People tend to romanticize the past; some describe it in a much more flattering light than it likely was in reality. How common was it throughout history to always view the past as 'better' than the present? How misguided is this way of thinking?
I've just begun Stephen Pinker's 'Better Angels of Our Nature' and I'm enjoying the fresh perspective on the current state of things. If I keep reading this, will it discuss the things I'm after, or do any of you have another book in mind?
Perhaps Peter Novick's That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession could be what you are looking for? I feel like this is my number-one most recommended book, although it has nothing to do with my field of study except, ya know, having history in common. Novick traces the path of history going from gentlemen amateurs until it became a true profession with qualification and membership standards, etc. His focus is, obviously, on where/when objectivity was the goal or even thought to be possible for historians to achieve.
EDIT: IIRC he does cover 'golden age' fallacy and the problems of Whig history extensively, which seems to be your topic of interest?