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?
In a country that was less than 150 years old, is it not accurate to label Republican leadership or laissez-faire economics as "normal", it is not normal anyway, and it is the reason that caused the Great Depression. Both links argue that the Great Depression was caused by people who wanted to get rich for themselves that caused many small investors lost their money, and most money were held in only a small part of people, the government couldn't control the distribution of money for different classes and the economic situation was extreme. I personally think that "What happened?" link is more convincing, as it described, the Progressive Era failed to carry itself into the 1920s because it was lack of a common goal and unity, controlled by middle class that was always ignored, and most importantly, it couldn't control itself well. By the way, other factors such as the problems that forerunners remained and urban recovery after the first world war also affected the Progressive Era. Yes, people need to progress, but it needs to be rely on real situations, extreme situations could only drive economy crazy.
ReplyDeleteI think one could label Republican laissez-faire economics as "normal" or more normal than would be total government involvement which would seem contradictory to our founding fathers ideals. While the extreme hands off approach did cause the economic collapse in 1929, it ALSO was the cause for an incredible economic boom where the average family owned stock, incomes were on the rise, and an era known as the Roaring Twenties. Its failure was a mixture of both too relaxed policies and not enough involvement. I do, however, think that they were better off during the recovery period- even though it might have taken longer- without Hoover and the federal government getting involved. We know from past experiences and even now, whenever and whatever the governments gets its hands on they just f it up.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is hard to label laissez-faire as “normal” because the country itself had not been around long enough for laissez-faire to either work numerous amounts of time or fail numerous amounts of time. I think the hands off approach, better known as laissez-faire, was both instrumental in building our economy and tearing it down. If the government had not decided to have little involvement with the economy than it is less likely there would have been an economic boom. Unfortunately, it was also the reason that the economy crashed so hard later. Link argued that the progressive Era failed to carry itself in the 1920s because, “ it thereby misses the distinctiveness of the dominant reform movement of the first ten or fifteen years of the 20th Century, which by convention has earned the cognomen progressive.” The argument I found the most convincing was when Link said, “the surging tides of nationalism... fear of communism, suppression of civil liberties, revival of nativism and anti-semitism most crudely exemplified by the Ku Klux Klan, and in the triumph of racism and prejudice in immigration legislation... result[ed] [in] [the] progressives [astonishment]. [The] [Progressives] forces [were] disorganized and leaderless, their movement shattered, their dreams of a new America turned into agonizing nightmares.” This statement exemplifies why the Progressive Era failed to carry itself in the 1920s.
ReplyDeleteYou probably can't call a relatively new method normal, but the laissez-faire economics might have felt normal to citizens because being free to do as you choose in your business must feel better and comfortable then have restrictions. At first, the laissez-faire economics did work and helped the economy boom in the 20's, but later, it got out of hand and companies were allowed to do too much, and the therefor the little involvement in business also helped start the great depression. Link was trying to explain that we did lose are certain mentality trying to work with laissez faire after awhile, it wasn't working the same as the beginning of the 20s. The progressive era ended because of the misuse of power by companies and the lack of control the government had to fix it.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe one can name the republican leadership as "normal." I think their version of normal is different from what we believe normal to be. Normal to them is just going back to old ways and how the government was set up before the civil war. Normal to us is a long standing process that is continued over numerous amounts of years and does not change. The laissez-faire economics was seen as normal to the US citizens because it was their type of government before the Civil War and WW1 had torn their country and all the countries together, apart. This type of government gave confidence to many people in the 1920's thinking nothing could ever go wrong agian. This resulted in the hard crash of the government, The Great Depression. Link provides arguements concerning the struggle to unite and as Lauren quoted the many pros and cons of the progressive era that caused a major downfall in the government.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI think one can't say that laissez faire economics is normal. Laissez Faire economics was seen as normal in the US because The laissez-faire economics was seen as normal to the US citizens. It was their type of government before the Civil War and WW1 had broke their country and territory and all the different countries together, were apart. I think the better known as laissez-faire, was both instrumental in building our economy and tearing it down. If the government had not decided to have a very tiny involvement with the economy than it is less likely there would have been an economic boom. The citizens in this situation just wanted their regular lives back.
ReplyDeleteIn 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