They were more restrained than we are, more repressed-though restraint and repression were coming undone by 1968. Americans then were more uniform than we are in what they ate (tuna noodle casserole) and what they watched ( Bullitt). Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats played important roles in their respective parties. The two parties reflected a society that was less free than today, less tolerant, and far less diverse, with fewer choices, but with more economic equality, more shared prosperity, and more political cooperation. This arrangement held until the late ’60s-still within living memory. But, unlike today, the two parties were arguing over the same recognizable country. Republicans emphasized individual enterprise, and Democrats emphasized social solidarity, eventually including Black people and abandoning the party’s commitment to Jim Crow. The Republicans spoke for those who wanted to get ahead, and the Democrats spoke for those who wanted a fair shake. Through much of the 20th century, the two political parties had clear identities and told distinct stories. Tracing the evolution of these narratives can tell you something about a nation’s possibilities for change. The long gaze in the mirror has to end in self-respect or it will swallow us up. But just as no one can live a happy and productive life in nonstop self-criticism, nations require more than facts-they need stories that convey a moral identity. Americans know by now that democracy depends on a baseline of shared reality-when facts become fungible, we’re lost.
They’re the ones that address our deepest needs and desires. The most durable narratives are not the ones that stand up best to fact-checking. There is never just one-they compete and constantly change. National narratives, like personal ones, are prone to sentimentality, grievance, pride, shame, self-blindness. Nations, like individuals, tell stories in order to understand what they are, where they come from, and what they want to be.
0 kommentar(er)
