Christian values honored.
Husband working, wife with the option to stay home with the kids if desired and still pay the bills and taxes.
An honest wage for an honest day's work.
No same-sex marriage.
No or heavily abridged abortion in most states.
A belief that the United States is a force for good in the world.
Respect for the law.
Respect for private property.
This should be fun . . .
It's also pretty funny that you assert that it's not even remotely true that the USA ever resembled Palin's vision - and then ask me to tell you what that vision is. You even know there will be a mountain of evidence that I'm wrong about this unknown vision. I guess there were no classes in logic in your pile of degrees.
Wait - are you a climatologist?
Ok, great, now we're moving. Now, I have on the shelves around me about 600 history and political science books. On this first pass I will simply offer the facts...a lesson if you will. I won't make the bibliography yet. If, after going along in our debate, you wish me to support it by writing out a couple hundred citations to those previously mentioned works I would be happy to. Let's begin:
Christian values honored
First we must understand that for the most part the religions we have, as practiced today, bear little resemblance to the religions during the initial settlement of America. Not only were the most prevalent religions of the day different from the religions that are prevalent today (Puritans, Anglicans, Deists, and Quakers come immediately to mind, instead of the vast Baptist majority, or slightly less common Pentacostals of today), but even within the same denomination (then and now) there were vast differences of belief and practice. In short, religion changes, so how we view it today is not an accurate representation of what it was then...remember; History is a foreign place.
Moreover the 'Christian' religions are often somewhat contradictory in belief and practice, creating a problem when defining the 'Christina values' that were supposedly honored. If we value the Friends we are not valuing baptists the same, as the two have some conflicting beliefs. We also must be careful not to use 'Christian' interchangeably with 'religious'.
So, to correctly respond to your point I would need to ask exactly what values you believe were honored, and how that was done. Do you mean specifically that certain ideological components were held as more important then than they are now? Like honoring your father and mother? Or that religion in general played a greater personal, or public role than today? Or that specifically 'Christian' religions were accepted but others denied? What exactly do you think went on that is different, and why do you consider it a form of religious honoring?
Husbands working, wife with the option...
There's so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where the fuck to begin. *sigh*
Are there differences in what you say between the formation of America and now? Yes, certainly. However, there are differences between the early settlment times and the late colonial period, which are both different from how things were at the turn of the century, and changed again during the 20s, again during the 30s, again in the 40s, again in the 50s, again in the 60s, again in the 70s, and only stabilized somewhat into a single direction in the last forty years. Those changes were not linear evolutions, but erratic reactions to changing situations and had MANY different foundations.
First we differentiate between classes, which as much as they mean today meant MUCH more a few hundred years ago. We must clearly separate what a noble life was like, what a peasant life was like, and how the emergence of early capitalism changed everything to create a working class.
Noble women did not often work in the capitalist sense, but they were often powerful matriarchs with as much influence and control as their only slightly more common male counterparts. In this way, they confound your description. This lifestyle evolved over time to marginalize women however. By the time of the new American aristocracy' women of the upper class were almost totally closed out.
Lower class life was a different matter. Both men and women had to work to stay alive. While there were often mens jobs and womens jobs, both were more or less equal of importance, and neither were income producing in the way we think today. For instance, did you know that before 1700 in England almost all brewers were women? This type of shared labor was also true of settlers in America. While its true there was a distinction between the jobs a woman did and a man, both were contributory. If either the husband or wife (and the kids, extended family, etc) wasnt working equally on the stead, failure was assured.
It was only the advent of capitalism (and subsequent decline of nobility) that things altered significantly, but it took hundreds of years. As the concept of inherited nobility waned, concurrent to capitalisms rise, the accumulation and manipulation of money (as opposed to survival) became possible. With money and a capitalist system it was possible to free up much of the time previously spent just staying alive. As those who gained some success established their new class, they found they no longer needed women to do equal work. In fact, men found that by taking regulating a difference of the sexes they were able to keep more of the profits for themselves. This coincided with a religious shift which marginalized women overall. The end result was women of this new class pushed out of the working world.
So in America we have settlers (where the woman works just as much as the man) and a much smaller upper class where the women were trophies and did not work. When the new middle class began to emerge these women found themselves emulating the idealized upper class, and staying home. There are whole sections of history study dedicated to materialism and class emulation in early America actually. Personally I despise it, so I wont dwell on it.
Anyway, along comes industrialization, trailing a significant population boom. Now we see the emergence of another new class the lower working class. These were urban settlers, who did not homestead, but worked in the blossoming industries of the early cities. These workers were almost as often women as men, and in some industries almost entirely women. A few of the lucky ones married up into a form of early middle class status, and so stopped working once married. However for most of the lower classes, who married within their class, it was necessary for all members of the family to work continuously to survive. This also disproves your claim, except in a very narrow class of Americans.
Now enter the womens movements suffrage, early feminism, etc. No longer did women work because they had to...now they worked because they wanted to. This saw rise of some powerful female capitalists. It would still be rare to have a husband not work as well, with domestic duties farmed to a servant class. However it still defies your claim.
During the war periods (the first somewhat, but ESPECIALLY the second) with the middle class men off to fight, the housewives were suddenly thrust into the workplace (as much from opportunity as from necessity according to many historians). As the men returned from war there was some attempt to return the woman to the home, but never like it was pre-war. About the only shift was the TYPE of work women were allowed to continue in, though even that was frequently untrue.
It was after WWII that the fundamental shift that you allude to took place. Before the war a single upper lower, or lower middle class income could support a family (if poorly). After the war we began to see the necessitated rise of two-income households to achieve or maintain middle class status. In this way, women of a previously protected class no longer had the option to stay home. However this too, is somewhat of a falsehood. In point of fact, the definition of lower middle class changed so that our culture merely accepted utilizing female labor to achieve what had previously been an upper middle class existence. In other words, society didnt alter the role of women, greed altered the role of the middle class.
A bit later the rise of the new feminist movement had two diametrically opposed results. One faction of women embraced it, and moved into the role of primary money winner...the career woman. This was a cultural gender shift. The other faction rebelled against feminism and returned to the home as a bastion against change. There are psychological reasons for it, and sociological ones, but the end result was the creation of a previous housewife mythology and linear evolution of working women that never existed in fact.
The conclusion of this is multifold. First, that your assertion is wrong because it doesnt address class distinctions. Second, that your assertion is wrong in that there was not a linear progression. Third, that your assertion is wrong in that at the time of the nations inception women were more empowered in many ways than they would be in the century and a half which followed. Finally, that your assertion is wrong in that the reasons for the situation you describe are other than tradition or positive.
An honest wage for an honest days work
As mentioned in the previous section, even though capitalism was growing previous to the industrial revolution, it had not evolved to the point of a working wage as we think of it today. In fact, even at the turn of the century our modern concept of employment and wages would have been foreign.
The earliest wages were exploitive utilizing indentured servitude, or raw material confiscation and an apportioning or bounty system upon the sale of said materials. Those not a part of that system at the settling of America were sustenance farmers. Eventually there grew the slave labor system of the south as well. None of these were working for wages. Americas history is one of opportunistic exploitation, servitude, mere survival.
Once industry took hold, and deposed the slavery system, a new form of servitude had come into being wage slavery. This was not an honest wage for an honest days work, but horrendously abusive working conditions for diminishing returns barely capable of supporting any life.
It was ONLY the rise of labor unions which changed American employment, both directly and indirectly. Directly the unions, where accepted, were able to negotiate for what you talk about. Indirectly the government, to avoid outright revolution and even more bloodshed, began regulation and enforcing workers rights even for the non-unionized.
However American business and industry continued to exploit wherever possible, straight up until the final labor push in the 70s. It wasnt until that decade that you more or less finally achieved an honest wage for most people (except women, some immigrants, etc). It still isnt universal today, and you can certainly make excellent arguments that minimum wage, with no universal health care, and the power of the wealthy/corporations allied against the individual worker with a retreating government as guardian have eroded the concept back to its pre-union robber baron days. Not quite to that level, but approaching it. Certainly arguable that its not an honest wage at least.
Same-sex marriage
It has existed since the Ming dynasty and the Roman empire. Yes, it fell out of favor after Rome, due mostly to the INCREDIBLE power of the churches, and their influence/control of governments.
In America the legalization of same-sex marriage, or the implementation of civil unions, is relatively new. Then again, so are many (if not most) of the legal statuses granted through marriage of any type. It is certainly arguable that the reason the issue is growing is that the legal and cultural status of marriage itself has changed. In other words, politicians, lawyers, and churches forcing legal recognition and benefits of marriage REQUIRES exploration of the entire institution as it relates to government.
What isnt arguable is that homosexuality, and homosexual co-habitation, has existed regardless of rather or not it was legally recognized.
Furthermore, in and of itself there is a whole host of arguments surrounding this issue as it relates to our discussion. You want the America that was? Ok, then you MUST also argue that awesome people are property, women can be beaten, etc. Otherwise you AGREE that there is a constant evolution of society and culture which CAN have positive outcomes (even if it brings with it unintended consequences). Either slavery is right, OR we have a right (and maybe even a duty) to examine traditions in the light of fairness and equality.
So yes, you win: America has never before had same-sex marriages. That doesnt mean it should stay that way however, nor does it fully explore the why.
No or heavily abridged abortions...
Abortions were perfectly legal in the United States until the early 1800s when they began being prohibited after the fourth month of pregnancy. It took until 1900 before they were broadly outlawed. Thats nearly 400 years that they were legal, compared to less than 100 that they werent. However, like all things, thats not the whole story.
Much of the initial argument against abortion had two foundations: one a great awakening in the US where religious extremists gained exceptional influence where none such was held before, and two, the extreme danger of abortions. At the time of the rising campaign against them (based in religious fervor) medical science was crude and unpredictable. This second issue at least has been largely resolved. In nearly all cases abortions are moderately safe today...at least as much as many cosmetic and elective surgeries.
This also falls into the same trap as the gay marriage issue. While yes, abortions were for a short time illegal, thats not an argument for making them so again. The counter arguments are exhaustive, rational, and compelling.
A belief that the United States is a force for good in the world.
The first thing we have to do is unravel the egocentrism of that statement. There is not a global belief that America is a force for good. Many nations, or factions within nations, think America has caused great harms to the world. Moreover even within America there are large (and growing) factions that think America has done wrong, and continues to do wrong, and should not be so involved in the affairs of the world. Even exempting the isolationists, there are a lot of people that dont want America policing the world, or trying to run other countries, or being the sole savior of the worlds underprivileged, or some sort of forced spreader of democracy, etc.
Next we look at the timeline. America has certainly not always been seen as a global player, at least not one with any clout or merit. Arguably the first world war really introduced us to the rest of the world as a powerful ally and having a positive role in world affairs.
The second world war certainly solidified this idea, and since then weve seen most of the positive international influence from the United States.
However weve also seen a LOT of negatives. Operation Ajax, Peru, Guatamala, Honduras, Cuba, Italy, Vietnam, Gulf War II, Chile, Venezuela, China, Afghanistan, blocking of environmental protocols, School of the Americas, etc ad nauseum. Thats just modern stuff, not going back to native exterminations, treaty violations, etc, and doesnt consider larger issues like the cold war.
Setting aside the dissenter views and the negatives weve perpetrated or participated in we can tie the belief you talk about to the rise of liberalism, but thats counter to the rest of your claims, and so we have a conundrum.
In the end were left the same argument as the last two as well: just because some have perceived America to be a force of good in the world in the last fifty years doesnt mean thats a good thing.
Respect for the law
Really? Ok, if you insist. The law didnt even exist in its modern form when the country was founded. Even long after it began it didnt resemble the current system we have in place. In fact, some areas are STILL outside of the system that you think you know (Napoleonic code in LA anyone?)
Where is your evidence that we once had a mythical respect for the law? From the day we were founded weve had higher crime rates than any of our European counterparts. Its only in the last few decades that crime rates have been declining overall in America. In fact, dont people across the world make the analogy of lawlessness to the American west?
Dear God man, our country only exists because we BROKE the law...in fact most laws...some of them foundational to civilization at the time.
Our government doesnt respect the law. We broke treaties with the natives, we went to war to end slavery that we upheld in our Constitution, we violate our own laws on other shores to gain advantage or overthrow nations, etc. Our Presidents have been impeached for breaking the law. OUR PRESIDENTS MAN! Those same politicians suspend the Constitution whenever its expedient to do so (Japanese internment, terrorist suspects, etc).
Our military breaks laws or tries to find ways around them (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib).
Our corporations break laws.
Our citizens break the law.
NEARLY EVERYONE IN AMERICA DISRESPECTS THE LAW!!!
What in Gods green Earth leads you to believe that there has EVER been the LEAST respect for law in America???
Respect for private property
Ever hear of a group called the Native Americans? Ok, bad example since they didnt hold similar views on property ownership...or did they?
Private property ownership didnt exist in England or its extensions until 1660 (the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion). That means that at the actual initial colonization of America there were no such modernly conceived private property rights. In fact, most early American property contention was based on the Germanic freeman model, countered somewhat by initial speculator interest.
Wealthy land grant recipients would essentially lure settlers to America by offering low rent (called quitrents) land around a communal area. In fact a great deal of the initial Americas was communal in nature.
Of course, after the official formation of the US there was strong private property ownership and protection...or was there?
Up until the mid 1800s it was the government that acquired most of the land in America. Fearing government control of land they sought to distribute it to as many people as possible. However, they also recognized that land should be used for capitalistic pursuits. This created a dichotomy that remains unresolved to this day (what Donald Worster calls the freedom principle and the economic principle). By 1872, to counter the destructive effects of private property abuse by capitalistic pursuits, the beginnings of permanent public property land grants began...something of an opposition to broad interpretation of respect for private property.
By the late 1800s property law had begun shifting the context of private property rights. Any finding for one property owner was likely a restriction on the rights of other property owners. It therefore became a case by case basis for determination. Moreover, it became clear that mere ownership of property did not grant carte blanche to what was done on it, as it was possible to seriously impact others outside of your property holdings with your actions.
These views, while predominate, are not the whole story of course. There are ALWAYS opposition viewpoints, which have both rational arguments and popular support. Even back at the beginning of the 1800s Thoreau and others were strong voices against stringent private property interpretations.
This is also not taking into consideration the previous section as it applies to private property. There has never been meaningful respect for the law, which INCLUDES private property law.
To summarize: the mythical perceptions that many Americans hold regarding a stable and unchanging view of land use and property rights simply never existed.
Conclusion
History is a foreign place. Perceptions are colored by experience and biases. The things that we are taught are not always what is true. Its only by careful examination of overwhelming evidence, and dedicated awareness of our biases, that were able to attempt to formulate somewhat neutral interpretations of events.
There is no golden age of America when all was good and pure and well. There is no such age of any nation. There have always been, and always will be, problems, ugliness, dissent, and change. In all things. It is human nature to perceive the grass as greener, but that doesnt mean there arent hidden weeds.
Facebook
Twitter