American presidential campaigns – although they are historical in themselves – habitually use, or should I say, misuse history. This can be somewhat unnerving to an historian. But major civic events such as these do provide some evidence about the manner in which Americans choose to see history and whether they value the past at all. Take the 1996 election when Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole. That election was very much about looking either forward or backward. Dole, a wounded World War II veteran, built much of his campaign upon the virtues and values of the past that he had experienced and which he represented. Clinton talked about the future. Clinton won and Dole went on to a somewhat inexplicable postelective career as a part-time poster boy for Viagra. In 2000 the historical fault lines were less clear. Neither candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore, focused distinctly on any specific past event. But both resorted to strategic uses of history to promote their candidacy. Bush linked compassionate conservatism to values he claimed were inherent in the American character. Gore looked to the values inherent in his party, though he played this card carefully, avoiding both the New Deal history of the party and his own affiliation, as vice president, with the Clinton administration. Selective memory is wonderful.