I want you to uh... Take a second and imagine
something for me. OK. Imagine you have just lived
through a catastrophic, world -altering pandemic.
Just devastating. Right. And at the exact same
time, you've been weathering the fallout of a
massive, devastating global war. Your entire
way of life, the basic rhythm of your day -to
-day existence has been completely turned upside
down. Everything you know is just gone. Exactly.
And then amidst all that sheer exhaustion and
honestly profound uncertainty, asked to step
into a voting booth and choose what comes next
for your country. Which is a huge ask. It really
is. What do you even vote for? When the dust
settles, what do you actually want? Yeah. Welcome
to the Deep Dive. Today, we are exploring a concept
that perfectly captures that exact feeling. We're
talking about Warren G. Harding's 1920 presidential
campaign slogan, return to normalcy. It's a classic.
It is. And we are working from a fantastic source
text today, a detailed, comprehensive Wikipedia
article that breaks down the history, the linguistics,
and the lasting political impact of this incredibly
potent phrase. It's a great read. Our mission
for this deep dive is to explore how a single,
seemingly made -up word defined an entire post
-crisis era sparked a surprisingly fierce national
grammar debate and create a political blueprint
that, well, Campaigns are still actively using
today. Yeah, it is great to be here with you
to dig into this as you can see I've I've set
my backdrop today to a 1920s historical archive.
Oh, I see Yeah, think dusty bookshelves brass
lamps CB atone newspapers. The history we are
exploring today is just so rich It is incredibly
fascinating to observe how the psychological
need for familiarity that craving Yes that desperate
craving for comfort after a massive unprecedented
crisis can come completely and totally steer
the course of an entire nation. We are looking
at something that goes far beyond standard political
theory here. It taps into something deeply fundamentally
human. Okay, let's unpack this. To really understand
the immense power of this phrase, we have to
look closely at the state of the world in 1920.
The context is everything. The historical context
here is absolutely everything. The United States
and the world at large had just been dragged
through an absolute nightmare. First you had
World War I, which wasn't just a military conflict.
It fundamentally shattered the global order.
It introduced mechanized slaughter, trench warfare.
Mustard gas. Right, and a scale of devastation
that people previously thought was just impossible.
And if that wasn't enough, you had the Spanish
flu pandemic sweeping the globe. It was terrifying.
Bringing sickness and death right to people's
front doors. It was a silent terror that closed
schools. Shuttered businesses. And atomized society.
Yeah. Life had been completely upended. Yeah.
And then on May 14th, 1920, Warren G. Harding
gives a speech and drops a line that would change
the trajectory of the decade. He proclaimed that
America needed not nostrums, but normalcy. Nostrums?
Yeah, a nostrum in that context, meaning a fake
medicine or a quick untested fix. And he didn't
just say it once either. Two months later, during
a homecoming speech, he doubled down, reaffirming
his endorsement of normal times and a return
to normalcy. What's fascinating here is the underlying
why of that specific strategy. Harding explicitly
recognized that the perspective of humanity had
been fundamentally altered by these dual traumas.
It wasn't the same world. Not at all. His solution
was just as much psychological as it was political.
If you look at the rhetoric of the era, he wasn't
offering a grand utopian vision of the future.
No shining city on a hill. Exactly. He was offering
a very specific, highly targeted kind of relief.
He argued that the way forward was actually to
look backward, to seek normalcy, by restoring
life to exactly how it was before the war. Just
hit rewind. Pretty much. He was speaking directly
to a traumatized electorate and saying, essentially,
don't you just want things to be quiet again?
But wait, I have to push back on that a little
bit. Sure. Was normalcy actually a real actionable
policy or was it just a brilliant empty marketing
slogan? That is a fair question. Because saying
you want things to be quiet doesn't exactly tell
me how you are going to govern a rapidly industrializing
nation. So what does this all mean when the rubber
meets the road? That is the crucial question.
And the historical record shows it was absolutely
a concrete platform. Harding's conception of
normalcy translated into three main policy pillars.
Deregulation, a specific brand of civic engagement,
and strict isolationism. Okay, so there was substance
there. Oh, absolutely. To fully grasp the weight
of that platform, you have to look at what Harding
was actively... rejecting. He was pushing back
hard against the prevailing political winds of
his predecessors. Woodrow Wilson had just exhausted
the nation by trying to build the League of Nations
and trying to entangle the U .S. in incredibly
complex European diplomacy. Harding looked at
that global idealism and said, no more. We're
locking the front door and tending to our own
house. So it was a total rejection of the global
stage. Exactly. And it was also a rejection of
domestic exhaustion. What do you mean? Well,
before Wilson, you had the energetic domestic
activism of Theodore Roosevelt. You know, the
progressive trust busting, the constant executive
action. The public had essentially lived through
two decades of high octane, activist government.
Harding favored a return to the earlier, much
more hands -off laissez -faire policy of the
United States. He wanted to shrink the government's
footprint at home and just let business run itself.
Give everyone a break. Exactly. I want you, the
listener. to really think about the mechanics
of that appeal for a moment. Think about your
own life today. Yeah, we can all relate to this.
When you are feeling completely overwhelmed by
information overload, or when the global news
cycle just feels entirely chaotic and unending,
the appeal of just going back to basics, of shutting
the door and returning to a simpler time, is
a profoundly powerful draw. It really is. Harding
weaponized that exact human impulse. He turned
the desire to tune out into a legitimate political
philosophy. Here's where it gets really interesting,
though. You would think a comforting, almost
sleepy message like that would be universally
embraced by an exhausted public. You'd think
so. But it actually sparked a massive controversy.
And the controversy wasn't even about the deregulation
or the isolationism. It was about the grammar.
The grammar debate is my favorite part of this
whole thing. His critics practically laughed
him out of the room. They accused him of just
fumbling the English language and making up a
clumsy neologism on the spot. A total fake word.
Right. They argue that he was trying to say normality
and just didn't know any better. They tried to
paint him as this uneducated provincial guy from
Ohio who couldn't even speak properly. And that
is where the linguistic history becomes so critical
because that elitist backlash actually backfired
spectacularly. We totally did. Think about the
optics of this. You have a bunch of highly educated,
Peace Coast intellectuals, essentially grammar
policing a candidate from Ohio. An ultimate unforced
error. Truly. By attacking his vocabulary, his
detractors inadvertently made Harding look like
a regular, relatable person to the average voter.
It framed him as an outsider being bullied by
the establishment. Which is a populist dynamic
we still see playing out constantly today. All
the time. That is such a sharp insight. The grammar
police made him the man of the people. And the
best part is, Harding didn't even back down.
No. He was a former newspaper editor, so he actually
knew his way around words. He fired right back
at his critics, stating publicly that the word
normalcy was in his dictionary, but the word
normality wasn't. And if we look at the historical
evidence, Harding was actually right. Really?
Yes. The linguistic historians point out that
there is clear, contemporaneous documentation
proving normalcy had been listed in dictionaries
as far back as 1857. So it wasn't made up at
all? Not at all. It was an accepted variant.
But here is the absolute best detail from the
research. You ready for this? Hit me. Before
Harding used it in his campaign, normalcy was
essentially an obscure math term. Wait, math?
Like algebra? Geometry. You are kidding. No.
It was used in geometry to describe the state
of being at right angles. Right angles, haha.
That is amazing. I know, I get way too excited
about this stuff. He took this incredibly niche,
completely forgotten mathematical word and entirely
hijacked it, turning into the defining cultural
and political buzzword of the 1920s. I honestly
love that detail. A geometry term becoming the
linguistic vehicle for a nation's postwar trauma.
It is such a brilliant piece of historical trivia.
It really is. But what I find so striking about
this whole campaign is the PR execution, because
he didn't just give speeches about a return to
a quiet life, he gave the public a visual representation
of it. Yes, Steve Optics. And he did it by utilizing
a PR strategy that is so highly memorable and
honestly so modern. When you look at the newspaper
archives from the campaign, Harding is constantly
photographed with his dog, Laddy Boy. Laddy Boy.
Yeah. It's a wonderful detail. But it's important
to understand the calculated mechanics behind
it. It wasn't just a cute photo op. Well, it
was cute. But featuring Laddy Boy... who was
an Airedale Terrier, by the way, in the newspapers,
wasn't just about showing off a pet to get some
easy press. It was specifically designed to instill
a cozy domestic image that directly reinforced
his broader vision of normalcy. Oh, wow. Think
about the stark visual contrast the public was
experiencing. Voters had spent years reading
grim newspaper headlines accompanied by photographs
of trench warfare, gas masks and massive infirmaries
filled with flu patients. Just heavy, heavy imagery.
Exactly. And now, Harding has provided the press
with headlines featuring a very good boy playing
fetch on the lawn. It's brilliant. It was an
intentional visual manifestation of peace. quiet
and domestic tranquility. It told the voter the
crises are over. We are back to worrying about
normal everyday things. And the craziest part
of all of this is how flawlessly that entire
package worked. The math term, the rejection
of globalism, the dog on the lawn, it all resonated
deeply. Harding didn't just win the 1920 presidential
election. He secured a massive mandate. The historical
record highlights that he won with a staggering
60 .4 percent of the popular vote, though some
historic text, note it at 60 .3%. A rounding
error, really? Right. Regardless of the decimal,
that is an absolute undeniable blowout. The public
overwhelmingly bought what he was selling. They
didn't want the complexities of the League of
Nations. They wanted the dog. They wanted the
quiet. They wanted the normalcy. If we connect
this to the bigger picture, we see that this
concept, this specific rhetorical tool, absolutely
did not die in 1920. Not even close. The appeal
of a return to normalcy becomes a recurring,
cyclical theme in American history whenever there's
a period of massive upheaval. The research cites
Chalmers M. Roberts, a prominent journalist for
the Washington Post, who made some brilliant
historical connections regarding this exact phenomenon.
What did he find? Roberts compared the 1920 desire
for a return to normalcy directly to the national
mood during the 1946 midterms. And if you look
at 1946, it makes perfect sense. The country
had just emerged from the incredible trauma and
total mobilization of World War II. They were
exhausted all over again. Right. The exact same
psychological craving for a baseline. Precisely.
Roberts also compared it to the 1992 presidential
election, which came right after the collapse
of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
Wow. So the pattern holds. It does. In every
single one of these instances, you have a population
that has been subjected to a sustained period
of high -spakes abnormal geopolitical tension.
They are tired of holding their breath, and they
invariably look for a leader who promises that
it is safe to exhale, to turn their attention
back inward to domestic life. It's such a pervasive,
powerful idea that it even bleeds into our entertainment
and how we fictionalize history. Oh, yeah. Just
as a quick pop culture note from the articles,
the acclaimed television show Boardwalk Empire
actually highlights this exact moment in history.
Fantastic show. Yeah. The 12th episode of the
series takes place entirely during this 1920
election, and the episode is literally titled,
A Return to Normalcy. It shows just how defining
that phrase was for the era. It became the cultural
shorthand for the 1920s. It absolutely did. But
it is fascinating to see how this 1920s playbook
survived well into the modern era. When you look
at the historical record, campaigns still tap
into this exact sentiment today. For instance,
historians note that Joe Biden's 2020 campaign
relied on a very similar rhetorical promise.
Yes, the source text draws a very clear line
there. Exactly. And we should be incredibly clear
here. We are just looking at how the source text
connects these historical dots. We aren't taking
any sides or endorsing any political viewpoints
left or right. Of course, just strictly analyzing
the history. Right. Specifically, the articles
point out that Biden's campaign was explicitly
associated with a return to normalcy regarding
his promises to end the divisiveness. of the
preceding years, as well as his central focus
on tackling the COVID -19 pandemic and restoring
a baseline of functionality. That's a perfect
example of the cyclical nature of this rhetoric.
Furthermore, the analysis connects Harding's
original concept to other major pervasive modern
phrases. Like what? Well, the idea of establishing
a new normal. which is a term we have all heard
ad nauseum in recent years, is fundamentally
concerned with trying to emerge from abnormal
periods, just like the electorate was trying
to do in 1920. Oh, that makes sense. The historical
analysis also links the underlying sentiment
of normalcy directly to the slogan, make America
great again. Another massive era defining phrase.
Exactly. And again, when you strip away the specific
partisan politics of these modern examples, you
find that all of these concepts share the exact
same rhetorical DNA. The same playbook. Yes.
They all acknowledge a current period of abnormality,
crisis or decline, and they all promise the voter
a restoration of a better, more familiar and
more comfortable time. It really is incredible
how cyclical it all is. Tracing the lineage back,
you realize that so much of modern political
messaging is just echoing a century old playbook.
We're just repeating the cycles. So. To synthesize
our journey today, we started by looking at a
world utterly traumatized by unprecedented global
war and a devastating invisible pandemic. We
saw how a politician, Warren G. Harding, correctly
read the room and capitalized on that sheer public
exhaustion. You saw the fatigue. He did. He took
an obscure, forgotten geometry term, normalcy,
and elevated it into a defining political philosophy
built on deregulation and isolationism. He successfully
navigated a national grammar debate that actually
made him look more relatable to the common voter.
The ultimate backfire for his critics. Seriously.
He sold his vision to the masses with carefully
orchestrated pictures of his dog, Laddie Boy,
and he rode that profound human craving for comfort
all the way to a historic 60 -plus percent landslide
victory. And that is exactly why digging into
history like this is so crucial for you. Yes.
Understanding the story of 1920 helps you see
right through the rhetoric of modern crises.
news today and hear politicians promising a return
to the good old days or pledging to restore things
to exactly how they used to be, you now know
the exact playbook they are using. You can see
the strings being pulled. You know it was written
over a hundred years ago and you understand the
powerful deeply ingrained psychological strings
it is attempting to pull. It completely changes
how you listen to a stump speech. You stop hearing
just the words and start seeing the psychological
architecture underneath them. This raises an
important question, though, and I want to leave
you with a final lingering thought to mull over
long after we wrap up today. All right. We have
established that the promise of normalcy is incredibly
powerful. It wins landslide elections. Clearly.
But. If normalcy is just a subjective memory
of a time before a crisis, is returning to it
actually possible? Oh, wow. Or do profound crises
like global wars and pandemics permanently alter
us, meaning the normal we are trying so desperately
to return to is just a fiction we invented to
comfort ourselves? Oh, that is a heavy and genuinely
fascinating thought to end on. The idea that
normalcy is just a fictional comfort we build
to get us through the hard times. I'm going to
think about it. Definitely. Thank you so much
for joining us on this deep dive. We absolutely
love unpacking these complex historical threads
with you and seeing how they connect to the world
we live in today. Until next time, stay curious.