Summary: The current events and debates of today become the history of tomorrow. People's actions and opinions are affected by their knowledge and memories of the past. As students of history, you should remember to look at the connections running back and forth in time as we examine some important current issues.
Keywords
Economic crisis
The United States and the world
Big vs. little government
Individual rights in "wartime"
Presidential power
Religion and government
Immigration
Americans in every period in U.S. history have evaluated the past in comparison to the time in which they lived. Many Americans in the 1980s viewed the 1960s in a negative light and maintained that a "better" America existed back in the 1950s. Many American writers in the 1920s noted that they were in a new era that was decidedly different from the America that existed before World War I. In 2010, people were comparing and contrasting the economic crisis with the Great Depression of the 1930s. Currently, many central questions about American identity and the American experience are under scrutiny. What are the big themes of American history that have relevance today, and what central characteristics of the American identity are being questioned during the years of the Obama presidency?
(1) What should the role of the government be in the economic affairs of the nation?
This was a question that was being asked at the beginning of the Obama administration. Many commentators maintained there was very little regulation of big business and the banking industry as a result of Republican policies during the Bush administration; to offset this, the Obama administration authorized a stimulus package worth billions of dollars. In supporting this program, government officials emphasized that with big business and the banking industry in poor shape the only institution left to "prime the pump" of the economy was the federal government. When those in Congress voted on the stimulus package, only three Republican senators voted for the legislation; every other Republican in Congress voted against it.
This debate about whether government should be a "pump-primer" of the economy was a replica of economic debates that have gone on in the past about the role of government in the economy. "Free Market" Conservatives (in recent decades, mainly Republicans) are generally opposed to government intervention in the economy (although some argued that the 2009 economic crisis was so severe that government intervention was necessary). Many would argue that the appropriate government response to economic downturns should be to cut taxes: Conservatives believe this will put money in the pockets of millions of consumers, who will do all the "pump-priming" that is necessary. Others would argue that, when they are left to their own devices, business interests are only interested in profits; supporters of this view would state that the sheer greed of business and banking interests led to the banking and housing crises besetting the country in 2009. These critics would argue that it is the job of government to regulate the economy and to have an active role in economic affairs, despite the uncertainty of success of the actual stimulus package that was passed by Congress.
During the first years of the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover did exactly what many "sensible" economists of the time said he should do: wait out the downturn and rely on state, local, and voluntary agencies to deal with the impact of the stock market crash and subsequent business failures. To many economists of the time, active government intervention in the economy would be nothing short of "socialism" (a charge that some made when discussing the policies of Barack Obama). Franklin Roosevelt responded with the New Deal, which turned the federal government into a major engine of economic growth.
The controversy over the role of the federal government in economic affairs goes back to the differing views of America held by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. It appears that the federal government will continue to be a major player in the economic affairs of the nation for the foreseeable future, although members of the "Tea Party" and other critics claim that government's role in the economy must be sharply curtailed.
(2) What should the role of the United States be in world affairs?
Americans have asked this central question since the foundation of the republic. George Washington warned the nation to stay out of world affairs that are not of immediate concern to us. Many in the 1920s and 1930s agreed, pushing the United States into a position of severe isolationism. However, if America is to call itself a world leader, do we not have the responsibility to truly lead the world? If we are utterly convinced that democracy is the best form of government on the face of the earth, don't we have a responsibility to spread that form of government abroad?
This was the view of Woodrow Wilson as he tried to get Americans to support the Versailles Treaty after World War I, and it was the view of George Bush and the neoconservatives leading up the latest invasion of Iraq. Those who support this view are forced to ponder the thorny possibility that parts of the world that we may want to transform may be opposed to some of the changes that we are proposing for their country or region. Which is more important: promoting self-determination (another stated American goal) or promoting the American way? These are fundamental issues that Americans have wrestled with in the past and are still concerned with today.
(3) What should the impact of the federal government be on the lives of American citizens?
This is another question that Americans have wrestled with, especially in the last 80 years. It is connected to the issue of the role of the federal government in the economy. Before the New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt, the role of the federal government in the lives of citizens was minimal. However, the New Deal created a radically new role for the federal government: it was now the responsibility of the federal government to take care of those who could not take care of themselves. The Social Security Act is perhaps the most famous example of a New Deal policy exemplifying this new thinking. The Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s followed the New Deal spirit of assisting those who are unable to assist themselves.
During the past 35 years, there has been an effort by conservative Republicans to roll back some of these "liberal policies"; a famous statement of this "end big government" philosophy was the 1992 Republican Contract with America. Many conservatives maintain that Americans act most nobly when they stand up and act independently and are not burdened with regulations, rules, and excessive taxation handed down by the federal government. However, it would be extremely hard to credibly argue that there was anything noble about the way that American business interests acted during the Bush years when concerted efforts were made to "get the government off the backs of the people."
A "New Deal liberal" would say that we need government to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, while many conservatives would say that we need government to help people take care of themselves. However, during the economic crises of late 2008 and 2009 most public opinion polls stated that the majority of Americans felt that we needed a government that was strong enough to successfully handle domestic crises such as Hurricane Katrina or economic turmoil. Now some members of the Tea Party and others call for a reduction or elimination of Social Security benefits and the elimination of some government agencies such as the Department of Education and the Office of Environmental Protection.
(4) How many of our individual rights should we be willing to give up when fighting a foreign enemy?
This is another difficult issue that Americans have debated since the founding of the nation. John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, Abraham Lincoln promoted censorship of the press during the Civil War, and dissidents who spoke against military intervention were jailed during World War I. Historians today still debate whether these actions were justified.
Debate on this issue flared again during the War on Terror: many Americans wondered how invasive the government should be when "protecting us" during major crises? Many maintained that if government officials wanted to look through their phone logs and e-mail messages to help defeat terrorism, so be it; others wondered about the impact of government actions such as these on individual freedoms. Also, how much freedom should the press have in times of crises? Many maintained that the freedom of the press should also be curtailed during times of crisis, while others argued that such restrictions were overly likely to be abused, whether from good intentions or to deliberately protect or benefit those in power.
(5) Should the power of the three branches remain equal, or should the power of the executive branch expand in times of crisis?
This is another question that commentators and politicians have discussed over time. Critics complained that Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Bush, and even Barack Obama have acted as if the other branches of government didn't exist. But isn't there a need for a strong executive branch in times of crisis? During the latest Bush administration, the president and his supporters justified the expansion of the executive branch as being essential in the battle against terrorism; critics maintained that President Bush and Vice President Cheney used terrorism as an excuse to increase the power of the executive branch (at the expense of congressional power). In the past, there has been an ebb and flow of power between the executive and the legislative branches. Critics fear that some of the measures of recent years will make the increase in power of the executive branch permanent.
(6) What connections should exist between religion and government?
This is another question that has been a topic of discussion since the earliest days of the republic. Historians point out that religion has always been an issue in American politics. Many voted against presidential candidate Al Smith in 1928 because he was a Catholic. John Kennedy faced many questions concerning his Catholicism when he ran for president in 1960; Joseph Lieberman had to state what he could and could not do on the Sabbath (he is an Orthodox Jew) when he ran for vice president in 2000. Since the 1980s some critics have voiced concern over the increasing role of the religious right in the Republican Party. Ministers from the religious right urged congregations to support President Bush's reelection in 2004 because he was a "man of God" and the war in Iraq because it had "God's blessing." Yet in recent years, other diverse voices, even from within the religious right, have been heard. The religious right had always been keenly interested in issues such as abortion and homosexuality; some members of that community have recently maintained that the environment and helping America's homeless are equally important issues. Several Christian ministers have recently noted that Christianity can be liberal as well, reminding followers that Christian ministers were among the first supporters of the civil rights movement in the South in the 1960s.
(7) What should American policy toward immigration be?
Recent American debates on illegal immigration mirror debates that have occurred on numerous occasions in American history. The words of those who wish to severely restrict immigration today somewhat match the pronouncements of nineteenth-century "Know-Nothings" or nativists of the 1920s; in each case, the work ethic, educational background, and moral character of those attempting to enter the United States has been questioned. Recent plans to build fences on the Mexican border were matched by demands in the 1920s to send immigrants back to eastern and southern Europe. Congressional debates in the early 1920s produced legislation that reduced immigration to a trickle. Passions concerning this issue are just as high in the early twenty-first century.
There are other major issues that have been continually redebated and reanalyzed throughout American history, including the question of the nature of the American dream. When studying American history, you should compare how key issues such as these were seen in the past compared to how they are perceived today. If you do this, past historical trends will make more sense to you; this will help you write historical essays, and it will certainly make the material more interesting!