When America Was Great: The Fighting Faith of Liberalism in Post-War America

I have been planning on writing a few words about this important book for a while, and the most recent misdeeds of Karl Rove finally pushed me to it. No, there is nothing specifically in When America was Great about Rove, but there might as well be. Because what When America was Great does best is torch the straw man that is Rove's (and others like him) comic book version of liberalism. The damage done by the comic book version of liberalism to the American body politic is well known now -- and it amounts to more than the usual dishonesty about partisan rivals. While it may be true that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, it is certainly true that those who do not know history are both squandering its legacy and helpless to identify -- let alone fix -- inhereted problems. But Mattson does know history and how make some use of it. Where the comic book version of liberalism presents archetypes of permissive pansies that blame America for every wrong that afflicts the planet, Mattson looks to the ideas, actions and values of actual key political players during the cold war. What emerges is largely what one would expect from serious people committed to advancing liberalism after Roosevelt and his New Deal--namely, liberals addressing nation defining problems like communism (internal and external), civil rights, and the ever-present realities of political goverance. Readers can expect more from When America was Great than a short historical trip through 1950s intellectual history. I particularly like Mattson's treatment of pluralism in his chapter entitled Values and his notion of qualitive liberalism. Mattson uses key liberal intellectuals like Reinhold Neibuhr, J.K. Galbraith and Arthur Scleshinger (and surpirse choices like James Weschler and Bernard De Voto) as his entry into cold war liberalsim, and I like his biographical approach. But it would be a mistake to think that Mattson limits his commentary to biographical insight. He writes about these intellectuals because of their contributions to liberalism as the practice of nation building. It just so happens that in this case that the nation they were building was their own. When I finished When America was Great, I was both pleased and disgusted. I was pleased because Mattson is a terrific writer and even better thinker. Other people who I have recomended When America was Great to found it thought provoking and a great jumping off point for debate about current events. My disgust comes from the fact that it has been decades now since American politics was animated by a public philosphy that was more than glib remarks and partisan prejudices.

Kevin Mattson uses historical data from John Kenneth Galbraith, Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and James Wechsler among othera to demonstrate that America had prospered in the post-war era not in spite of liberals but specifically because of us. In doing so, Ohio University's Connor Study Professor of Contemporary History builds upon previous scholarship of who the new left is, where they came from, and how they benefited the country. The left cannot prepare for the future without first understanding what it has previously accomplished and how those victories were won. Specific dates refer to the cold-war era, but the lessons inside Mattson's book are applicable today. Both in reaction to the domestic excesses of Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist crusade and the recent memory of international facism, liberals argued that we needed a better approach-and they would provide it. Civil rights was not a threat to America, but a demonstration of the democratic system at its very best. While some policy makers did not have identical personal motives for supporting this cause, they publically talked about an America where people were united by their commonalities rather than being torn apart by their differences. Civil rights policy consequently became possible and at a pace which was rapid-fire when compared with the successes of previous generations. Measures which had languished for years were passed, albeit not without some struggle of their own. However, public legislator opposition to civil rights bills ultimately became viewed as being a hold-out to progress and a `great America' rather than functioning as a preservation measure. Today there is not a politician on `either side of the aisle' who would directly attack the Civil Rights Acts directly; the American political landscape has effectively changed that through liberalism. Segregation is no longer an acceptable tradition for mainstream American political parties. The post-war politicians who had passed the integration and other measures instinctively understood that the country would do better only when the masses did better. Welfare, good schools, social security, and public housing therefore were not extras but essential tools to securing the nation. People who were not needy then had a greater chance of working together for a better country. These politicians had honestly seen a utopia where the best in people was an attainable outcome rather than impossibility. There would always be a criminal element in society, but this segment was minimal. The overwhelming majority of people shared a desire to be responsible and productive citizens. Some people just needed help reaching that goal. Once they had reached that goal, they also would begin giving back to their society. What a refreshing political philosophy compared against today's '24 hour news era' when people of all political ideologies distrust each other ironically while talking about how they are in

Kevin Mattson has written an engaging intellectual history of post World War II liberalism. This history has become relevant again today as liberals try and find what fires them, what their core beliefs are and how to translate those beliefs into real policy proposals. Mattson focuses his book on four men to tell his story: John Kenneth Galbraith, Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and James Wechsler. These men believed in the greatness of America. However, they also believed that the country could be improved upon. They supported policies that they saw as improving the whole country, such as protection of the environment and improvement of public schools. They rejected both libertarianism and communism as being unhealthy for the entire country. Mattson focuses mostly on liberalism and domestic policy, while I thought he could have done much more if he discussed more foreign policy. Also, he switches between a conversational and a more conventional tone. Because of these issues, as well as lax editing, this book is not as strong as it could have been. However, as a primer on this important topic, especially when many today are beginning to look back on these times as glory days in liberal thought, this is a fine place to start.