The article examines the contradictory results of the evolution of historiography of US political history in the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. In the context of the multiplicity of research paradigms, it analyses the theoretical and methodological approaches that led to the renewal of the foundations of American historiography and identifi es the key trends that emerged on the basis of interdisciplinary alliances. The rejection of the study of the legacy of “great figures” and the shift of attention to ordinary people of past eras, their inner world and everyday behavior led to a sharp shift from macro- to microhistory, where the main emphasis is placed on the relationship between the goals of “big” politics and the interests of a specific person, who acts simultaneously as the subject and object of power relations. Initially, research focused on the specifics of the electoral process within the concepts of “party regrouping” and “critical” elections. Subsequently, scholars shift ed their focus to the sphere of the political culture of voters. Finally, the subject of the discipline itself dissolved into the vicissitudes of social policy. The study of political history, having undergone a protracted process of evolution, has not yet developed a coherent view of the past. The interdisciplinary alliances have resulted in the active use of tools from related humanities, leading to significant fragmentation of the subject field. This has resulted in the creation of a “new” discipline characterized by amorphousness, a lack of broad conceptualization, a loss of a holistic view, and a focus on micro-level analysis, devoid of any clearly defi ned boundaries. Concurrently, a radical shift has occurred in the societal perception of political history. Nevertheless, the dissemination of scientific knowledge has concomitantly engendered a transformation in its representation. The advent of the Internet gave rise to new forms of media, facilitating direct dialogue between representatives of academic and “amateur” history. These dialogues sought to adapt scientifi c knowledge to the needs of mass culture. The academic community is confronted with the challenge of disseminating objective historical knowledge to a general audience. It is the position of some scholars that in order to bridge the gap between armchair and online knowledge, political history must be reincarnated as a “synthetic and integrative” science, in which the concept of “political” is understood as broadly as possible.