Rethinking the 1950s: How Anticommunism and the Cold War Made America Liberal

by Jennifer Delton

Historians generally portray the 1950s as a conservative era when anticommunism and the Cold War subverted domestic reform, crushed political dissent, and ended liberal dreams of social democracy. These years, historians tell us, represented a turn to the right, a negation of New Deal liberalism, an end to reform. Jennifer A. Delton argues that, far from subverting the New Deal state, anticommunism and the Cold War enabled, fulfilled, and even surpassed the New Deal's reform agenda. Anticommunism solidified liberal political power and the Cold War justified liberal goals such as jobs creation, corporate regulation, economic redevelopment, and civil rights. She shows how despite President Eisenhower's professed conservativism, he maintained the highest tax rates in U.S. history, expanded New Deal programs, and supported major civil rights reforms.

203 pages, Hardcover

First published September 30, 2013

Reviews

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

First to review! This was a cool and interesting book, and it was unusual in the sense that it was also somewhat of a historiographical essay as well. People who are taking comp exams in 20th century political history could get a lot out of parts of this book. I also happened to think the main argument was basically right.

Delton's main argument was that far from being an era of conservative reaction or resurgence, the 1950s were largely a continuation of the liberal, New Deal politics of the 1930s. The important distinction here is that she is not arguing that the 1950s were culturally liberal but politically liberal; this is a book about race and politics, not gender, social mores, culture, etc. In 5 punchy, effective chapters, Delton shows how a few factors allowed the 1950s to remain an era of liberal politics. First, both parties were controlled by the more center-liberal elements, which meant that conservatives opposition to an active state and racial reforms was muted. The Republicans she examines in this book, including Ike, generally believed that the government should protect labor, provide a social safety net, actively engage in large programs to better society and the economy (Interstate highways, for instance), and that taxes on the wealthy should remain high. This was certainly a New Deal paradigm, even if Ike's GOP didn't push all that far forward on social spending.

Second, Delton shows that the Cold War, contra many historians' claims, actually fueled liberal reforms, especially on race. Racism in the US became a massive liability and embarrassment in an era of global competition for the loyalty of a diverse world. The appeal of the American political/social system, and the legitimacy of its ideas, were constantly undermined by the persistence of racism. Otherwise lukewarm supporters of Civil Rights were much more willing to support gradual reforms (Ike did a surprising amount despite his shaky racial views) because of this geopolitical imperative. Moreover, the need for an expanded state to fight the Cold War reconciled many conservatives to the importance of a large state, muting their criticism of the New Deal system. One of her key points is that without the Cold War menace, reformers would have lacked the political leverage to make Congress and other leaders do much of anything on civil rights, including the 1957 Civil Rights Act and a variety of commission reports that established key principles and ideas for the big CR reforms of the 1960s.

Much of this book was about getting historians to reconsider the evidence they have already drudged up about 1950s politics. One of her most important points is that the ideological perspective from much which of this history has been written has skewed the interpretation. Most historians are coming from the left, and they have tended to tar 1950s liberals as conservatives in large part because they embraced anticommunism and ran Communists out of their organizations and parties. Delton discusses how this was both a Cold War imperative, an demand of liberal ideology, and also an experience-based response to Communists' constant attempts to take over liberal organizations and silence dissent (especially in unions). Isolating the communists was vital for keeping the New Deal alive during the Cold War. However, these liberals still believed in strong individual liberties, the importance of a large and active state, the management (to an extent) of the economy, labor rights, racial progress, etc. all that good liberal stuff. Delton argues that historians fixate on what the victory of this liberalism closed off: a more diverse, grassroots, progressive tradition a la Harry Wallace. But just because Harry Wallace or later New Left people in the 1960s saw the 1950s liberals as conservative doesn't mean that historians should either. From the perspective of conservatives like Buckley, they rally were liberal; that was the problem. Delton challenges historians to appreciate just how different and broadly liberal 1950s politics were, and she ends with a stirring challenge for both parties to revive parts of that legacy, criticizing modern liberals in particular for the turn to identity politics.

This is a very interesting book, and it can be read really quickly. The one problem in her argument is that the consensus was held together by keeping racial injustice on the back burner, and once that and other social/cultural/moral issues surged to the forefront in the 1960s, the consensus and the party system blew up. I think that argument is compatible with Delton's book, but she needs to work it in. Other than that, a compelling read.

[Sierra · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for my Post WW2 America class. Made some pretty interesting arguments, but a little too bogged down in politics for my liking.