"Henry Cabot Lodge’s article “Does the Republic party have a future?” proved to be oddly poignant, given the present state of affairs."

That's the kind of 'journalistic content' that's brought journalism down. The article has many fine points, but that one sours the tone for some readers (while probably bringing delight to other readers, but they are being short-sighted.) It's not necessary content. It doesn't add to the net worth of the article. It just shows that the author of the piece has some political biases, something the reader should not know (in proper journalism.)

Journalism is best when it presents a story clearly, without opinions from the writer. I fear it's quickly becoming a lost art.

> Journalism is best when it presents a story clearly, without opinions from the writer. I fear it's quickly becoming a lost art.

The entire article is the author’s opinions on the magazine he was reading from 1949, and how it compares to the issues of today. So you inserting this idea that it should be without opinions, and then criticizing it for having them, is really way off the mark. You should sit down and think about why you do that.

Unless its an essay, I which case it's supposed to argue to a conclusion. And would be perfectly correct in doing so.

What are you referring to as "journalistic content"?

I hardly think the site bunkhistory.org is bringing journalism down. Is it even a journalistic site? It appears to be more history related than journalism.

So I presume you are talking about the Saturday Evening Post, and specifically content like Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.'s essay. (note that this is the grandson of the better known Henry Cabot Lodge).

In this essay, Lodge - a moderate Republican - argues that the Republican Party has a chance to clean house and become more liberal.

More specifically, in text not quoted here, he thought his congressional peers "resembled ... nothing so much as the bloc of southern Jim Crow Democrats determined to repeal the twentieth century." See https://books.google.com/books?id=gaUwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT172&lpg=... for more context.

What I didn't like about the bunkhistory.org essay was the lack of context, especially surprising as it was written by an historian.

The thing to know is that the Republican and Democratic parties then were not like the ones now. The Republicans freed the slaves, and protected black rights during reconstruction. The Democrats supported labor rights ... and Jim Crow. These were tied together, as it protected white power in the labor movement.

Lodge looked at the success of socialists in the previous few decades - remember that the Socialists were very popular before WWI, eg, the second largest party in Texas, which is surprising for those who think Texas has also been full of religious conservatives. He looked at the success and support of "socialist" policies during the Great Depression. He forecast that that would be the way of the near future.

The Republican Party did not follow Lodge's suggestion. Quite the opposite. As a reaction to the dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s, the Republican strategy was to appeal to racists, with the Southern Strategy. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy , it "successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right."

Lodge's essay is completely about opinion. Since you didn't understand the role of the Saturday Evening Post, who Lodge was, or (I believe) the evolution of the US political parties, it's no wonder you drew the interpretation you did.