Scan barcode
A review by davidbythebay
The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes
1.0
So I read the Introduction and was intrigued at the idea of this book. I was not sold on the argument, but that’s what the book is supposed to do - sell me on the argument and convince me of the author’s positions’ veracity. At least the general thesis that is laid out seemed plausible and possibly a new interpretation of the New Deal Era.
I read the first three chapters and despised the writing style so much. I have read nonfiction books involving history and economics before but this was nothing like any I read before. I am all fine with having a more narrative approach with heroes and villains of history, but not a string of hero worshiping. That is too much for me. Especially when it’s about how this man was a hero and that woman was too with no real reason for why they are a hero of history. It is more of a parade of pomp than circumstance. There is little substance here besides tidbits.
It was on page 43 that I discovered truly what this author’s angle is. The author discusses how the Gilded Age led even the poor man to find prosperity through their individual efforts, and how immigrants had as their symbol of independence the Bank of United States. Then the author writes “Coolidge of the party of Lincoln was not content with this [high Black unemployment in the 1930 census].” And then how Coolidge wanted to end the lynchings in the South “but [he] was not clear whether Congress had the authority to reach over the states....”
To review: we have prosperity through your own means, the almighty dollar and bank, the Party of Lincoln, and States’ Rights. These are classic conservative talking points. Now I have read and enjoyed the reading of conservative philosophy - I don’t usually agree with it but I do enjoy the exercise of reading and countering the arguments. But this book before this and in light of it really reads more of a propaganda piece to expose the horrors of liberalism. She even seems to equate Soviet Russia with FDR and liberalism.
So I read the first three chapters in full, then skimmed the rest of the book for the main points. And it was as it appeared. There was little substance to the argument. What’s worse is the writing was poor. The chapters bounced around from topic to topic and back again in a hodgepodge of paragraphs. A finer edit was definitely necessary to get rid of fluff and get to the bones of the argument. The argument is bare. As such, it falls apart.
I was so hoping for an interesting look at the New Deal through new eyes and a different perspective. Instead I got a rehash of tired conservative talking points without proof or substance.
I read the first three chapters and despised the writing style so much. I have read nonfiction books involving history and economics before but this was nothing like any I read before. I am all fine with having a more narrative approach with heroes and villains of history, but not a string of hero worshiping. That is too much for me. Especially when it’s about how this man was a hero and that woman was too with no real reason for why they are a hero of history. It is more of a parade of pomp than circumstance. There is little substance here besides tidbits.
It was on page 43 that I discovered truly what this author’s angle is. The author discusses how the Gilded Age led even the poor man to find prosperity through their individual efforts, and how immigrants had as their symbol of independence the Bank of United States. Then the author writes “Coolidge of the party of Lincoln was not content with this [high Black unemployment in the 1930 census].” And then how Coolidge wanted to end the lynchings in the South “but [he] was not clear whether Congress had the authority to reach over the states....”
To review: we have prosperity through your own means, the almighty dollar and bank, the Party of Lincoln, and States’ Rights. These are classic conservative talking points. Now I have read and enjoyed the reading of conservative philosophy - I don’t usually agree with it but I do enjoy the exercise of reading and countering the arguments. But this book before this and in light of it really reads more of a propaganda piece to expose the horrors of liberalism. She even seems to equate Soviet Russia with FDR and liberalism.
So I read the first three chapters in full, then skimmed the rest of the book for the main points. And it was as it appeared. There was little substance to the argument. What’s worse is the writing was poor. The chapters bounced around from topic to topic and back again in a hodgepodge of paragraphs. A finer edit was definitely necessary to get rid of fluff and get to the bones of the argument. The argument is bare. As such, it falls apart.
I was so hoping for an interesting look at the New Deal through new eyes and a different perspective. Instead I got a rehash of tired conservative talking points without proof or substance.