[Mb-civic] America by the Numbers - Robert J. Samuelson - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

America by the Numbers

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; A17

Let us now praise the newest edition of "Historical Statistics of the 
United States," whose five volumes and 1,781 tables are about to hit 
libraries and universities all over the country. We study history for 
many reasons: (1) it's interesting; (2) it helps explain who we are and 
how we got this way; and (3) with luck, we may learn from the past. But 
the discovery of history is always an exhausting project -- part 
adventure, part ordeal -- because the past is shrouded in its own 
secrets of time, place, belief, motivation and personality. The new 
edition of "Historical Statistics," the first since 1975 and 11 years in 
gestation, makes the search a bit easier.

You may regard numbers as drab, but they can fascinate by illuminating 
the past in two ways. One is to confirm, qualify or contradict things we 
think we "know." For example, we all "know" that the Civil War was 
hugely murderous. But do we grasp how murderous? In 1860 the United 
States had 31.5 million people. In the next five years 364,511 Union 
soldiers and sailors died; Confederate deaths totaled at least 159,821. 
Now skip to World War II. By 1940 the population was 132.6 million; U.S. 
war deaths were 405,399. As a share of population, the Civil War's toll 
was more than five times worse.

The other way that numbers inform the past is to raise questions about 
it. We stumble across an intriguing statistic and ask: Why was that? 
Since World War II no president has outdone Dwight Eisenhower in 
successfully vetoing congressional legislation. He vetoed 181 bills and 
was overridden only twice. By contrast, Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 and was 
overridden nine times; Bill Clinton's numbers were 36 and two. What 
explains Eisenhower's record? (The champion was Franklin Roosevelt, with 
635 vetoes, nine overridden. The current president hasn't vetoed any 
bill; if he never does, he'll be the first president with such a record 
since James Garfield in 1881.) If you peruse "Historical Statistics," 
you'll encounter many revealing numbers:

· During the past century, religion has become more organized in the 
sense that more people have joined a formal church. In 1890 only about 
34 percent of Americans belonged; by 1989 that share was 60 percent, 
down slightly from its peak of 64 percent in 1970. This most recent 
decline may reflect the rise of small storefront congregations, which 
are missed by membership surveys.

· By some measures, Americans move from place to place as much as ever 
-- perhaps even a bit more. In 1870 about three-quarters of states' 
populations were born in that state; by 1990 the comparable share was 
two-thirds. One explanation is that longer-living Americans have more 
chances to move (it doesn't appear that we move more frequently during 
any one decade). Another is that more people move when they retire.

· Despite massive suburbanization since World War II, the United States 
remains a country of vast open spaces -- farms, forests, pastures and 
range. From 1945 to 1997, the amount of "urban land" (defined as places 
with at least 2,500 people) quadrupled to 65.5 million acres; still, 
that was less than 3 percent of the total of 2.26 billion acres. 
Cropland (455 million acres) and forests (642 million acres) had 
increased slightly since 1945. Reforestation has offset much woodland 
lost to subdivisions.

Perhaps you doubt you'll peruse "Historical Statistics," especially at a 
price of $825 from Cambridge University Press. Well, for numbers buffs, 
there's another choice. This "Historical Statistics" also comes in an 
online version that presumably will be purchased by most universities, 
colleges and many libraries and then made available to students and 
others. Almost anyone -- not just academics -- should be able to tap 
this treasure of figures.

We need to remember that these numbers depict subjects that are more 
than idle intellectual curiosities. They define our national character 
and condition. Consider voter turnout. It's said that we've become lazy 
citizens, and the figures seem to agree. In the 2000 election, turnout 
was 49 percent of eligible voters. In the late 1800s, the figures 
fluctuated between 70 percent and 80 percent. But are the figures 
reliable? Do they distort in favor of the past? We don't know. The new 
"Historical Statistics" includes essays about the shortcomings of the 
historical numbers. On voter turnout, uncertainties abound.

We always need to know more. History is an endless blending of fact and 
imagination. Since the last "Historical Statistics," the data on 
America's past (from obscure sources) have grown enormously. When the 
Census Bureau couldn't find the funds for a new edition, a group of 
academics -- guided by the husband-wife team of Richard Sutch and Susan 
Carter from the University of California at Riverside -- decided to fill 
the gap. The resulting compilation enlarges our rearview mirror and, 
perhaps, hints at where we're headed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700894.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060118/5b5c6822/attachment.htm