Historical Significance And The Election Of 2008. Part 1.

Part One --- Part Two

In the hours and days after the election, there was much talk about the fact that American elected a multi-racial man who identifies himself as "African-American." According to most commentators, that was the historical significance of the election of 2008.

As a historian, I agree that this election was historically significant, but not because of Obama's race (although obviously, that was itself momentous.) (*1) Rather, at a pivotal moment in the history of our nation, two candidates offered two distinct alternatives for confronting cultural, social, and economic upheaval. One wanted to circle the wagons; the other wanted to confront the upheaval. One offered a retreat into a mythic nostalgia; the other offered an embrace of the future.

It's not the first time we've mulled such distinct alternatives. One hundred years ago, for example, Americans faced a similar choice at a similar moment of economic, cultural, and social upheaval. In the early 20th century, the United States was in the (rapid) process of leaving behind a rural, non-industrialized society in favor of one that was mostly urban and manufacturing-based. (The 1920 census confirmed the transformation: half of Americans lived in an urban place. Today, something like 75% do.)

During this period, from about 1880 to 1920, industrialization in the form of mechanization and huge factories had become the mainstay of the economy. Electricity, the telephone, and movies changed the way Americans viewed the world around them. So did inexpensive printing processes that made newspapers, magazines, and books more accessible than ever before.

For the first time, average Americans were attending (mostly public) school for anywhere from eight to twelve years. The automobile and rapid travel become commonplace. (Americans acquired roughly nine million cars between 1900 and 1920.) We take those things for granted now, but a century ago, they were Americans' equivalent of our switch to a "wired" world.

Immigration soared, too. Between 1880 and 1920, some 24 million people entered the U.S. legally.(*2) For the first time, however, most of the new arrivals were not from northern Europe or the British isles. Instead, they were Hispanic or Asian, or came from Eastern and Southern Europe. Millions were Jewish and Catholic.

U. S. engagement with the rest of the world increased as well. Some of those episodes are ugly (think Cuba and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War), but good or bad, Americans acknowledged and engaged with people and places beyond their own borders.

Put another way, between 1880 and 1920, the United States became a nation different than it was in, say, 1870. That tumult, which filtered deep into daily life, fostered a powerful political movement that rested on an inward-looking politics of fear. Leaders of this movement portrayed small-town and rural Americans as "good." They painted urban dwellers as decadent and immoral. People who embraced this political culture were hostile toward non-whites and non-Christians; were hostile toward "the other." (*3)

The era also fostered the emergence of what we now call "fundamentalist" Christianity. It inspired a new kind of race-based science (aimed at proving the superiority of the "white" and "European" race). Those same political forces also nurtured the prohibition movement. The Anti-Saloon League's crusade rested on a worldview that pitted small-town and rural America against the decadence and immorality of "big" cities. In the minds of prohibitionists, abstinence from alcohol symbolized a particular way of life (small-town and rural) and a kind of morality (abstinence = god-fearing righteousness, the god, in this question, being a Protestant one). (*4)

Next: What this has to do with the election of 2008.

___________________

*1: As a voter, I was delighted that Obama's father was "black" and his mother "white." That he lived in Indonesia and Hawaii (which is a racially diverse culture). That he has a Kenyan grandmother. But as far as I was concerned, his multi-racial makeup was the icing on an already magnificent cake.

*2: U.S. population in 1900 was 75.9 million; in 1920 it was 105.7 million.

*3: Anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism were not new in early 20th century America; what was different was the idea of seeing Catholics and Jews specifically as "city folks" and therefore suspect. There was also enormous racial conflict. Lynchings were common, as were urban race riots.

*4: It is a measure of the powerful appeal of this particular form of politics that as early as 1909, half of Americans already lived under some form of dry laws, either local or state. The 18th Amendment, however, did not take effect until 1920.

Good Reading For Week Of November 10

Some good reading regarding this and that

: Op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about why a conventional bailout of the Big Three won't and shouldn't work. (Made my husband happy; he's been saying all of this for months.) (In case it can't be read at the WSJ site, try googling the author of the piece, Paul Ingrassia.)

Paul Krugman in the New York Times on FDR's New Deal and the audacity needed for an BHO New Deal (BHO, of course, is Almost-President Obama's initials.)

Fascinating rumination on the future of the blogosphere, written by Nicholas Carr

A good companion piece is this entry from Alan Mcleod at A Good Beer Blog.

Also from the Times, a piece by Nicholas Kristof on his hopes that an Obama administration might reverse the anti-intellectualism of the recent past

. Also see this piece from the Wall Street Journal, in which Mark Lilla ponders the way in which conservatives shot themselves in their collective feet by their embrace of dumbing-down. I could not agree more with Kristof. I'm THRILLED that our new president is a, gasp, writer, and that he doesn't mind admitting that he likes to, ya know, think about issues and problems. There's a long, long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country, but in the past thirty or so years, it's gotten completely out of hand. I want smart people running the show, and I'm all for thinking. (Which, as I noted earlier, was one reason I believed Governor Palin was unsuited for the job at hand.)

Finally, lovely piece also in the Times, from writer Michael Sokolove. He grew up in Levittown, Pennsylvania, and wrote about what the election says about how his hometown is changing and why.

The Reality Of Mergers And Acquistions

Oh, this is the hard part: when companies merge, when buyouts occur, when two companies launch "joint ventures," the impact goes beyond shareholder statements and stock values. It affects human beings.

The "exiting" process (sounds like a term from a Kafka novel) is now underway at Miller, at Coors, and at Anheuser-Busch. People I respect and admire are losing their jobs. That's the reality.

The beer folk may snipe at the "corporate brewers" all they like, but the reality is that these companies are composed of human beings: The "they" at A-B is your neighbor down the street, the woman in the church choir, the guy you see walking his dog or run into at the coffeeshop, and the mom who always makes time for soccer team fund-raising. Real people. And now, lots of those real people are losing their jobs.

And while I'm at it: I know that many people in the beer world -- beermakers, beer geeks, bloggers, etc. -- despise A-B. But over the past 150 or years, it's been a great employer and provided millions of people and their families with good jobs. It's also been a good citizen in the St. Louis area, donating what is now probably hundreds of millions of dollars to various charitable groups, a tradition that began with Adolphus Busch back in the 1870s. It practiced affirmative action before it had to and hired women before it was required to do so. It's been a great company. Let's hope it continues to be one under the new leadership (which will likely take charge sometime before year's end.)

James And Andy At GABF 2008

The amazing and indefatigable James Spencer and Andy Sparks of basicbrewing.com have uploaded (downloaded?) their video and audio recordings from this year's GABF. These guys were everywhere, camera and microphones in hand. If you want to experience a GABF without the expense of actually, ya know, traveling to Denver, visit their site. Click on "Podcasts" for both the audio and video collection. (They are also, I might add, two of the nicest guys I know.)