The notion I've been noodling around with is that American history, particularly in the last 20-25 years or so, has some meaningful examples from the period prior to the Civil War to offer us in our current predicaments. By this, I don't mean that the country is about to fracture in bloody internecine conflict over secession and slavery--don't take me that literally. Perhaps I can explain the basic idea in a short post now, then I'll come back to the topic as the spirit moves.
First, I think the 20th century, particularly the "short 20th century" from 1914-1989 as correctly identified by Hobsbawm, is one of a kind. Let's hope so, anyway. I don't think any period before or since can or will ever compare in its bloodshed, its dynamism for science, technology, or its massive social and political changes (think of the population growth! the rise and fall of Communism, Nazism). Nothing nearly as exciting as the litany of incredible events of that time period has happened since (the expansion of the Internet being the only comparable development, and it has been a Big Bang in slow motion at that), and nothing happened on such a global scale before.
American history in the 20th century was the story of a great ship tossed by enormous waves, often losing its course but always staying afloat somehow. The great wars drew us into their undertows despite our usual self-absorption. Sometimes our politics even reflected interest in the world around us! On the other hand, usually the foreign issues served as rallying points bringing unity.
When we think of the mid-1800's, though, the focus seemed to be on trying to resolve difficult, divisive internal problems. Growing pains, if you will. War--as with the Mexican-American conflict--was more an outgrowth of our domestic issues.
I'd pick up the parallel with Reagan's election, comparing it to Andrew Jackson's in 1828. Each led to a period of governmental dominance for the leader's party, though not uninterrupted and certainly not uncontested. The opposition gradually became demoralized, and eventually fell into disarray over the war the governing party successfully used as a rallying point for political ends.
The logic of the red state/blue state (or slave state/free state) division comes to a head with Bush II/Buchanan.
Note, though, that it was Buchanan's party that fractured by the 1860 election, while the fledgling Republican party (formed just four years before from the remnants of the Whigs) took the victory.
I see great potential for Dumb Duck Dubya to produce his final and greatest unintended outcome through exposing the fissures in the Republican coalition in the name of power. It's early yet, but I find it hard to believe that the Republicans can put another free-spending, tax-cutting, free-trading, interventionist, federal government-expanding candidate out there without creating violent fractures from the libertarian wing, the isolationist wing, or at least from the conservative wing! On the other hand, a libertarian, anti-government, neo-isolationist candidate wouldn't fly too well with the Establishment, who've named every Republican nominee since Wendell Wilkie. Something's gotta give.
I'm going to work on the concept a bit more, particularly how the Reconstruction, and then the Progressive Era, might offer us some guidance on how we can move forward--without falling into their pitfalls. And let's assume that we get past our deep divisions without violence, though I have to think Hillary in the White House will be about as infuriating to some of her opponents as Lincoln was to his.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
There is probably something more fundamental about the GOP's appeal to the many Americans. Notice although the GOP's image has undergone several changes (and so had its policy, from the Progressive days of T. Roosevelt/LaFollette to Reaganomics...), one thing remains, and that is, except for the 3 decades following the New Deal, the GOP has always been at the helm of at least the White House.
Is there anything more fundamental here? There is a good book about this, and it's called "Richard Nixon and the Making of a New Majority" about this. I think one reason is that the GOP, at any given point in history, more fully embraces what Tocqueville termed American Exceptionalism or shall we say an American brand of Classical Liberalism (which has both Conservative and Libertarian contents to it...)
On the other hand, the Democratic Party always seem to be dominated by a band of "misfits" (Southern slave-holders, segregationists, Catholic "ethnics," racial minorities, feminist groups, etc.) who have conflicting interests and ideologies.
Thank you for your post.
You make some good points, and I agree Democrats have traditionally been more of a coalition and less ideologically unified. However, I think that Republicans' handling of the federal government has generally been neither conservative nor libertarian. Think of Lincoln, T.R., Nixon, the Reagan deficits, the Bushite spending excesses. The pattern has been strong exercise of federal authority to support vigorous capitalism.
The Republicans' rhetoric developed to oppose FDR, but they haven't governed that way.
The answer to the question of this post appears to be: Donald Trump! I had no idea at the time....and the successor to BushII/Buchanan--Obama/Lincoln.
Post a Comment