Alan Ehrenhalt's The Lost City: The Forgotten Virtues of Community in America challenges many of the commonly held assumptions and culturally held beliefs about progress and how the idea of progress has changed throughout the course of this American Century for Americans. In many ways, the book can be seen as an elegy to the 1950s, not an era that is often elegized. It seems that Ehrenhalt's major reason to write the book was in fact to argue that this decade was not nearly as bad as we like to think it was - not in terms of insularity, pressure to conform, excessive consumerization of the economy, or the suppression of the rights of women, gays and racial and religious minorities. But he also at times seems to argue that even if it were not the ideal decade in many ways, than the virtues that it did contain were still well worth praising (and worth revitalizing) because they offered to Americans something so precious (and something that is in such short supply these days) that it would have been worth giving up something important in exchange.
One of Ehrenhalt's most valid points is hardly original to him, but he presents it convincingly and within a context in which it is not often presented. There is no free lunch, and a sense of community, like other kinds of personal (emotional) richnesses must be paid for somehow, although (he argues) not in the kinds of drastic ways that we now think of the 1950s as having required.
The book examines the 1950s as the time before Baby Boomers began to attack the institutions of education, government, religious belief - the visible sociological...
Baby Boomers, Ehrenhalt correctly if just a touch simplistically writes, demanded more personal autonomy and a greater sense of individuality, and in the process of acquiring these traits they destroyed the institutions that were holding American communities together: churches, schools, even families.
Ehrenhalt demonstrates his thesis by concentrating on several neighborhoods in Chicago in the 1950s, evoking the character of the time and place as well as that of his non-fictional "characters" with the skill of a novelist. But all of this beautiful writing cannot hide the controversial and for many unpalatable nature of his thesis, which is that people want rules, regulations, and authority figures, that we all desperately want someone out there telling us what is right and what is wrong and what will happen to us if we stray from a path of moral virtue that someone else has defined for us. He summarizes this point, which he sees a form of bargain rather than the traditional Liberal Social Contract:
We have grown fond of saying that there is no free lunch, but we forget that it applies in moral as well as economic terms. Stable relationships, civil classrooms, safe streets - the ingredients…
