ICYMI, my piece on how the popular ethic of the New Deal became the punchline of a joke first told in the 1970s that later became associated with Ronald Reagan's presidency. /1
In 1976, Senator Edmund Muskie took a genre--the "three lies" or "big lie" joke--that had highlighted interpersonal weaknesses ("the check is in the mail," "Of course, I'll still respect you in the morning.") and turned it into a spoof of government itself. /2
In Muskie's hands, in addition to mocking or reinforcing personal foibles, a new element was added: He suggested that the government was as unreliable in its duties to citizens as the person who told white lies to avoid ethical scrutiny. /3
Muskie almost certainly told this joke in tongue-in-cheek fashion. But it quickly was picked up by not only by conservative politicians but by arbiters of culture like Ann Landers (that part got cut from my article). /4
In the process, within two years, this very new joke--one that very few people would have found humorous during the New Deal era--became described as an "old chestnut." It became, in other words, what historians call an "invented tradition." /5
Its migration from Muskie to Reagan, who told the joke at a press conference in 1986, only a decade after the Maine Senator first employed it, provides a lens not only into an emerging conservative ethos but also into a internal debates among post-New Deal liberals. /6
Liberals like Muskie found themselves in a tough position in the 1970s. As Brent Cebul has recently shown in @ModAmHist there was real fear in this period that the growth that had fueled the postwar welfare state might be coming to an end. /7 cambridge.org/core/journals/…
@ModAmHist Muskie and other Democrats sought to promote a chastened liberalism that would keep alive the spirit of the New Deal in a context when, as NY Governor Hugh Carey said in his first State of the State address in early 1975, "the days of wine and roses are over." /8
@ModAmHist The constraints were real and the alternatives may have been limited, but I think the comments of Muskie and others about the need to rethink New Deal liberalism in late 1975 and 1976 (which were celebrated by conservatives and business leaders) were a lost opportunity. /9
@ModAmHist After all, this was also a time when the Republicans were in a historically weak position, what with Nixon's resignation, the Democrats overwhelming victory in the 1974 Congressional elections, the weak economy, and the unelected Ford's unpopularity. /10
@ModAmHist Could the Democrats of that period have pushed for a revived and expanded New Deal along the lines we are seeing today? Maybe not, although some within (and outside of) the Party were pushing for exactly this. /11
@ModAmHist But it strikes me that some were too quick too abandon some of the key principles and policies of the New Deal order, particularly the value of public goods. /12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One important point missing from the discourse about Steve Scalise calling himself ‘David Duke without the baggage,’ is that, when he used the label, this was already a viable political lane, one used to describe other politicians, before Scalise. /1 theguardian.com/us-news/2023/o…
In 1990, the Alexandria Town Talk used the phrase "David Duke without the baggage" to describe a winning political formula in Louisiana politics. /2
In 1991, U.S. Rep. Clyde Holloway, seeking to advance in the Governor's race, said he was "a great alternative to David Duke, without all the baggage."/3
A central fact is that, in the midst of a UAW strike, Trump spoke last night at a nonunion factory. Yet the @nytimes mentions this only at the end of the 6th paragraph and the @washingtonpost brings it up in only the 19th paragraph. These are failures of framing./1
It seems disingenuous for the Times subhed to claim that both Trump and Biden spoke to people "affected by the United Automobile Workers strike," without mentioning at the outset that only one of them spoke directly to striking workers. /2 nytimes.com/2023/09/28/us/…
Similarly, for the Post headline to be that Trump "demands union votes" without mentioning at the outset that he did so at a nonunion factory strikes me as somewhat misleading./3 washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/…
A few comments on this piece, which makes some good points but also imo mischaracterizes key issues. /1 nytimes.com/2023/03/27/bri…
To say, "Today’s left is less...patriotic than the country as a whole and less concerned about crime and border security," is to take the conservative critique of "the left" as accurate rather than the perspective of those who self-define that way./2
In contrast, this summation of the pre-Trump Republican Party accepts their self-description: "Republicans were mostly comfortable pushing for lower taxes and smaller government (other than the military)."/3
No doubt, GOP rhetoric in 2024 is "dark," perhaps unprecedentedly so, but this piece understates the continuity in the apocalyptic style in conservative political speech./1 washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/…
There's not much "sanguine optimism," in Ronald Reagan's fearmongering 1961 anti-Medicare speech, which ends with his claim that "you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children... what it once was like in America when men were free."/2 americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronal…
Here's a thread I did last year on a NY Times article that posited a similar discontinuity./3
Republican claims of being angry--visceral or otherwise--is often reported as being newsworthy in itself, in a way that it is not for other groups in society.
One of the modes of elite victimization is to take claims of anger among the powerful to be a self-justifying force, rather than to address the question of what justifies that anger. /2
A good question to ask is why are they angry about the enforcement of the law--in this case ensuring that the wealthy actually pay the taxes they owe?/3
"Punctured myths make us better students of history, but they leave nothing to live up to. Shame is a shaky foundation for any project of renewal." I'm not sure why the first claim necessarily follows or why history should necessarily promote a "project of renewal." /2
Moreover, I don't think that the history of "terrible subjects" is necessarily based on a model of producing feelings of "shame." /3