New study pinpoints World War I as turning point in political discourse

[Recursion]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150810162046.htm

Interesting piece

No historical record may capture the nation's changing political consciousness better than the president's State of the Union address, delivered each year except one since 1790.

Now, a computer analysis of this unique archive puts the start of the modern era at America's entry into World War I, challenging histories placing it after Reconstruction, the New Deal or World War II. A team of researchers at Columbia University and University of Paris published their results this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

...

They were surprised to see 1917 jump out so clearly. As the United States joined Allied forces in the war against Germany, the researchers found a new set of terms recurring in the State of the Union address. On the topic of foreign policy, "democracy," "unity," "peace" and "terror" emerged as keywords, replacing older notions of statecraft and diplomacy. By the 1940s, a cluster of terms centered on the Navy, perhaps signifying an isolationist foreign policy, all but disappears. "Suddenly the U.S. is no longer an island," said Bearman.

The researchers also found a shift in terminology around domestic policy, as a new conversation over the size of government and its role in regulating the economy and providing equal opportunity emerges. Though the underlying focus stays the same, keywords such as the "Treasury," "amount" and "expenditures" are replaced by "tax relief," "incentives" and "welfare" as America transitions from a classical political economy to the modern welfare state.

[Hydra]

1. That would be a logical point for it

There were some very sketchy things going on at the time, things that ran like diseased threads through our historical tapestry all the way to today.

[FLPanhandle]

2. It was also when the US got involved in a war we had no business joining.

The US would have been better off being a true neutral. The Germans and French would have had a more equitable peace setttlement avoiding the economic collapse of Germany and the rise of the Nazis.

[IDemo]

3. I would put it several years prior to that

The annexation of the Philipines had all the hints of what was to become US foreign policy for the following century:

The decision by U.S. policymakers to annex the Philippines was not without domestic controversy. Americans who advocated annexation evinced a variety of motivations: desire for commercial opportunities in Asia, concern that the Filipinos were incapable of self-rule, and fear that if the United States did not take control of the islands, another power (such as Germany or Japan) might do so.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/war

Sound familiar?

[1939]

4. If we hadn't annexed the P.I. the Germans or the Japanese would have

As soon as Adm Dewey won the battle of Manilla Bay, a German Navy squadron showed up to take over. Dewey ran them off. If Dewey had been ordered to just sail away and let Aguinaldo take over, how long before the Germans or the Japanese sent occupation forces?