For example, were all Americans excited about going to the Moon? No. This poll is from 1967, two years before Apollo 11. Going to the moon is "not worth it" by 20 points.
Nearly a year after the first moon landing (and half a year after the second), the results are nearly the same.
In 1972, 58% of respondents said to reduce or end the moon missions altogether.
What about polio? As you might have heard, Americans were also wary of vaccines in the 1950s. The percentages saying they wouldn't take the miracle Salk vaccine declined between 1955 and 1956, but not by a lot!
And anyway, there remained a whole lot of holdouts. What eradicated polio was ensuring that kids had to take the vaccine. Then they grew up.
Computers? Even in the early 80s, when most Americans thought they were a net good, plenty weren't sure.
Respecting scientists? Pretty good numbers in 1973! But plenty who could only muster "some respect" (and a few "not much respect").
But by 1979, could Americans trust what experts like scientists said? 42% said they could not!
So there has long been a strain of Americans who didn't trust scientists or what they did. The numbers looked different depending on the question and the context, and politics (or at least, ideology) was certainly in play.
So what has changed? I think it's a complex question. But the obvious changes are in our media and political system: the internet and social media have made it easy for once marginal voices to get traction, and partisan media amplifies in a hyperpartisan political moment.
There's obviously much more at play: our costly healthcare system has added all sorts of skepticism and distrust of the entire medical system and those who profit from it.
But anyway I think Americans have changed less than the contexts we operate in.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wanted to learn more about protests at judge's homes. Here are some examples of what I found: protesting a San Antonio federal judge for imprisoning a tax protestor, September, 1984. In a sign of how the world has changed, the paper helpfully published his address.
Hare Krishnas protesting at a San Francisco Superior Court's judge for placing a member under a temporary conservatorship requested by her mother. The story briefly gets into the coming legal wrangling.
So there has been much discussion, and mostly criticism of the NYT's editorial the other day about "free speech," especially its opening paragraph appealing earnestly to a right that has never before actually existed nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opi…
This terrific thread by @tzimmer_history looks at the roots of the present debate, such as it is, in white conservatives' sudden facing of criticism for things they had long taken for granted & the new pushback against "view from nowhere" journalism
@tzimmer_history Last night, I had shared several polls clearly showing that as long as there has been public opinion polling (and, I promise you, even before) Americans believed in various limits to free speech
At some level, I share the bewilderment, even as someone who has studied this history for over twenty years. But this claim isn’t ~exactly~ right. There were 19th century Americans who saw the collapse of various plant and animal species and called upon the government to act.
Brian Donahue has a wonderful book examining pre-industrial agriculture in Massachusetts and how it developed in a way that incorporated conservation for future use; this was ultimately disrupted by the market revolution amazon.com/dp/0300123698/…
My own book work now is looking at forest conservation, which the federal government took a hand in as early as the 1790s to preserve certain critical tree species for naval ship construction. It was a significant political issue in the 1820s and 1840s.
"Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned."