I've taken a great interest in 20th century American history lately (moreso than usual) and one of the things I've noticed is that decades where a Republican presidency is dominant tend to more materialistic than decades that are either Democrat dominated or split between the two.  I know we've discussed before about presidencies and pop culture.  I think it was Marty McFly who brought up that changes in presidencies can signal new pop culture shifts.  However, just from looking at history, it looks like Republican presidencies tend to bring out the materialism in America.

1920s: Republicans were president for 9 out of 10 years.  Some books I read on this lately describe this decade as being the first real decade of consumerism.  The 1910s had World War I and things weren't quite ready in the 1900s.  However, in the 1920s, the Roaring Twenties took hold and prosperity and all the consumerism that came with it occurred.  This ended with the Great Depression.

1950s: Republican president for 7 out of 10 years.  Saw the postwar boom of the American economy and the "Affluent Society".  This was the decade when American suburbia came into its own and when things such as planned obselescence began to be implemented.  The 1950s were the first decade where there was pressure to "keep up with the Joneses", buy a new car every two years, etc.

1970s: Republican presidents for 7 out of 10 years.  Aside from the Disco era (which took place under Democrat Carter), the 1970s didn't seem too materialistic, especially with the gas shortages and the stagnant economy.  This decade did see the end of many of the more socially conscious 60s movements, although that may have happened regardless of who was president.

1980s: Republican presidents for 9 out of 10 years.  Known as the "Greed Decade" by some.  I think everyone heres about the decadence and materialism that the 80s are stereotyped as.

2000s: Republican president for at least 8 out of 10 years.  Saw materialism once again take center stage, constant need to have the latest piece of technology, such as the constant new ipod and cell phone models.  Pop culture also took on a more materialistic feel.  Just look at the rap music.

So, with all this info, it seems to me that Republican decades are usually decades of materialism.  Considering Republican presidencies tend to favor the rich (at least since the Reagan years), it seems like the Republicans play a role in encouraging this materialism to develop in decades where they dominate the presidency.  Would anyone here agree with me?

Also, I can't quite come up with a similar trend for Democrat-dominated decades.  Anyone got any ideas or am I just thinking way too hard about this?

Good post. I forget if I originally said that (pop culture shifts with presidencies), but I agree with it. ;)

Yeah, I love studying the 20th century myself, especially as I've gotten older I've developed more interest in the first half too.

To go along with the points you already made, I think you could say Democratic decades tended to be laid back. Like they didn't have an obsession with everything being updated and "ultra modernized", especially with technology. Like the '90s certainly had its own unique fashion and trends, but the basic lifestyle and the way things looked still wasn't too different from ten years earlier, just with some modifications. I remember the layout of malls and buildings was still '80slike, or going to arcades and having a tape Walkman wasn't at all unusual.

The Depression and even World War II didn't seem that much advanced or different from the 1920s either (although with the rough times going on and more money going into war, etc. that was understandable). Like you said, some of that probably would've happened no matter what, but the outcome likely would be slightly different with another president.

Materialism has been the way since the end of WWII.  Even the hippies succombed to it.  This trancends partisan politics.  There's also materialism as a values system and materialism as an accomplished end.  The Ayn Rand business exec might look at his McMansion and his Lincoln Navigator and say, "This is what I wanted because I am materialistic," however, the more insidious form of materialism pretends not to be such.  The Andrew Weil readers might emphasize the goodness for children of fresh air and wholesome surroundigs as a justificantion for buying a posh country green-built villa without ever addressing a "class" issue. 

Since the '70s, I have only seen materialism rise.

This trancends partisan politics.  There's also materialism as a values system and materialism as an accomplished end.  The Ayn Rand business exec might look at his McMansion and his Lincoln Navigator and say, "This is what I wanted because I am materialistic," however, the more insidious form of materialism pretends not to be such.  The Andrew Weil readers might emphasize the goodness for children of fresh air and wholesome surroundigs as a justificantion for buying a posh country green-built villa without ever addressing a "class" issue. 


Karma for that.  Speaking as the "Yeah, I'm materialistic, and so long as I didn't obtain it by force or fraud, what of it?" guy, I think you grok Rand better than most Randroids.


"It's so easy to run to others. It's so hard to stand on one's own record. You can fake virtue for an audience. You can't fake it in your own eyes. Your ego is the strictest judge. They run from it. They spend their lives running. It's easier to donate a few thousand to charity and think oneself noble than to base self-respect on personal standards of personal achievement. It's simple to seek substitutes for competence--such easy substitutes: love, charm, kindness, charity. But there is no substitute for competence.

"That, precisely, is the deadliness of second-handers. They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They're concerned only with people. They don't ask: 'Is this true?' They ask: 'Is this what others think is true?' Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egotists. You don't think through another's brain and you don't work through another's hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation--anchored to nothing. That's the emptiness I couldn't understand in people. That's what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It's everywhere and nowhere and you can't reason with him. He's not open to reason. You can't speak to him--he can't hear. You're tried by an empty bench. A blind mass running amuck, to crush you without sense or purpose. (( ... )) The second-hander."

  - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead


So she needed an editor, but she had a point. 

In modern political discourse, if we magically invented an energy source that was truly free of side effects, the environmentalists would be out of a job.  If we ended racism, Jesse Jackson would be out of a job.  If everyone stopped drinkin', doin' drugs, and watchin' porn, the fundamentalists would be out of a job.  And deep down inside (and this is touched upon by Rand's Fountainhead at typical Randian length than I care to cut and paste), nobody hates the poor as much as a professional social worker.  If poverty were ever eliminated, they'd have nobody to care for. 

A lot of what passes for "help" these days is nothing more than Munchausen by proxy, with the State as Mother, and its Subjects (and they are definitely viewed as Subjects, not Citizens) as her Children.  The elephants will protect you from the boogeymen in your airports and the boobiewomen trying to seduce you through your TV.  The donkeys will protect you from the boogeymen who write your violent video games and the boobiewomen who are oppressed by the patriarchical people who put boobies on TV.  It's bipartisan, it crosses every political issue, and it's still abuse.

Karma for that.  Speaking as the "Yeah, I'm materialistic, and so long as I didn't obtain it by force or fraud, what of it?" guy, I think you grok Rand better than most Randroids.

So she needed an editor, but she had a point. 

In modern political discourse, if we magically invented an energy source that was truly free of side effects, the environmentalists would be out of a job.  If we ended racism, Jesse Jackson would be out of a job.  If everyone stopped drinkin', doin' drugs, and watchin' porn, the fundamentalists would be out of a job.  And deep down inside (and this is touched upon by Rand's Fountainhead at typical Randian length than I care to cut and paste), nobody hates the poor as much as a professional social worker.  If poverty were ever eliminated, they'd have nobody to care for. 

A lot of what passes for "help" these days is nothing more than Munchausen by proxy, with the State as Mother, and its Subjects (and they are definitely viewed as Subjects, not Citizens) as her Children.  The elephants will protect you from the boogeymen in your airports and the boobiewomen trying to seduce you through your TV.  The donkeys will protect you from the boogeymen who write your violent video games and the boobiewomen who are oppressed by the patriarchical people who put boobies on TV.  It's bipartisan, it crosses every political issue, and it's still abuse.

People didn't believe me when I said Obama would sell is soul.  Now I think it is becoming evident.  If Obama wasn't on board with the military-inudstrial complex, he wouldn't be let anywhere near the White House. 

I blame my ancestors, the Puritans.  They did believe in limited government and volunteerism above government bureacracy...but they also thought your private behavior (especially your religion) was the state's business too.    This Puritan schism may be one ancestor of the hypocrisy of American politics.  The old double standard and the one-ball vasectomy. 
::)

I'll tell you, if it were not for the Canadian welfare state, we in New England would be having a terrible illegal immigration problem from the Maritime provinces like they do with Mexicans in the Southwest. 

2000s: Republican president for at least 8 out of 10 years.  Saw materialism once again take center stage, constant need to have the latest piece of technology, such as the constant new ipod and cell phone models.  Pop culture also took on a more materialistic feel.  Just look at the rap music.

Also, I can't quite come up with a similar trend for Democrat-dominated decades.  Anyone got any ideas or am I just thinking way too hard about this?
I was thinking about this the other day the 00's excess probably started under president Clinton in the late 90's with Britney Spears and Puff Daddy popularity. I don;t think 2001-2002 was as materialistic as the late 90's or 2003-early 2006 during the 50 Cent to DL4 era of rap music.

It's an interesting idea, but it's post-1980 centric. The same can't be said for say the 1960s and 1970s, which were a liberal and progressive time despite the Republican presidents.

The parties weren't as opposite then, the Republican not quite as evil as they are now.