Dated but Not Out of Date
Robert McElvaine sets himself the task of writing a complete history of the Depression years, and he does so from the perspective of a liberal in the time of Reagan (the first edition was published in 1984 and a new forward added in 1993.) He attempts to include both the broad scope of politics and economics, as well as insight into every-day life and especially the values of American society as a whole. In his new forward, he chides himself for not including more about the Dust Bowl, radio, and sports, so his intended scope is wide.
But what the book actually contains is mostly the Depression as viewed through the Presidency. He focuses a great deal of time and attention on the ideas and actions of Hoover (not as bad as you might think) and on Roosevelt (not an economic theorist so much as a politician and a pragmatist.)
His attempt to also include the voices of ordinary Americans is rather awkwardly stuck mostly into one chapter and based mostly on the letters these Americans wrote to President and Mrs. Roosevelt, so the focus is still very much on the Depression as seen from the White House. He also includes an interesting chapter on the moral and economic meaning of popular films of the 30s.
His analysis of "values" seems vague, general, and ultimately naive. In the 20s and 80s, the general tone was selfish. In the 30s, and to an extent throughout the post-War period, people were less selfish, less individualistic, more community-minded. It seems to me, from the perspective of someone who lived through both "selfish" decades and "selfless" decades, that people will be community-minded to the extent that they see themselves as also beneficiaries of that community. He admits that the sudden interest in "sharing" in the 1930s arose from those who expected to benefit by a more "unselfish" attitude towards wealth, not from those with power or wealth suddenly feeling generous with it. In my view, people are willing to be taxed for projects such as public schools and libraries and roads and social programs to the extent that they believe these projects will be of use to "us," but not if they see them as being of use to "them." That is going to be true no matter what happens. It is foolish to wish for selflessness as public policy. What perhaps matters most is the ability of political leaders to create a broader sense of "us."
To the extent that the book provides economic analysis of the causes of the Great Depression, it suggests, as we hear suggested today, that people became "greedy" and individualistic, and that caused trouble. But people will always be greedy. This is not a trait that waxes and wanes, bringing us good times and bad times. The ultimate economic question is: Given human nature as it is, how can an economy best be run for the common good? The 1920s, the 1980s and the past 8 years have answered that question by saying, Get government out of the way, let people make as much money as possible, don't tax it, don't regulate business, and everyone will be better off in the long run. The 1930s and the present crisis suggest otherwise, that such a course of action will concentrate wealth in too few hands and will lead to an excess of financial, rather than economic, activity, which will create a bursting bubble that will slow overall economic growth and prosperity.
Yes, this book is biased, but its bias is very obvious, and it is open about the fact that all history is biased, that no one can tell a story about the past without interpreting it in terms of the present. Reading a book written 25 years ago, we also interpret it in terms of our own present.
it happens again
it is an interesting read, u will feel as if history is repeating itself today...let's hope not...
A Good Book.....
This is a great explanation of the Great Depression, written with clarity and interest (although I wish the author had not used "very" as much as he did). It explores the differences between our two major parties. It reveals how the mistakes of the Reagan era led to today's mess. It points up the deficiencies of the W administration. I got extra copies to circulate.
looking for more history less bias
You can tell this was written in 1983 and not by a Reagan fan. I was looking for a broad history of the great depression, and while the book overall did the trick in the first quarter of the book I read more about Reagan than Hoover or any other president between FDR and Reagan. Yes we get it that the author is looking to show Reagan and his policues as the worst president of the 20th century. What is interesting that the carter years are completely skipped. no mention of the highest interest rates or the effect of his policies. When I buy a history book, I am looking for the how and the why. If I want a partisan view I will by a political book. /in parts, this was a good book but no one can walk away from this book with out knowing that the author wishes to blame Reagan for the worst times since 1932. What is funny is that when facing unflattering parts of FDR or his wife, the auther chooses to say that this is not the place to mention such things. Was very disappointed in this book and will not be keeping it.
New Deal as Seen from the Reagan Era
This book was written in 1983, in the early years of Ronald Reagan's presidency. It's very interesting to see how angry the Reagan fans are at reading it. Biased! they cry, and so it is... forthrightly biased against Reagan, but intelligently skeptical toward the alleged success of Keynsian solutions to the Depression. Critics of FDR today seem widely to assume that the New Deal was strictly a Keynsian operation; McElvaine takes pains to distinguish FDR's policies from Keynesian thinking. Roosevelt, says McElvaine, was never a thorough Keynsian.
Historiography is a leapfrog occupation; the history written in 1983 becomes the source material of 2007. Much better statistical analysis of data from the 1930s is now possible because of computers. Letters and hidden files from the 1930s are now available. Thus "we" think ourselves better positioned to know what was really happening than poor Robert McElvaine, who wrote his book without our telescopic hindsight. The most interesting material in this still widely read textbook, for me anyway, is found in the last chapter, titled Perspective. McElvaine was highly alarmed at the economic policies he foresaw Reagan instituting. Here's what he wrote:
Keynsianism had offered a temporary way out of the Depression, but by itself it could provide no permanent solution. The fundamental problem in the economy remained maldistribution of income. ...there were some significant changes in income distribution in the United States between 1929 and 1981. There were important reductions in the shares going to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent. Most of these declines...took place during the Great Depression. ...the redistribution from the top fifth went mostly to the second and third fifths; to the middle class. ...Although the poorest Americans have not benefited greatly, it is reasonable to conclude that the redistribution from the richest to the middle-income brackets helped sustain purchasing power in the postwar years of relative prosperity. Ronald Reagan's 1981 imitation of Andrew Mellon's tax cuts favoring the rich reversed this beneficial trend, and did so quite intentionally.
Yes, one can see why the Reaganites would hate this book! Later, McElvaine declares that the real solution to the Depression that emerged from the New Deal and wartime spending was to return to the old-time American faith in more or less constant expansion. Two factors, he argues, have prevented a major depression in the postwar years: the Keysian 'skills' the government had learned to apply to recession and inflation, and the ability of the many programs left from the New Deal to work automatically "to counter economic downturns."
If McElvaine were to write a 16th chapter to his book today, He'd have a lot to gloat about as a prophet. Reaganomics sharply reversed the redistributive justice of the New Deal, transferring wealth and ownership to the richest of the rich from the potential earnings of the middle class, and doing nothing to preclude the re-emergence of a poverty class just as miserable - though not as numerous in percentage - as the breadline unemployed depicted on the cover of this book.
(18 reviews)
