Scan barcode
love_schwizzle's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
miguelf's review against another edition
2.0
The glaring statistic never mentioned in Great Society is that the social programs enacted during the 60’s achieved what they set out to and poverty fell from a high of 19% (’64) to a low of 11% (’74) (https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf). Shlaes never mentions this inconvenient fact because it would conflict with this work of historical revisionism that subtly attempts to make the case that government programs are bound to fail and have negative consequences. But what can one expect from an author who wrote a book of praise for Calvin Coolidge and is the chairperson for handing out the ‘Hayek Prize’ for the Manhattan Institute?
It’s subtle in that the book is for the most part made up of inside political baseball – mostly reporting on the goings-on and interactions of key players within the Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon administrations. Heck, the last 1/3 of the book has more to do with Nixon’s focus on international affairs and battle with Arthur Burns at the Fed on monetary policy and the inevitable ending of Bretton Woods while social policy largely takes a back seat. It’s also subtle because Shlaes is an old-school conservative who doesn’t outright opine on drowning the government in a bathtub (a la Grover Norquist) as one is instead peppered with dog whistles along the way (the only social scientist mentioned along with the way is Thomas Sowell: eye-roll!) As a work of pure history it’s too terrible when she sticks to facts, however it doesn’t have anything that’s not covered more in depth and better elsewhere.
It’s subtle in that the book is for the most part made up of inside political baseball – mostly reporting on the goings-on and interactions of key players within the Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon administrations. Heck, the last 1/3 of the book has more to do with Nixon’s focus on international affairs and battle with Arthur Burns at the Fed on monetary policy and the inevitable ending of Bretton Woods while social policy largely takes a back seat. It’s also subtle because Shlaes is an old-school conservative who doesn’t outright opine on drowning the government in a bathtub (a la Grover Norquist) as one is instead peppered with dog whistles along the way (the only social scientist mentioned along with the way is Thomas Sowell: eye-roll!) As a work of pure history it’s too terrible when she sticks to facts, however it doesn’t have anything that’s not covered more in depth and better elsewhere.
awolgs's review against another edition
3.0
Lots of history covered...too much, I think. A broad tour that essentially delivered "the government's aims in 'Great Society' poverty alleviation didn't work."
miguelf's review
2.0
The glaring statistic never mentioned in Great Society is that the social programs enacted during the 60’s achieved what they set out to and poverty fell from a high of 19% (’64) to a low of 11% (’74) (https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf). Shlaes never mentions this inconvenient fact because it would conflict with this work of historical revisionism that subtly attempts to make the case that government programs are bound to fail and have negative consequences. But what can one expect from an author who wrote a book of praise for Calvin Coolidge and is the chairperson for handing out the ‘Hayek Prize’ for the Manhattan Institute?
It’s subtle in that the book is for the most part made up of inside political baseball – mostly reporting on the goings-on and interactions of key players within the Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon administrations. Heck, the last 1/3 of the book has more to do with Nixon’s focus on international affairs and battle with Arthur Burns at the Fed on monetary policy and the inevitable ending of Bretton Woods while social policy largely takes a back seat. It’s also subtle because Shlaes is an old-school conservative who doesn’t outright opine on drowning the government in a bathtub (a la Grover Norquist) as one is instead peppered with dog whistles along the way (the only social scientist mentioned along with the way is Thomas Sowell: eye-roll!) As a work of pure history it’s too terrible when she sticks to facts, however it doesn’t have anything that’s not covered more in depth and better elsewhere.
It’s subtle in that the book is for the most part made up of inside political baseball – mostly reporting on the goings-on and interactions of key players within the Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon administrations. Heck, the last 1/3 of the book has more to do with Nixon’s focus on international affairs and battle with Arthur Burns at the Fed on monetary policy and the inevitable ending of Bretton Woods while social policy largely takes a back seat. It’s also subtle because Shlaes is an old-school conservative who doesn’t outright opine on drowning the government in a bathtub (a la Grover Norquist) as one is instead peppered with dog whistles along the way (the only social scientist mentioned along with the way is Thomas Sowell: eye-roll!) As a work of pure history it’s too terrible when she sticks to facts, however it doesn’t have anything that’s not covered more in depth and better elsewhere.
More...