“The members of this group will sit around a table together and try to acquaint themselves with their own community and its problems. They will be persons of different beliefs, different occupations, different training, but they will study the common problems of their community and try to act cooperatively towards their solution. So long as people will talk together as neighbors in their communities … the democratic way of life will endure.”
Behold “The Montana Study,” a unique undertaking during a difficult time of economic strain, social tension, systematic discrimination, and deepening polarization.
Perfect timing given all that ails this state and nation, right?
It would be, except the unprecedented study, an initiative of Montana’s university system, was launched in 1945 in the challenging days of post-World War II America.
Anywhere between 12 and 35 everyday Montanans from across the state discussed during 10 weekly meetings the regional, economic, social and cultural problems underlying life in Montana’s communities.
Better yet, I happened upon a pristine copy of the study group’s final appraisal—bound and titled “Life in Montana”—112 like-new pages somebody tucked away for eighty years.
It explains of the study’s participants: “More than half of us were born in Montana. About thirty percent of the older ones among us (those beyond 50) came to America from some other country. Some of us may have a slight Swedish or German accent. About 4 percent of us are Indians [who] have been in America thousands of years. One out of five of us belongs to some church.”
Ordinary Montanans, in other words, at a time when 30 percent finished high school, 5 percent graduated college, 25 percent owned a vehicle, 80 percent lived in rural houses that lacked electricity, 1 in 9 had a telephone, 60 percent were Democrats, 40 percent were Republicans, and three-fourths resided in communities with fewer than 200 people.
Flathead County, not surprisingly, bore little resemblance to its evolving urban/rural residential landscape today. The three population centers—Kalispell, Columbia Falls and Whitefish—were all designated “small” compared to Montana’s six bustling cities (10,000-plus population): Helena, Butte, Billings, Great Falls, Anaconda, and Missoula.
“Being rural is in some ways a great advantage to the people of Montana,” opined the study group, perceiving a “direct relationship between the quality of living and the size and type of the community.
“For example, there is less crime, less delinquency, less anti-social behavior in the small community than in the city. Family life shows a greater stability, there is a more marked preference for children, and general living conditions are more favorable for a normal social and physical growth of the child.”
You can say that again.
What the well-intentioned panel didn’t accurately predict—and even fretted over—was just how popular and populous Montana would eventually become.
“The future of Montana, so far as we are concerned, depends upon the people in it,” the group assessed. “It refers to the question whether enough people will be born in the state or enough migrate to it to maintain its existence.
“Another aspect is the economic,” they continued, “of making a living and having enough to live on in Montana.” And “whether life in Montana is interesting enough, valuable and full enough, to justify people staying here.
“Biologically the future of Montana is not very promising,” the citizens concluded. “With about 1.5 children on the average per family, the reproductive rate is not high enough to increase the population or even to hold its own over the migration from the state.”
Kevin Costner, of course, wouldn’t be born for another ten years, not that the study group could conceive a Hollywood heartthrob helping to attract one-million-plus visitors to the state in 2021 alone—a good many of them staying put.
As it was, the population of Montana more than doubled from its 1945 total of 477,000 to over 1.1 million today (similarly, Flathead County at close of World War II had 25,000 residents compared to 120,000 today).
As earnestly as the 1945 study group approached its assignment they acknowledged at their final meeting of having had “a good time. We have been doing this, we hope, for the fun of it.”
I just wish they’d given themselves more credit.
For starters, they succeeded in putting aside their differences, which would be no small task in today’s divided environment. And besides significant conclusions they offered valuable recommendations towards preserving Montana’s democratic way of life.
It would behoove Montanans today to replicate those efforts. We could begin by agreeing to disagree.
Before wrapping up their 10th and final meeting, the group wondered out loud if anyone would even be interested in reading about their study and findings.
“At this last meeting it might be well to ask if the group would like the group secretary to assemble the notes of the ten meetings, make copies, and send them to the members of the group. If this is done, it would be appreciated if a copy were also sent to The Montana Study, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.”
How timely one of those copies surfaced today.
John McCaslin is a longtime journalist and author who lives in Bigfork.