majoritarian Congress. It was not until recently, that liberals became the main defenders of the filibusters. It had been treated for much of the twentieth century as an example of how unrepresentative minorities had the power in the Senate to block popular legislation.

Did you have to worry about being partisan?

No. In general, I think I am able to talk about political history without coming down on one side or the other. I certainly did not want to give a talk that would only be useful to people from one party.

Did you read a paper to them or just work from notes? How long did you speak?

I spoke for about 25 minutes. I had a prepared text, although I tend not to read from papers when I speak. The material is there, and I build on it, but I like to connect with the audience visually.

How did you keep their attention? How big was the group you spoke to?

The group, I think, was about 25 people or so. They did seem quite engaged as was evident from the questions.

Did you take questions at the end? Did you get good questions?

The questions were excellent, and several people there did a good job connecting the historical material to issues being fought over right now.

Do you think the members got anything out of the experience? If so, what exactly?

I hope that the historical perspective on reform offered some insights, and cautions, as the members enter into the fray this week. I was delighted to receive a request for my book the following week from one of the most influential Republicans in the House (although he was not in the audience, given the timing, I assume someone who saw me recommended it to him).

Did you get anything out of the experience?

Of course, it is always an honor to speak to people who work in politics. Speaking to non-academic audiences always forces me to clarify my points and think of the practical implications of what I am writing about.

Would you recommend that other historians become involved in the program?

Without question, this is a real honor and wonderful exercise. It is also important that our profession works on reaching out to the political arena. It is unfortunate that other disciplines have done such a better job in this area. I think historians have much to contribute to political debates.

Were you paid for the talk?

Yes I was paid an honoraria of $500 and all travel expenses were covered.