History in Trump's America: Inventing the "American Way" by Wendy L. Wall

This week we examined our final topic, “History in Trump’s America” through Inventing the “American Way” by Wendy L. Wall. Wall’s book examines American politics around World War II, an era that inspired Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.” Although many might remember the era’s political consensus fondly, Wall finds this consensus was ultimately incapable of solving structural problems with the country’s political economy and its racial divisions.

Wall examines an impressive range of sources, capturing the perspectives of business, community, and religious organizations, as well as public intellectuals and politicians.  These sources allow her to demonstrate that many important public figures saw deep divisions in American life during the 1930s, which led them to conclude that Americans had to move past serious divisions in order to achieve social stability  (for a copy of my notes, see here).  While seeking consensus was a goal for most Americans, the basis of that consensus remained different: business leaders based their belief in consensus around the need for civility, while labor leaders and civil rights workers believed equality served as the basis of this consensus.

Wall’s research demonstrates that Americans were very concerned about recovering from the Great Depression during the 1930s – because of the Depression, Americans no longer felt confident the country’s economy would expand forever, while businessmen worried that reforms to recover from the Depression would lead to increasing regulation and expanded rights for organized labor. Anxieties caused by the Depression also unleashed xenophobic outbursts directed towards religious and racial minority groups in the country, led membership in fascist organizations rose, and spurred left-wing critics of the country’s economic malaise to join communist organizations.  The country’s restrictive 1924 Immigration Act (discussed in previous weeks) led to a growing number of first and second-generation Americans interested in participating in the political process, while African Americans left the south and began to secure voting rights while seeking new political coalitions to advance their goals.  Collectively, these changes caused organizations and intellectuals across the political spectrum to fear dangerous divisions in American life and seek common ideas that could hold the country together, ultimately coalescing around a shared “American way.”

In an effort to build a common American identity, many believed that the country’s diversity (which previous generations had seen as a danger) could be reframed as a strength – the country could prove to the world that many groups of different people could live together in harmony. Public intellectuals often pointed to a shared history of immigration to the United States and encouraged the celebration of public holidays for immigrants’ citizenship, standing in stark contrast to European nations increasingly bent on defining a nation by a shared racial heritage. While the emerging definition of the “American way” seemed positive because it allowed Central and Eastern European immigrants from Catholic and Jewish religious traditions to claim membership in the nation, Wall observes that it made little effort to grapple with the realities faced by Native Americans and African Americans who had far different experiences with immigration. With some notable exceptions, the “American way” embraced assimilationist attitudes that stressed shared allegiance to civil rights, civil liberties, free press, and democratic decision making.

Although these values seemed agreeable to most Americans, Wall demonstrates that World War II and the postwar era were marked by ongoing debates over who would decide how to apply these values to American life; most struck a moderate tone, but one that constrained alternate visions for the country’s social order. During the war, the federal government strengthened its ties to the business community for propaganda purposes and to ensure consistent production of war materials. However, the government’s plan to use advertise and explain the benefits of regulation to solve problems of inequality outraged business leaders who removed these voices from decision-making for being too radical. The country’s religious organizations celebrated the country’s diversity but also worked to draw Americans away from supposedly atheistic beliefs including fascism and communism. New leadership at key labor unions such as the CIO were less inclined to strike; for their part, business leaders in organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce adopted a less militant tone and accepted labor unions to ensure continued economic growth. These business leaders reframed their message to argue their corporate profits were in the public interest in an effort to use the new language of inclusion for their benefit as well. Following the war, these organizations remained in regular contact with one another as the federal government encouraged the participation of business, foundation, academic, and labor leaders in the country’s advertising messages to continue political action by consensus. However, the federal government often sided with business leaders over these other voices, declining to support price controls and instead crafting a message that the country’s high standard of living was a product of capitalism’s ability to produce benefits for all (rather than a limited number of) Americans. Ultimately, the “American way” supported by the government argued that the country would include many (though not all) ethnic and racial groups, embrace a largely capitalist economy that needed occasional tweaks (but no radical change), and stand in stark opposition to extremes such as fascism and communism.  Wall argues these ideas ultimately collapsed during the 1960s as the Vietnam War cast doubt on the government’s foreign policy goals, a new generation of Americans rejected materialism as a central concept of American identity, and groups left out of American politics demanded their place.

Wall’s study of American political life in the 1940s and 1950s ultimately demonstrates the problem of using this era to define the country’s “greatness.” The Trump administration clearly defines certain religious groups outside the national identity, while also seeking to halt immigration from around the world, ultimately forging an activist central government that disproportionately assists white Americans.   Insisting on unfettered capitalism, the Trump administration’s economic policies benefit business owners almost exclusively while ultimately undermining workers (and encouraging more militant left-wing activism). Trump also has insisted on finding an external enemy, repeatedly invoking ISIS as a fanatical danger to the United States despite their relative decline prior to his election as well as his ongoing rhetorical escalation against North Korea that further undermines the country’s diplomatic positioning. While historians may debate when, if, and how consensus coalesced around World War II, Wall’s work ultimately reminds readers that policies based around failed ideas of consensus will likely lead to problematic outcomes that injure many Americans. 

I’ll be back next week with an essay or two collecting my thoughts on our readings from the past few months and lessons they might offer us.