Via Greg Mankiw, Guess the Author:
Read the passage. Then click on the link below to learn the author’s identity.
In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories rather than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?
In answering this question, historians have often called attention to various charcteristics of American society… an ethnically-divided working class, a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy what Sombart termed “reefs of roast beef and apple pie”–prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism…. Yet in the years after World War I, this expanding and confident movement almost entirely collapsed….
From the New York socialist movement’s birth, sectarianism and dissension ate away at its core. Substantial numbers of SP members expressed deep and abiding dissatisfaction with the brand of reform socialism advocated by the party’s leadership. To these left-wingers, constructive socialism seemed to stress insignificant reforms at the expense of ultimate goals. How, these revolutionaries angrily demanded, could the SP hope to attract workers if it did not distinguish itself from the many progressive parties, if it did not proffer an enduring and radiant ideal? How, the constructivists angrily replied, could the SP hope to attract workers if it did not promise them immediate benefits, if it did not concern itself with their present burdens?…
Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever…. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.
Guessing before I look, Chuck Schumer, in college.
Having read this, passages from Michele Obama’s thesis, one has to question Princeton’s standards. Maybe they were both taught by Paul Krugman.
Meant to say, “…this and.” Did not proof it, but then it was not a dissertation. I bet the perfessers at Amherst were stricter about writing coherently.
I would give our soon-to-be new justice an A for understanding her audience.
503881 814569A lot of thanks for sharing this fine piece. Very intriguing suggestions! (as always, btw) 554558
975460 749360After study some with the websites along with your internet web site now, i truly as if your way of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site list and will probably be checking back soon. Pls appear at my internet site likewise and figure out what you believe. 436829
900359 750546Hi there! I just wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the good info youve proper here on this post. I shall be coming once more to your blog for extra soon. 25133
661971 550093Awesome material you fellas got these. I actually like the theme for the web site along with how you organized a person who. It is a marvelous job For certain i will come back and take a look at you out sometime. 117858