Actually, we’ve had years of Marxist inspired history about the lives of the Common Man, countering the Great Man theory of history. While a corrective was certainly necessary, it can easily lead to a kind of determinism — if no one is making any clear decisions, then the history of any country is inevitable and not a result of human agency.

I would argue that, if there’s one thing the Bush regency has demonstrated, human agency of leaders is critically important. Let’s call it the “Stupid Man” theory of history.

My point is that although a Zeitgeist has to exist to allow an idea to gain currency, there still needs to be clearly defined human agency to change history. So although, for instance, the ancient Greeks understood the concept of steam power (they used it to power a little toy), they didn’t have the cultural assumptions of progress and the value of technology to apply that idea in any meaningful way. Alternatively, although Enlightenment England had patent law, a faith in progress, capitalism of some form and so on, the work of individuals like Watt had a profound impact on history.