They Liked 'Em Fat and Boring
This site is slightly fun, if only to remind yourself: Yes, "War" was the most used word in the 1863 State of the Union address. Once you've made sure that all your historical ducks are in a row, you start to wonder why they bothered. Either you do know the pressing issues of each time period, in which case nothing here comes as a surprise, or you don't, in which case you are probably not the kind of person who would be interested to learn that "Appropriations" was the most used word in the 1834 SOTU.
It is handy, though, to confirm my belief that late 19th century politics were really really boring. Take a look at the 1893 State of the Union address. Biggest topic was imports, followed by ships, pensions, Indians, exports and June. Minor issues include acreage, arbitration, bullion and widows. There were lively people, like Bryan or Sherman or Roosevelt (but more like Harrison or McKinley or Cleveland i.e. stuffed shirts), but the issues were pure yawn.
All you Marxists out there can tell me that I'm wrong, that the Pullman Strike and the Homestead Massacre and free silver tell a stirring story of the noble masses and the evil industrialists. There may be people who have their passions stirred by Union Tales, but those people are now completely senile, as unionization sinks past weaponizing space in the list of compelling issues.
It is probable that economic issues were a big thing in the nineteenth century because there were so many very poor people. I can certainly understand how that makes deflation an important issue, but I can't understand how that makes it an interesting one. It takes a huge calamity like the Great Depression to make economic issues interesting to me. Today's economic woes put me to sleep. I don't want to say I'm more curious than the man on the street c.1892, but how interesting could he have really found monetary policy?
Moreover, it's not like interest in economic issues correlates to how well the economy is doing. At least, not in recent history. The common man has been doing progressively worse since 1970, but pocketbook issues haven't made any headway. Just the opposite; they've been replaced with social issues, because social issues are not boring, whatever else you can say about them.
So how did people find the time to care about money stuff? Had they just not invented social issues? There was prohibition and women's suffrage and xenophobia; those were pretty advanced in the 1890's. (Xenophobia was a voting issue but I never heard that the other two were.) Was there just nothing else to care about? Did they romanticize union problems as the Fair Prince Eugene Debs versus the Wicked Ogre Grover Cleveland (or vice-versa!) and then vote on that caricature? Or were they just smarter than us, and more attuned to their interests? I think if I had lived back then, I would have thought "Jesus Christ someone try to legalize abortion or illegalize cocaine already." I am a child of my times.
It is handy, though, to confirm my belief that late 19th century politics were really really boring. Take a look at the 1893 State of the Union address. Biggest topic was imports, followed by ships, pensions, Indians, exports and June. Minor issues include acreage, arbitration, bullion and widows. There were lively people, like Bryan or Sherman or Roosevelt (but more like Harrison or McKinley or Cleveland i.e. stuffed shirts), but the issues were pure yawn.
All you Marxists out there can tell me that I'm wrong, that the Pullman Strike and the Homestead Massacre and free silver tell a stirring story of the noble masses and the evil industrialists. There may be people who have their passions stirred by Union Tales, but those people are now completely senile, as unionization sinks past weaponizing space in the list of compelling issues.
It is probable that economic issues were a big thing in the nineteenth century because there were so many very poor people. I can certainly understand how that makes deflation an important issue, but I can't understand how that makes it an interesting one. It takes a huge calamity like the Great Depression to make economic issues interesting to me. Today's economic woes put me to sleep. I don't want to say I'm more curious than the man on the street c.1892, but how interesting could he have really found monetary policy?
Moreover, it's not like interest in economic issues correlates to how well the economy is doing. At least, not in recent history. The common man has been doing progressively worse since 1970, but pocketbook issues haven't made any headway. Just the opposite; they've been replaced with social issues, because social issues are not boring, whatever else you can say about them.
So how did people find the time to care about money stuff? Had they just not invented social issues? There was prohibition and women's suffrage and xenophobia; those were pretty advanced in the 1890's. (Xenophobia was a voting issue but I never heard that the other two were.) Was there just nothing else to care about? Did they romanticize union problems as the Fair Prince Eugene Debs versus the Wicked Ogre Grover Cleveland (or vice-versa!) and then vote on that caricature? Or were they just smarter than us, and more attuned to their interests? I think if I had lived back then, I would have thought "Jesus Christ someone try to legalize abortion or illegalize cocaine already." I am a child of my times.
posted by apk01004 at 1:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home