Mark Schmitt: Baby Boomers are suddenly mad for the fifties
Democrats and Republicans are alike in one respect, according to the libertarian writer Brink Lindsey: their shared nostalgia for the 1950s. Except, he says,"Republicans want to go home to the United States of the 1950s, while Democrats want to work there."
Indeed, from television (where Mad Men has faithfully recreated the furnishings, boozy smell, and chronic sexual dishonesty of the New York executive suite circa 1960), to the celebrated 50th anniversary of Jack Kerouac's On the Road, to the current political debate, we seem to be awash in 1950s nostalgia. While most of the Republican presidential candidates have life experiences more reminiscent of The Ice Storm than The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, all invoke a vision of the patriarchal, orderly family of post–World War II suburban fantasy. And in their approaches to the world, all recreate that combination of belligerent, can-do triumphalism with mortal terror not seen since the decade of duck-and-cover drills, before Vietnam stripped away the triumphalism and the end of Communism alleviated the fear.
But even baby boom liberals who spent their youth in rebellion against the tranquilized 1950s have become homesick for its virtues. Ninety-one percent tax rates! Unions! Declining income inequality! Working people in nice big houses. What's to protest?
To be fair, and not just because the founding editors of this magazine are
prominent among those calling attention to the virtues of the 1950s economic
order, they are hardly calling for a return to Eisenhower's America, with its
stifling conformist culture, cruel sexism, and tiny half steps toward racial
Rather, Paul Krugman, Bob Kuttner, and Bob Reich (in their recent books) and the
MIT economists Frank Levy and Peter Temin in a recent paper,"Inequality and
Institutions in Twentieth-Century America," use the 1950s and 1960s to show
what's possible. Their argument is a necessary reproach to the likes of Thomas
Friedman, who view us as passive little boats swept along on waves of
globalization, insisting that we accept all the inequality and disruption that
goes along with that because the alternative is global stagnation. It's vital
to understand that there was a time when great prosperity and greater equality
not only co-existed but were taken for granted. And that it was political
institutions and choices that made shared prosperity possible: Greater
bargaining power in the hands of workers. A robust social safety net. A
government that invested in infrastructure and in individuals, through the GI
Bill and federal mortgage insurance programs. Manufacturing wages adequate for
one worker to support a family. A corporate culture of stewardship rather than
comments powered by Disqus