To my knowledge, no one has systematically studied the ability of historians to predict the drift of events in their own times. Two articles in this issue, however, remind this editor of his enormous capacity for misapprehending contemporary circumstances and their direction. Eric Rauchway's sharp essay on the present reputation of William McKinley evolved from a suggestion by a senior member of SHGAPE that this journal should devote space to the curious revival and reassessment of the twenty-fifth president. Enthusiastic, I even solicited a contribution from a central figure in the revival of interest in McKinley, presidential advisor Karl Rove, who through an aide politely declined on the plausible grounds that last year he was too busy. For much of last fall, I looked forward to the McKinley essay scheduled for this issue with a mixture of anticipation and dread. I had persuaded myself: a. that Mr. Rove would have more time on his hands to write essays; but b. that by now McKinley would be sinking back into a misty irrelevance. Humbled once again, I can report that Professor Rauchway's essay remains as timely as when it was first suggested.