Sunday, December 1, 2013

Normalcy?

As the introduction to Arthur Link's article indicates, the 1920s were patented by the time's politicians as a "return to normalcy."  In fact, this phrase was the pillar of Warren Harding's successful presidential bid in 1920. 

I hate to delve into a psychological analysis so soon after a break, but it begs the question, what is normal?  In a country that was less than 150 years old, is it accurate to label Republican leadership or laissez-faire economics as "normal?"  What arguments does Link make for why the Progressive Era failed to carry itself into the 1920s?  Which ones are the most convincing?

16 comments:

  1. America at the time was still very young and was still in the learning experiences. So basically there was nothing to go back to. There was nothing normal so what your asking confuses me. There were somethings that worked and that they should go back to. But the 1920's was a great time of success and was called a "Economic Boom". But Before the 1920's there was World War One which was a hard time for many. So many had no idea what to do but what ever they did worked because after this war there was only success from then on.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I think of the word normal in terms of this question, I think that it means what cultural, political, social, etc factors that the country is used to. Like Chandler said, they country was still young. As a result, I don't believe that the "norm" existed yet. The country had been going through the Civil War, dealing with slavery/segregation, and finally it was united, then World War I. Link says that we should see the political developments as the "normal and political behavior of groups and classes caught up in a swirl of social and economic change." I agree that the political development was normal BEHAVIOR, but it wasn't the norm of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don’t think that the laissez-faire return of economics can be labeled as normal because I agree with Phoebe and Chandler, that there was no such thing as the “norm” back then. Like Chandler said there was such a thing called the “"Economic Boom" which isn’t a normal thing so it is not fair to label the return of the laissez-faire. Overall I didn’t really understand the question, however the failure of the progressive era one of the reasons why is failed was because it was never a big enough movement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with everyone over the fact that there really was no "norm" for the country to go back to, i also agree with the fact that this question was rather confusing so im not sure exactly how to answer it. The political advancments that the republicans were installing did seem somewhat sort of the norm in some way all the way back to british rule and how they used to be ruled only without such a string non-democratic government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Normalcy, under republican's concept of economic at the time of 1920s, it is understandable that the laissez-faire economics which helped the economic to boom was called the normalcy. The United States was a very young country at the time. With the fact that Americans just got out of World War I, such an laissez-faire economic under capitalism country had given a boom to the country. Of course republican politicians would think that this is the way the country should be, although their was no "norm" for the country to go back to, because politicians weren't economist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The US was still a very young country at this time so there isn't much precedent and experience for them to go off of. Rather than saying it was normal, i think referring to their laissez faire stance was more of sticking to what has been working. Just because this was working for them at that time doesn't mean that it should be the governments default stance on the economy. They had to realize that they needed to adapt to what's going on, not just do what they've always been doing because it was working.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I feel that even though America is a relatively young country, 150 years is still long enough for there to be a general idea of America. America definitely had it's own characteristics by then that separated them from England and their European origins. Even in the 1700's, there were certain ideals, mannerisms, and appearance characteristics that made America and Americans unique. At this time, I think there was enough political background in the country for Americans to recognize what a political change was, and whether an idea was too radical or not. "Laissez faire" wasn't really a "new" idea or a "normal" idea for America. It didn't mean that America was going to stay that way forever and be known as "the laissez faire country". It was just what was working for America at the time, and as is the trend-- if there was a change in the market, political power, or a shift in political spirit, laissez faire would change too. It wasn't a guarenteed normal ideal for America.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'Normal' does not just describe something that is the same for centuries. The world changes very quickly, as does the definition of normal. So I don't think that the politicians considered the cycle of economic dips in the previous century to be the norm, nor the poor quality of living. They considered the decade of economic growth before them, and the introduction of many material possessions that made people's lives better to be normal. And although it did not mention it in the text, I think that normal also meant a return to the peace and quiet after the first World War.

    I wouldn't consider Republican leadership or laissez-faire economics to be normal at that time. In the two presidential terms before the Twenties there was a Democrat in office, and it wasn't until after him that the government began to rescind involvement in business. Never before in our nations history had there been such unrestricted trade.

    Arthur Link argued that the Progressive movement failed in the 1920's because it wasn't a single united organization but a popular effort. And so it could be easily divided, as it was by conflicts among groups within itself and by its big-business enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In my opinion, the US was too young as a united nation to have a "normal; it was inexperienced and it had to keep developing and exploring. However, citizens of the US saw the laissez-faire economics as normal because it was what sort of worked before the civil war, and the most important economical politic that they had and in that time, it worked. But, again I believe, the US had to keep exploring and trying new things because it was still very recent.
    I believe that the most convincing argument about the failure of the Progressive Era was that the idea was not spread all over the groups but only was localized in some groups that wanted a greater security in political, social and economical terms.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Jen in that by this time had defiantly already formed their own identity, by then the United States had won a war for independence from England, they were the rebels.They had entered WW1 and in a way, helped influence which side had won. They were the heroes, and they felt entitled. According to the reading this was one why the progressive era did not follow onto the 1920's. People felt over entitled, they wanted those new washing machines, and they wanted to have everything. They felt as though they were on top of the world which turned people greedy, It was a time where the KKK still held a lot of power and which would ultimately lead to a struggle for power. As stated in the reading, " the 1920's were an era when great traditions and ideas were repudiated or forgotten, when the American people propelled by a crass materialism in their scramble for wealth uttered a curse on twenty-five years of reform endeavor." (348). Also, I think that by this time the "normal" established in the country was this laissez-faire form of economics

    ReplyDelete
  11. Because of the US' inexperience, i don't think that a normal truly existed at the time because of the fluctuations that were constantly taking place. As Tracy said, it looked like they were just sticking to whatever had been working. Their weakness i think was that they didn't realize that just because the laissez-faire stance of doing what they were used to was eventually not going to work.

    ReplyDelete
  12. America was still a very young country experimenting with many different things to build on their society and their economy. There was no such thing as normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you elaborate? What do you THINK the US perceived as normal by 1920?

      Delete
  13. For a new country like the US in 1920, the word normal might not match its condition quite well. Especially with the war, the politics and economy were heavily disturbed. Furthermore, the progressive movement that is mentioned in the articles even led the country even farther away from being normal. The economic situation in US in 1920 kind of reminds me of the situation of China right now. The immature economy structure provides no financial security for its citizens. The US back then just like the China right now needs to solve both their economy and political problems, but not immediately, in long terms.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Even though 150 years seems like a long time for an individual, I believe that 150 years were relatively not enough for the normalcy to establish in the United States. Even though in the 1920's the United States was an independent country with its fixed identity, the economy or the politic itself within the country was not completely settled or fixed. Therefore, either republican leadership nor the Laissez Faire was not a normalcy with in America. I completely agree with Jen that it was just what was working in America at the time.However, based on the reading, the economy referred "normalcy" to the time in which economic growth occured and people's standard of living increased.

    ReplyDelete
  15. what is normal for a nation whos only history has been violence. America took this nation by violence from native americans then from the very people who established it. then used violence to subdue millions of a race to build it. progressive era politics weren't american they weren't profitable prohibiting alcohol and creating social plans for the poor and disabled would take away the money america just earned by financing world war one for the allies. america intent was on selling munitions abroad while distributing consumer items at home. not ensuring that all people felt secure and lived in clean habital environments america was a business at this time not a nunnery.

    ReplyDelete