Wednesday, November 28, 2012

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?

11 comments:

  1. I don't think that the return to laissez-faire economics can be labeled as normal. They are simply just reverting back to what was in place before hand. The economy has been through natural changes and labeling it as "normal" just doesn't fit this change. As for the failure of the Progressive Era, I think the most convincing argument is that the progressive movement was never a largely national movement. It was mostly localized, consisting of small special interest groups that according to the article were just seeking to obtain "greater political status and economic security". Because an established cohesiveness was not present, only time would tell how long it would last.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that the return to Normalcy is in reference to returning the US back to how it worked economical before the civil war and even before WW1. i think that the laissez-faire approach that was taken can't be seen as normal because not enough countries do it, but it was normal to the US and thats why people wanted it back. The Citizens wanted their lives back. After a war that ripped the country apart and then another war that ripped the world apart, the people felt like the only way to be confortable again was to return to what they did best and that was laissez-faire economics. I agree with Nicki on the reason that is most convincing to the failure of the Progressive era and how that the idea was only a localized idea is what caused the failure. For a new idea to sweep and group of people it must be liked and "invited in" to everyones mind and soul for it to truly work and prosper and it definitely wasn't in the early 20th century

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like mentioned in the blog post, America was so young that they don't have a 'normal'. Everything they were doing was still kind of experimental in a way since they didn't know what was quite right for the country.
    Other countries like England had been around for so much longer, that they could call things like the economics of their country as normal. America, however, hadn't been around long enough to do so yet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think this idea of "returning to normalcy" was not the same for everyone in the country. As Robert says, in a country as young as this one is still settling, there is no real normalicy you can return to because they never even had fifty years of "normalicy" yet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the beginning of the article, it is stated that, "The 1920's were an era when great traditions and ideals were repudiated or forgotten..." This implies that yes, Republican leadership/laissez-faire economics were "normal"in the perspective of many during that time period. However, looking back at it now, it seems unrealistic that such a young country established traditions and ideals. But again, putting my mind in the people of that time period, 150 years probably seemed significant, and discomfort arose as changes took toll. Regarding the Progressive Era, I think that the most convincing reason was that the progressives themselves became so shocked and bewildered by a "curse" uttered on 25 years of reform endeavor. Their forces were disorganized, leaderless, and ultimately, unsuccessful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't believe that at that time in age there was a "normal" they were still developing and exploring. They haven't really settled in to the fact that they are going to be spending a long time here. And for this reason, I believe that at this time, they were just finding that "normal" for the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do not think that it is normal. The country is too inexperienced and is not developed enough to move backward. I agree with Nicki's statement that the progressive era was more local than national, which really had no benefit. I think the best thing to do is move forward as a country, not travel back into time and search for old traditions. Maybe it's time to start some new traditions as a country.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For some, America was meant to have a minimalist government and by having one place, it would be a return to normal. America was so young though it hasn't really established any sense of tradition or normalcy. The U.S also waged many wars in its short time, which make people want to feel safe by being conventional afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Speaking of the progressive era, I think the reason it was not able to carry itself into 1940s is that it was sectional, which ,means the voice was not loud and persistant enough and the people who were doing it did not get enough supply and policy support from the government. Then, I think it would not be fair to say either republican leadership and lassies-fair economy is normal from the perspective of history because the us back then was not aged enough, and the only thing that is normal is that if a young kid tried something new and it does not feels good so he goes back to where he was before.By the way, I do not believe there is really any normal thing until it was tested by time and proven to be successful for a long period of time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The word normal is a word used less frequently in 1920. It seemed that after the Revolutionary War, the succession of the South, and many other situations, the American people knew nothing of a normal government. Times are always changing and having a completely normal government is difficult. As we saw in this upcoming election, the idea of universal healthcare in the 1960's seemed like a really good idea, but now with the declining economical growth, the idea is questioned by a lot more.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As previously stated, America was far too young to have any sort of "normal" state. I suppose that if America had a "normal," it would be the period immediately following America's independence. Since so much growth happened so quickly, that period of living is impossible to revet to, so America has to find a new sense of normal. The greatest argument as to why the progressive era had failed, was Link's explanation that the Progressive Era was a sectional movement, rather than a widespread time of complete reform. Its spotty popularity and seemingly radical attitude of its proponents turned off the possibility of the Progressive Era from becoming huge.

    ReplyDelete