Download Hofstadter`s New Deal Argument

Title: The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR
Author: Richard Hofstadter Year: 1955
Categories: Reform, Populism, Progressivism, New Deal Place: United States Time
Period: 1890s-1930s
Argument Synopsis
Hofstadter exams the path of reform from the 1890s through the 1930s.
He periodizes it into three pieces: Populism (1890s), Progressivism (1900-1914), and
the New Deal (1930s). Instead of seeing a clear lineage connecting the three, he argues that while Populism and
Progressivism were of the same cloth, the New Deal was a sharp departure - going against Progressive historiography
that tried to trace an unbroken path of reform. Hofstadter was interested in social science inquiry of the 1950s, particularly
things like psychology, and also wrote from the self-admittedly biased perspective of intellectual landscape of the fifties
(particularly McCarthyism). He also operated under the consensus school of history, which narrowed the band of
available action in American history so that radical departures were all but impossible - national history marked by
consensus rather than conflict.
Hofstadter sees the Populists as farmers torn between two impulses - the "Hard" side of being commercial-oriented
businessmen and the "Soft" side of seeing themselves as aggrieved victims of capitalism firmly rooted in the agrarian
myth of America's past. The Soft side won out in the 1890s, and with it came bad things: a conspiracy view of history
that pitted the people vs. the interests (linked to Anti-Semitism) and a kind of victimhood and moral absolutism that made
it difficult for them to ever accomplish much.
The Progressives emerged after the Populist defeat in 1896 and tacked back a bit towards the "hard" side of populism.
The challenge they faced was how to mobilize reform despite the fact that economically, they were doing pretty well - this
leads Hofstadter to his "status revolution" argument, in which displaced elites were less concerned with their material
condition (economics) and more with the loss of class status brought about by an increasingly impersonal society (this
goes directly against Charles Beard and other Progressive historians' interpretation of economics as the overriding factor).
Although better than the Populists, Hofstadter criticizes the Progressives for their embrace of minority/victim politics and
of their alliance with the individual, agrarian myth. He points out the disconnect between harkening back to an
individual agrarian nostalgia in the face of a world that demanded new forms of organization.
Finally, Hofstadter sees the New Deal as a radical departure from the earlier strand of Populist/Progressive reform. Instead
of being steeped in ideology, it was pragmatic and experimental and geared towards actually solving immediate and
pressing economic problems.
Key Themes and Concepts
- Hard vs. Soft identity of Populists - hard side of farmer's business orientation vs. soft side of aggrieved agrarian
populism (soft side won out during 1890s)
- Agrarian myth - both Populists and Progressives deceived selves into thinking they were part of a pastoral past and not
active members of a new industrial and modern political economy
- Conspiracy-driven nature of Populists - people vs. the interests
- Status Revolution of Progressives - "Displaced elites" less concerned with material economics but decline in their class
status brought about by growing complexity of society
- New Deal as pragmatic departure from ideology of Populists/Progressives
Some historical Schools of Interpretation:

The Conservative or Consensus School views history in terms of broad continuities over time. Consensus historians
believed that Americans agreed on basic ideas about politics and society; and American history is largely a success
story. While criticizing numerous incidents in the American past, they generally approve of our nation's society,
economy, and politics, and regard them as flexible enough to adapt to new realities without major internal
disruption. This tradition has its roots in the mid-nineteenth century when amateur historians (people who did not
teach history or receive post graduate training in the field) promoted the romantic vision of America as unique. They
then depicted Americans as carrying out a spiritual mission to bring democracy to the world.
The Consensus school reached its heyday in the 1950s and, although it has since declined in influence, historians who
emphasize the country's pluralism and nationalism continue its legacy today. For pluralists, American history
features interaction among a variety of groups and institutions, and major events grow out of a multiplicity of causes
rather than single factors such as economics or ideology. The pluralists assume that U.S. institutions, both public and
private, have provided a framework within which conflict can be channeled without major social
disruption. Nationalists often exalt the virtue of the United States in its actions abroad.

Progressive-New Left: views our nation's history predominantly as a series of conflicts between groups with
different economic interests and stresses the way power and property have been used to repress weaker minorities
at home and abroad. This school tends to criticize capitalism and support a variety of reform causes.
It began during the 1900-1920 era after which it was named and Progressive historians flourished through the
1930s. During World War II and its aftermath, when criticism of the United States was discouraged, this school was
eclipsed by the Consensus school. During the reform climate of the 1960s a resurgence of the school as labeled the
New Left in order to distinguish it from an older group of communist and socialist writers.
Historians of this school drew attention to the many groups that were left out of Conservative-Consensus history,
including immigrants, women, African-Americans, Native Americans, and the very poor, often depicting them as
victims of dominant elites and denied equal treatment. They also emphasized the role of economic motivation in the
nation's politics and foreign policy; and today's "new political history" scholarship focuses on the history of different
groups of people who either were or were not invested in a given vocabulary or prescriptive worldview. M any of its
central ideas, especially the need to include minority and women's history in textbooks, have informed nearly every
history survey course and text.