What do you think?
Rate this book
Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream
The clear-eyed, definitive history of the modern American economy and the decline of the American Dream, from the Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist behind The New York Times's “The Morning” newsletter.
“With the even-handed incisiveness that has made him one of the country’s most-respected voices on economics, David Leonhardt illuminates the inside history of the players and missteps that have stolen so many Americans’ futures.”—Jane Mayer, author of Dark Money
NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW EDITORS’ CHOICE • ONE OF THE ATLANTIC’S TEN BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR • A FINANCIAL TIMES BEST BOOK OF THE YEAR
Two decades into the twenty-first century, the stagnation of living standards has become the defining trend of American life. Life expectancy has declined, economic inequality has soared, and, after some progress, the Black-white wage gap is once again as large as it was in the 1950s. How did this happen in the world’s most powerful country? And what happened to the “American dream”—the promise of a happier, healthier, more prosperous future—which was once such an inextricable part of our national identity?
Drawing on decades of writing about the economy for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize–winning writer David Leonhardt examines the past century of American history, from the Great Depression to today’s Great Stagnation, in search of an answer.
To make sense of the rise and subsequent fall of the American dream, Leonhardt tells the story of the modern American economy as an ongoing battle between two competing forms of one that envisions prosperity for most, and one that serves the individual and favors the wealthy. In vivid prose, Ours Was the Shining Future traces how democratic capitalism flourished to make the American dream possible, until the latter decades of the twentieth century when, bit by bit, the dream was corrupted to serve only the privileged few.
Ours Was the Shining Future is a sweeping narrative full of innovation and grit, human drama and hope. Featuring the trailblazing figures who helped shape the American dream—Frances Perkins, Paul Hoffman, Cesar Chavez, Robert Kennedy, A. Philip Randolph, Grace Hopper, and more—this engaging history reveals the power of grassroots democratic movements from across the political spectrum. And though the American dream feels lost to us now, Leonhardt shows how Americans—if they commit themselves to transforming the economy, as they did in the past—have the power to revive the dream once more.
“With the even-handed incisiveness that has made him one of the country’s most-respected voices on economics, David Leonhardt illuminates the inside history of the players and missteps that have stolen so many Americans’ futures.”—Jane Mayer, author of Dark Money
NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW EDITORS’ CHOICE • ONE OF THE ATLANTIC’S TEN BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR • A FINANCIAL TIMES BEST BOOK OF THE YEAR
Two decades into the twenty-first century, the stagnation of living standards has become the defining trend of American life. Life expectancy has declined, economic inequality has soared, and, after some progress, the Black-white wage gap is once again as large as it was in the 1950s. How did this happen in the world’s most powerful country? And what happened to the “American dream”—the promise of a happier, healthier, more prosperous future—which was once such an inextricable part of our national identity?
Drawing on decades of writing about the economy for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize–winning writer David Leonhardt examines the past century of American history, from the Great Depression to today’s Great Stagnation, in search of an answer.
To make sense of the rise and subsequent fall of the American dream, Leonhardt tells the story of the modern American economy as an ongoing battle between two competing forms of one that envisions prosperity for most, and one that serves the individual and favors the wealthy. In vivid prose, Ours Was the Shining Future traces how democratic capitalism flourished to make the American dream possible, until the latter decades of the twentieth century when, bit by bit, the dream was corrupted to serve only the privileged few.
Ours Was the Shining Future is a sweeping narrative full of innovation and grit, human drama and hope. Featuring the trailblazing figures who helped shape the American dream—Frances Perkins, Paul Hoffman, Cesar Chavez, Robert Kennedy, A. Philip Randolph, Grace Hopper, and more—this engaging history reveals the power of grassroots democratic movements from across the political spectrum. And though the American dream feels lost to us now, Leonhardt shows how Americans—if they commit themselves to transforming the economy, as they did in the past—have the power to revive the dream once more.
513 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 24, 2023
517 people are currently reading
6307 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews
October 24, 2023
In US culture the glorification of capitalism went beyond being inextricably tied to the virtues of Democracy. My ‘Xennial’ experience was indoctrination via small town public school education that ‘capitalism’ was synonymous with ‘democracy.’ At 18yo I was mocked as unpatriotic by teachers and peers when I registered to vote as a socialist in the late 90s. As the spouse of a Union member, I hear secondhand the similar but even stronger (aka Rightwing polarized) vitriol espoused by a shocking amount of Union brothers towards equity in pay and even general solidarity amongst the working class. More baffling is their desire to see their very own (workers’) rights diminished further and aggressively. Add then the comorbidity of these anti-workers’ rights Union members considering themselves American ‘patriots’ while they are utterly disinterested in how their massive Union and many others are now run like corporations with the brother/sisterhood having little to no say while those running the Union are multimillionaires. A myriad of these kinds of personal anecdotes puzzle me and no doubt contributed to why I jumped at the chance to receive this book.
Lured in by “Pulitzer Prize-winning writer” initially, the title and brief summation promising to explore the Rise and Fall of the American Dream resonated and enticed me. However when I received an advanced reader copy (TY to the publisher and author!) all the nerdy-wordy vibes of the illustrious Pulitzer award combined with the sheer size of the tome about US history intimidated me. Would I be able to read it all, relate to and learn from, without sinking into my own lengthy ‘Great Depression’?(TL/DR: Read it, related and learned from it, and it didn’t destroy my mental health! Woohoo!)
David Leonhardt won his Pulitzer after writing about economics for the NY Times for years. So while obtuse suits me well here admittedly by 120 pages or so into the book, I realized this guy had hooked me into reading about a topic that I have avoided readily since the mind-numbing boring Economics foisted upon teenage me. I was riveted reading because Leonhardt treats everything/everyone so even-handedly and respectfully. Maybe my impression of economists being arrogant and condescending was pulled out of thin air? But here is one writing in such a way that the history of the US and its economy is not just comprehensible and incredibly interesting. Leonhardt’s book helped me make sense of what has led the US to Stagnation. Not only has it helped me to appreciate and process how complex our economy is, but it has helped me develop more compassion towards other US citizens today (and those who came before us) in terms of how blindspots and good intentions alike have hurt the populace and so readily can be misinterpreted or miscorrelated by intelligent and well-meaning folks. Leonhardt took a wildly complicated subject and wrangled into tangibles for his audience. Tangibles being #1 major factors or influences on the economy (ie unions, civil rights, consumer rights, immigration) and #2 influential humans who played pivotal roles in those major factors.
Leonhardt took an incredibly ‘dense’ topic (as in “hard to understand because of its complexity of ideas”) namely the Floundering of the American Dream and in gentle and still graphic detail unpacked how the heck things went sideways. I found "Our Was the Shining Future" to be a magnificently dense work of nonfiction where ‘dense’ follows its foremost definition “closely compacted in substance.” It is a thick volume until you open it up and Leonhardt tickles your brains with so much fascinating and relevant information through page after page of storytelling historical facts at ya! This book took me months to fully consume but I appreciated it from Page One and continue to benefit from Leonhardt’s innovative approach to explaining the US economic narrative as it does renew the embers of hope that flourishing in the United States may be a dream worth dreaming someday.
Lured in by “Pulitzer Prize-winning writer” initially, the title and brief summation promising to explore the Rise and Fall of the American Dream resonated and enticed me. However when I received an advanced reader copy (TY to the publisher and author!) all the nerdy-wordy vibes of the illustrious Pulitzer award combined with the sheer size of the tome about US history intimidated me. Would I be able to read it all, relate to and learn from, without sinking into my own lengthy ‘Great Depression’?(TL/DR: Read it, related and learned from it, and it didn’t destroy my mental health! Woohoo!)
David Leonhardt won his Pulitzer after writing about economics for the NY Times for years. So while obtuse suits me well here admittedly by 120 pages or so into the book, I realized this guy had hooked me into reading about a topic that I have avoided readily since the mind-numbing boring Economics foisted upon teenage me. I was riveted reading because Leonhardt treats everything/everyone so even-handedly and respectfully. Maybe my impression of economists being arrogant and condescending was pulled out of thin air? But here is one writing in such a way that the history of the US and its economy is not just comprehensible and incredibly interesting. Leonhardt’s book helped me make sense of what has led the US to Stagnation. Not only has it helped me to appreciate and process how complex our economy is, but it has helped me develop more compassion towards other US citizens today (and those who came before us) in terms of how blindspots and good intentions alike have hurt the populace and so readily can be misinterpreted or miscorrelated by intelligent and well-meaning folks. Leonhardt took a wildly complicated subject and wrangled into tangibles for his audience. Tangibles being #1 major factors or influences on the economy (ie unions, civil rights, consumer rights, immigration) and #2 influential humans who played pivotal roles in those major factors.
Leonhardt took an incredibly ‘dense’ topic (as in “hard to understand because of its complexity of ideas”) namely the Floundering of the American Dream and in gentle and still graphic detail unpacked how the heck things went sideways. I found "Our Was the Shining Future" to be a magnificently dense work of nonfiction where ‘dense’ follows its foremost definition “closely compacted in substance.” It is a thick volume until you open it up and Leonhardt tickles your brains with so much fascinating and relevant information through page after page of storytelling historical facts at ya! This book took me months to fully consume but I appreciated it from Page One and continue to benefit from Leonhardt’s innovative approach to explaining the US economic narrative as it does renew the embers of hope that flourishing in the United States may be a dream worth dreaming someday.
January 12, 2024
David Leonhardt's, "Ours Was The Shining Future," is the best book I have read on the American economy. The 'Gilded Age,' and 'The Roaring Twenties,' might make wonderful T.V. and movies but it was during these periods that the largest wage gap between the rich and working class existed. It was during this time that the one percenters controlled their biggest share of the U.S. economy.
Enter President Franklin Roosevelt, who inherited the worst depression in modern American history. He decided that it was about time that the largest corporation in the world, the U.S. Government, had to invest in corporations.
Slowly, the economy started to pick-up. There was the highway bill, a pick up in car manufacturing, airplane production, and many, so many more schools built. He introduced Social Security and Medicare. Two untouchable programs nearly 90 years later but not so popular with the republicans and big business at the time. He supported labor unions which also increased wages for the poor and working class, black and whites.
Then World War 2 came and the U.S. economy went into overdrive with manufacturing reaching peaks unimaginable. For the next 5 decades the U.S. economy out paced the rest of the world in manufacturing, education, research, health care, and life expectancy. The best decade being the 1950's under the leadership of President Eisenhower, a republican, who continued the Roosevelt blueprint, against the wishes of his own party.
Naturally, as times changed, and President Reagan's policies of small government, lower taxes, and less regulations came back into play, 'The Gilded Age,' made somewhat of a comeback and the gap between the working class and the one percenters grew larger and larger. Wages remained stagnant and corporations like Amazon and Google grew richer and richer.
Enter President Biden, a man so old he was friends with Augustus Caesar. Suddenly, that ancient idea of investing in America became fashionable again. He passed the Infrastructure bill, invested in the U.S., computer chips, stood in line with striking union workers, and forced pharmaceutical companies to drastically drop their prices on life saving drugs. And that's just a few of the things he has achieved. Under his leadership the U.S. economy is the strongest it has been since the 1950's, there are more jobs than workers, the gap between the rich and working class has lessened somewhat, and the minimum wage in over twenty states has risen to $15 dollars or more.
Strange, but President Franklin Roosevelt, who was crippled from the waist down from polio, and President Biden, who many Americans believe is too old, both accomplished so much for The American People...For the American People!!!!
The points I have stated above are just a small portion of what is discussed in this book. It is an all encompassing look at the U.S. economy that I strongly recommend. Thank you Bradford for this amazing gift.
Enter President Franklin Roosevelt, who inherited the worst depression in modern American history. He decided that it was about time that the largest corporation in the world, the U.S. Government, had to invest in corporations.
Slowly, the economy started to pick-up. There was the highway bill, a pick up in car manufacturing, airplane production, and many, so many more schools built. He introduced Social Security and Medicare. Two untouchable programs nearly 90 years later but not so popular with the republicans and big business at the time. He supported labor unions which also increased wages for the poor and working class, black and whites.
Then World War 2 came and the U.S. economy went into overdrive with manufacturing reaching peaks unimaginable. For the next 5 decades the U.S. economy out paced the rest of the world in manufacturing, education, research, health care, and life expectancy. The best decade being the 1950's under the leadership of President Eisenhower, a republican, who continued the Roosevelt blueprint, against the wishes of his own party.
Naturally, as times changed, and President Reagan's policies of small government, lower taxes, and less regulations came back into play, 'The Gilded Age,' made somewhat of a comeback and the gap between the working class and the one percenters grew larger and larger. Wages remained stagnant and corporations like Amazon and Google grew richer and richer.
Enter President Biden, a man so old he was friends with Augustus Caesar. Suddenly, that ancient idea of investing in America became fashionable again. He passed the Infrastructure bill, invested in the U.S., computer chips, stood in line with striking union workers, and forced pharmaceutical companies to drastically drop their prices on life saving drugs. And that's just a few of the things he has achieved. Under his leadership the U.S. economy is the strongest it has been since the 1950's, there are more jobs than workers, the gap between the rich and working class has lessened somewhat, and the minimum wage in over twenty states has risen to $15 dollars or more.
Strange, but President Franklin Roosevelt, who was crippled from the waist down from polio, and President Biden, who many Americans believe is too old, both accomplished so much for The American People...For the American People!!!!
The points I have stated above are just a small portion of what is discussed in this book. It is an all encompassing look at the U.S. economy that I strongly recommend. Thank you Bradford for this amazing gift.
December 6, 2023
I really enjoyed this book. Leonhardt is a senior writer/editor on economic issues for the New York Times. The point of the book is to trace the history of the “American Dream” - the idea that Americans would consistently grow to have a better life than their parents had. The book provides a fairly detailed history of American economic management from the mid-19th century until the present. The question is whether the American Dream has held up and if it has not, why hasn’t it held up? The book has the benefit of using data and analysis from Raj Chetty’s work to support it claims.
As careful readers may already suspect, these questions have been the subject of prior political and social claims and more than a few academics have studied them, at least in part. Leonhardt comes up with the general conclusion that the American Dream dynamic was maintained until the middle of the 20th century, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Things started to fall apart in the 1970s and a more pronounced decline set in afterwards, as evidenced by persistent low growth and greatly increased economic stagnation for 80% of the US population, especially in earnings growth. Related issues in health care, education, transportation, and other areas have accompanied this lack of growth. This overall conclusion fits well with the conclusions of other studies. Leonhardt has written an exceptional book that is filled with interesting data and descriptive detail. I especially enjoyed how the book focused on key individuals in his narrative to provide more personal detail.
This is a very complex question that Leonhardt is addressing and I cannot do it detail with a simple summary. Please read the book if you are interested! The story Leonhardt tells is largely a political and cultural one. Politicians, labor leaders, businessmen, and others made choices along the way about matters that were deemed important. The economy and society developed broadly as millions of Americans made similar choices and carried on with their lives. Leonhardt employs a chronological chapter organization with additional topical areas of focus (education, health, etc.). The writing is clear and easy to follow. References are provided if you wish to find out more. I will say that the story here is presented in considerable detail and this is a long book.
Well why a 5? Are the stories all that are needed? No, but … The focus of the book is on the US economy and how it is performing. It is not about specific policies or specific politicians. Politicians certainly want the economy to do well and will act to encourage that, but politicians do not strictly determine how the economy performs — or even how we would know whether it was performing well or not. They are making a “best guess”.
So how the economy is actually performing can only be seen indirectly at any given time, on the basis of the best available and the models chosen to analyze that data. If you want that sort of an analysis, this is not the book for you.
Mr. Leonhardt is very aware of this and has done his homework. In his last chapters, he references the work of Robert Gordon, whose “The Rise and Fall of American Growth” is just such an econometric study. (There are others, of course, which are referenced in Gordon.)
Leonhardt’s book is consistent with Gordon’s research and the differences in style serve as complements that highlight the strengths of each. The findings of US economic stagnation since the 1970s are distressing and deserve lots of attention.
I highly recommend the book.
As careful readers may already suspect, these questions have been the subject of prior political and social claims and more than a few academics have studied them, at least in part. Leonhardt comes up with the general conclusion that the American Dream dynamic was maintained until the middle of the 20th century, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Things started to fall apart in the 1970s and a more pronounced decline set in afterwards, as evidenced by persistent low growth and greatly increased economic stagnation for 80% of the US population, especially in earnings growth. Related issues in health care, education, transportation, and other areas have accompanied this lack of growth. This overall conclusion fits well with the conclusions of other studies. Leonhardt has written an exceptional book that is filled with interesting data and descriptive detail. I especially enjoyed how the book focused on key individuals in his narrative to provide more personal detail.
This is a very complex question that Leonhardt is addressing and I cannot do it detail with a simple summary. Please read the book if you are interested! The story Leonhardt tells is largely a political and cultural one. Politicians, labor leaders, businessmen, and others made choices along the way about matters that were deemed important. The economy and society developed broadly as millions of Americans made similar choices and carried on with their lives. Leonhardt employs a chronological chapter organization with additional topical areas of focus (education, health, etc.). The writing is clear and easy to follow. References are provided if you wish to find out more. I will say that the story here is presented in considerable detail and this is a long book.
Well why a 5? Are the stories all that are needed? No, but … The focus of the book is on the US economy and how it is performing. It is not about specific policies or specific politicians. Politicians certainly want the economy to do well and will act to encourage that, but politicians do not strictly determine how the economy performs — or even how we would know whether it was performing well or not. They are making a “best guess”.
So how the economy is actually performing can only be seen indirectly at any given time, on the basis of the best available and the models chosen to analyze that data. If you want that sort of an analysis, this is not the book for you.
Mr. Leonhardt is very aware of this and has done his homework. In his last chapters, he references the work of Robert Gordon, whose “The Rise and Fall of American Growth” is just such an econometric study. (There are others, of course, which are referenced in Gordon.)
Leonhardt’s book is consistent with Gordon’s research and the differences in style serve as complements that highlight the strengths of each. The findings of US economic stagnation since the 1970s are distressing and deserve lots of attention.
I highly recommend the book.
February 8, 2024
I respect Gen X's efforts to apologize. Really, I do. Among my parents' generation, there's an understanding that things are slowly getting worse, and that they are partially to blame, and so they're trying to tell us how to fix it.
In this book, Leonhardt attempts to explain why the American dream feels so distant, so farcical. He does believe in the American dream, don't get him wrong. He, you see, is a "democratic capitalist." It isn't the government, but the free market that will deliver us from poverty, though he acknowledges that there is a role for the government in regulating the economy.
Here, Leonhardt tips his hand. If he understands what socialism is – which he should, since he wrote an economics column at the New York Times for five years, and presumably has a smartphone with internet access – he doesn't let on in this book. He doesn't make any effort to argue in favor of the division of capital and labor, or against workers owning the means of production. In fact, he speaks fondly of unions, arguably the most socialist organizations America has to offer. Instead, he attacks the popular strawman of socialism, this vague notion that the economy should be run by the government.
Throughout the book, we get these excruciating vignettes of both popular political and movement leaders and some lesser-known figures in business and related areas. These are sometimes quite interesting, but they nevertheless lead to a feeling of directionlessness, like the author is just throwing stuff together. Leonhardt seems to have realized this at some point, because about halfway through they peter off completely. Smooshed in between these micro-biographies we get a story of a country that briefly cared about its citizens, largely thanks to unions and FDR. This isn't an inaccurate depiction; for a few decades the federal government was interested in helping its ((white) male) population.
But according to Leonhardt, this all changed when those dirty student protesters started agitating for things like an end to the Vietnam War and equal rights for Black people. The so-called New Left was too focused on social issues; if only they had left it to the good old boys who were in charge at the time, everything would have worked out in the end. Instead, they gave ammunition to the rising wave of anti-government intellectuals who paved the way for the Reagan administration.
In addition to being exceptionally smug, this depiction uses Beatniks and hippies as an obvious smokescreen. It's clear that while Leonhardt may have a point that young white protesters exhibited a great deal of audacity in their activism, this was happening at the same time as any number of social justice movements. The Civil Rights era doesn't get a whole lot of air time in this book. Leonhardt mentions prominent labor leaders like A. Philip Randolph and Cesar Chavez, their activism for racial justice is eclipsed by their labor leadership. If civil rights leaders like MLK, to say nothing of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers or of women's rights and LGBTQ+ activists, had anything to do with white heteronormative society's change of heart about notions of equality in the 60s and 70s, Leonhardt is silent on it.
But more importantly, he places the burden of the decline of the American dream squarely on the shoulders of those who fought the hardest to achieve it. I think this is most emblematic in his discussion of patriotism. Leonhardt does not take seriously the notion that life in America is not something to be proud of for some people. Instead, he focuses on how bad it is electorally: the average American loves America, therefore the only way to win elections is to wrap ourselves in American flags and smile through the pain. For the sake of remaining concise, I will not spend too much time pointing out how Democratic politicians typically go out of their way to embody American ideals, often to an absurd extent.
Instead, I'll just say this: Leonhardt has a serious addiction to political aestheticism. He's more concerned about what looks good than what does good. The imagery of reaching across the aisle, of civilized discussion, is more important to him than the results of those discussions. Student activists did not end the Vietnam War in his worldview; it was ended by Nixon (who by the way was *not* racist dog whistling by seeking the votes of disillusioned segregationist Democrats). The only way to accomplish anything in this country is to get your party elected to Congress, and the only way to do that is to acknowledge that sometimes your rights will be violated. You can't always get what you want.
To wrap things up, I hope that we stop believing the problem is those whiny protesters. The world will not be saved if people could just wait their turn for equality. Blue haired trans women are not the reason Joe Biden has a 38% approval rating. The more we entertain the notion that we just need to ask more nicely for things, the longer it's going to take for us to realize that that's never worked. What we need is to focus our efforts on radically altering the system that has led to record levels of wealth inequality juxtaposed with breakneck increases in poverty.
In this book, Leonhardt attempts to explain why the American dream feels so distant, so farcical. He does believe in the American dream, don't get him wrong. He, you see, is a "democratic capitalist." It isn't the government, but the free market that will deliver us from poverty, though he acknowledges that there is a role for the government in regulating the economy.
Here, Leonhardt tips his hand. If he understands what socialism is – which he should, since he wrote an economics column at the New York Times for five years, and presumably has a smartphone with internet access – he doesn't let on in this book. He doesn't make any effort to argue in favor of the division of capital and labor, or against workers owning the means of production. In fact, he speaks fondly of unions, arguably the most socialist organizations America has to offer. Instead, he attacks the popular strawman of socialism, this vague notion that the economy should be run by the government.
Throughout the book, we get these excruciating vignettes of both popular political and movement leaders and some lesser-known figures in business and related areas. These are sometimes quite interesting, but they nevertheless lead to a feeling of directionlessness, like the author is just throwing stuff together. Leonhardt seems to have realized this at some point, because about halfway through they peter off completely. Smooshed in between these micro-biographies we get a story of a country that briefly cared about its citizens, largely thanks to unions and FDR. This isn't an inaccurate depiction; for a few decades the federal government was interested in helping its ((white) male) population.
But according to Leonhardt, this all changed when those dirty student protesters started agitating for things like an end to the Vietnam War and equal rights for Black people. The so-called New Left was too focused on social issues; if only they had left it to the good old boys who were in charge at the time, everything would have worked out in the end. Instead, they gave ammunition to the rising wave of anti-government intellectuals who paved the way for the Reagan administration.
In addition to being exceptionally smug, this depiction uses Beatniks and hippies as an obvious smokescreen. It's clear that while Leonhardt may have a point that young white protesters exhibited a great deal of audacity in their activism, this was happening at the same time as any number of social justice movements. The Civil Rights era doesn't get a whole lot of air time in this book. Leonhardt mentions prominent labor leaders like A. Philip Randolph and Cesar Chavez, their activism for racial justice is eclipsed by their labor leadership. If civil rights leaders like MLK, to say nothing of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers or of women's rights and LGBTQ+ activists, had anything to do with white heteronormative society's change of heart about notions of equality in the 60s and 70s, Leonhardt is silent on it.
But more importantly, he places the burden of the decline of the American dream squarely on the shoulders of those who fought the hardest to achieve it. I think this is most emblematic in his discussion of patriotism. Leonhardt does not take seriously the notion that life in America is not something to be proud of for some people. Instead, he focuses on how bad it is electorally: the average American loves America, therefore the only way to win elections is to wrap ourselves in American flags and smile through the pain. For the sake of remaining concise, I will not spend too much time pointing out how Democratic politicians typically go out of their way to embody American ideals, often to an absurd extent.
Instead, I'll just say this: Leonhardt has a serious addiction to political aestheticism. He's more concerned about what looks good than what does good. The imagery of reaching across the aisle, of civilized discussion, is more important to him than the results of those discussions. Student activists did not end the Vietnam War in his worldview; it was ended by Nixon (who by the way was *not* racist dog whistling by seeking the votes of disillusioned segregationist Democrats). The only way to accomplish anything in this country is to get your party elected to Congress, and the only way to do that is to acknowledge that sometimes your rights will be violated. You can't always get what you want.
To wrap things up, I hope that we stop believing the problem is those whiny protesters. The world will not be saved if people could just wait their turn for equality. Blue haired trans women are not the reason Joe Biden has a 38% approval rating. The more we entertain the notion that we just need to ask more nicely for things, the longer it's going to take for us to realize that that's never worked. What we need is to focus our efforts on radically altering the system that has led to record levels of wealth inequality juxtaposed with breakneck increases in poverty.
January 16, 2024
Unlike the blurbs on the back cover, this book didn’t inspire me. It’s the author’s history of how the Democratic Party has failed most Americans by believing that the path to sustained power runs through “university campuses and affluent suburbs.” The crime section was more about Robert Kennedy than how crime and crime descriptions have impacted most Americans since the 1962 inflection point he claims. The immigration section touches on white supremacy and wage impacts since the 1965 loophole, but it wasn’t clear to me how to implement the Jordan commission recommendations today, given 1 million+ backlog of asylum court appointments, for example. His transportation commentary about flying versus high-speed trains seemed out of touch given my understanding that around half of Americans don’t fly in a given year. It’s well-written and I learned some things, so you may, too.
January 31, 2024
Anybody planning to vote in November should read this book. Not because it will push to vote for one candidate or another, for one party or another, but because it will give you a grounding in how we got here. This book has facts, data, and history, essential elements for an informed electorate, and it's written in an engaging, accessible way that's a hallmark of Leonhardt's work with The New York Times.
April 3, 2024
Our was the Shining Future provides the pat left-liberal history of the post-WWII American political economy. The basic meme is that our contemporary discontents can be traced to the breakdown of the New Deal consensus that purportedly provided widespread prosperity to middle-class Americans. Leonhardt identifies the 1973 oil embargo as the catalyst of breakdown yet still levies the usual complaints about the "neoliberal turn" of the Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton years and the financialization of the economy. This story is pretty much all bunk though. The trends of concern all precede the 70s and were essentially locked in even during the supposedly halcyon days of the 50s/60s. Post-war America was anomaly but we're beholden to it as the "true America" on both the left and right.
The New Deal order was only sustainable so long as America was doing the overwhelming majority of production for world demand. Once Europe and East Asian recovered/developed, working class Americans were never going to be able to reliably command the same wage premium as before. Plus, the technology that knits world markets together and redesigned social scripts for men and women were beyond political control nor would there be the foresight to control and modify the consequences of innovation (it is called "creative destruction" after-alll).
Additionally, Americans are indeed wealthier in many ways than the past - often in ways that cannot be captured in conventional economic statistics. In fact, a great deal of the seeming signs of material decline like "deaths of despair" are downstream of sociocultural dysfunction. This is clear when you simply subset Americans by those with social capital and those without it. There are many analyses that show this even the ones that Leonhardt wants to quote as supporting him (e.g. Raj Chetty's work).
The drivers of dysfunction in the American body politic are not material at root. One of the clear indicators of this is that our political debates are rarely about economic policy. They're about issues of identity and culture (the term of art is social capital). If we want to return to a shared culture and a broader sense of American identity, the cloistered liberal elite will have to leave their coastal enclaves and mingle among (even marry and procreate with!) the deplorable Trumpkins (and everyone else in between). This is the real redistribution the country needs. There is nothing that taxes, social transfers, or "free" healthcare can do to reinvigorate the blighted towns of the Midwest, develop areas with low population density, or control the criminal disorder of certain American metropolises.
The New Deal order was only sustainable so long as America was doing the overwhelming majority of production for world demand. Once Europe and East Asian recovered/developed, working class Americans were never going to be able to reliably command the same wage premium as before. Plus, the technology that knits world markets together and redesigned social scripts for men and women were beyond political control nor would there be the foresight to control and modify the consequences of innovation (it is called "creative destruction" after-alll).
Additionally, Americans are indeed wealthier in many ways than the past - often in ways that cannot be captured in conventional economic statistics. In fact, a great deal of the seeming signs of material decline like "deaths of despair" are downstream of sociocultural dysfunction. This is clear when you simply subset Americans by those with social capital and those without it. There are many analyses that show this even the ones that Leonhardt wants to quote as supporting him (e.g. Raj Chetty's work).
The drivers of dysfunction in the American body politic are not material at root. One of the clear indicators of this is that our political debates are rarely about economic policy. They're about issues of identity and culture (the term of art is social capital). If we want to return to a shared culture and a broader sense of American identity, the cloistered liberal elite will have to leave their coastal enclaves and mingle among (even marry and procreate with!) the deplorable Trumpkins (and everyone else in between). This is the real redistribution the country needs. There is nothing that taxes, social transfers, or "free" healthcare can do to reinvigorate the blighted towns of the Midwest, develop areas with low population density, or control the criminal disorder of certain American metropolises.
November 23, 2023
By chapter 10, things got much better, but until that point this book is heavy on narrative history and light on theories/assertions. I felt the author took too long to make his points, and he could have used the time to help readers think through his positions. Again, toward the end of the book, he does this really well.
April 12, 2025
How do you write a book about the history of American economics, organized labor, immigration, the left and the right and have it read not like a text book? Leonhardt had me marking pages, making notes, and learning a lot. Outstanding. (Hardcopy at home)
Read
January 29, 20243.75|5
April 21, 2025
Very valuable history and reflection on our pendulum swing between trust and distrust in government action on the economy. Helped me understand how we got to our present crisis
January 27, 2024
A sweeping view of the history of the United States told through the lens of the balance between labor, business, and government. The book explored shifts in the balance at various points in our country’s history and brings into focus some of the leaders and cultural norms that were in place at various junctures of the last 100+ years.
When are we at our best as a nation? What are some ways to create broader prosperity and social cohesion? Who were some of the leaders and causes that created lasting change? All of these questions are explored in the book.
The author does a nice job giving insight into political and social forces that have and are playing out and offers reasonable solutions to increase economic prosperity today and in the future.
At the end of the day, the book is a good summary and puts into context a lot of history around labor and industrial policy. It points to the shortcomings of thought leadership these days. I recommend for those that are looking to put current trends of income inequality and governmental role in the private sector into context.
When are we at our best as a nation? What are some ways to create broader prosperity and social cohesion? Who were some of the leaders and causes that created lasting change? All of these questions are explored in the book.
The author does a nice job giving insight into political and social forces that have and are playing out and offers reasonable solutions to increase economic prosperity today and in the future.
At the end of the day, the book is a good summary and puts into context a lot of history around labor and industrial policy. It points to the shortcomings of thought leadership these days. I recommend for those that are looking to put current trends of income inequality and governmental role in the private sector into context.
September 18, 2023
This review is based on an advance reader copy.
This book is a good history of US economic policy and an argument for fixing things for the future. While there is a lot of interesting information here, it can be dry and repetitive at times. Some chapters also had a lot of names I wasn't previously familiar with and it was difficult to keep them all straight. Leonhardt does do a fantastic job of explaining concepts in a way that makes sense to laypeople (like me) instead of hiding behind economics lingo that only other economists understand.
Though it is pretty clear through his writing that he is a liberal, Leonhardt presents a well balanced look at past presidents and their economic policies. He doesn't pull punches when calling his own party out on their shortcomings either, putting into words frustrations that I am sure I share with many others.
Overall, a very good, if somewhat dense read.
This book is a good history of US economic policy and an argument for fixing things for the future. While there is a lot of interesting information here, it can be dry and repetitive at times. Some chapters also had a lot of names I wasn't previously familiar with and it was difficult to keep them all straight. Leonhardt does do a fantastic job of explaining concepts in a way that makes sense to laypeople (like me) instead of hiding behind economics lingo that only other economists understand.
Though it is pretty clear through his writing that he is a liberal, Leonhardt presents a well balanced look at past presidents and their economic policies. He doesn't pull punches when calling his own party out on their shortcomings either, putting into words frustrations that I am sure I share with many others.
Overall, a very good, if somewhat dense read.
Want to read
October 24, 2023There's a nice extended excerpt here: "The hard truth about immigration,"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
Recommended reading. Sensible stuff.
I plan to take a look at the book when the library gets a copy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
Recommended reading. Sensible stuff.
I plan to take a look at the book when the library gets a copy.
December 7, 2024
This is a solid read that takes a look at a time that's described by many as the "Great" American when they say MAGA. So many people today will shake their heads and say "Why Donald Trump?", after 4 years of surreal comedy, January 6th, extra martial scandal, and so on and so on. So many American Democrats think how could this guy still be relevant, "he's undermining democracy".
But history shows us, both US history and world history, that a vote for Trump isn't inconceivable at all. In fact, the last three elections should be an obvious indicator. Even in his defeat against Biden, Trump turns our voters. Leonhardt offers a detailed and pragmatic look at why. I'd summarize it as the democratic party leaving behind working class America, which they had previously rallied during an era when we were able to come through and out of WWII, driving a thriving economy with stronger social mobility, higher tax rates on the upper classes, and lower overall inequality. There was a shift in in the party and it went forward favoring a higher-educated sect of our society focused on more technocratic policies that left working class people behind. Of course they're pissed off and, even if republican policies don't improve their life, at least republican rallies are speaking to them. At least they're criticizing a democratic party that's become, in many ways, condescending.
I enjoyed Leonhardt's dive into US political history and economics. At times tedious - I didn't need quite as detailed background information on so many of the key players as he'd sometimes care to provide - the book is well written and makes strong arguments.
As an engineer by education, I have to call out that this book suffers from the general challenge with just about all economic books: correlation doesn't equal causation. Leonhardt doesn't really mention how much of our economic success post WWII stems from the key benefits the US had at the end of the war: emerging as a global super power able to dictate economic policies around the world, expanding on the fruits of an unprecedented amount of R&D that went into the war effort in the free market, geographic isolation yielding the US to have suffered the least devastation during the war and having our industrial and supply chain capabilities already set up at full tilt, and more. How much of this is what drove our 'shining future' as opposed to our labor-friendly economic policies? Were those policies practical only due to our superior positioning coming out of the war? I don't think there are solid answers to these questions, we can only argue about them. Still, I think they are important because, if we're going to 'fix' or 'return' America to a former state of greatness, we have to know if the economic policies of the past are still realistic in today's world. We aren't sitting on a wealth of military R&D that we can start pumping into the private market. We don't have the same global influence that we used to, either.
Some other particular tidbits I found interesting:
- Leonhardt attributes this quote to Michael Roth, but Google AI Gemini says it's often attributed to him when in fact it comes from Charles E. Reasons. Regarldess of the source, I found it thought provoking: "Nothing increases homicide rates more surely, at least in the short term, than en effort by a dedicated minority to create a more just society, as happened during the Revolution and in the struggle against slavery in the mid-nineteenth century."
- Leonhardt's argument around crime is that it correlates with social anomie more than poverty. He uses this to help explain rising crime during the 60's, when the US was experiencing less poverty and more progress, even among minorities.
- In the past, strong economic policies focused on elevating our working classes of people have helped close gaps in racial inequality. This is because those on the bottom are often racial minorities who will disproportionately benefit from these programs, even when they aren't explicitly racially targeted. Perhaps more smart economic policies like these can help us today, while skirting around some of the culture wars. Or perhaps that's wishful thinking, because we have seen with Nixon and since, racist US lawmakers are very comfortable at writing laws without mentioning race that specifically target minorities :/.
- RFK's campaign to run for president on the Democratic party may have led us in a very different direction, had it not been cut short by a Palestinian assassin. Leonhardt does not do service to this incident, it's almost a problem of journalistic integrity to write about this event as he chose to. The book doesn't focus on international matters at all, like most Americans, Leonhardt seems to think we exist in a vacuum. Yet he mentions that RFK had a stance on Israel and Palestine that led to his assassination. What was the stance? Never mentioned. When RFK is being introduced as a potential savior of the Democratic party, if only he could've won the nomination and gone onto the presidency, maybe, just maybe things would've been different. Alas, we will never know for sure. And why not? He said something pro Israel and a Palestinian shot him. Hmmmm, I'd much rather have heard more about this background than understanding Bork was a sociolist debater who practiced with his mom in high school so late into the night that his father would yell at them both to cut it out.
But history shows us, both US history and world history, that a vote for Trump isn't inconceivable at all. In fact, the last three elections should be an obvious indicator. Even in his defeat against Biden, Trump turns our voters. Leonhardt offers a detailed and pragmatic look at why. I'd summarize it as the democratic party leaving behind working class America, which they had previously rallied during an era when we were able to come through and out of WWII, driving a thriving economy with stronger social mobility, higher tax rates on the upper classes, and lower overall inequality. There was a shift in in the party and it went forward favoring a higher-educated sect of our society focused on more technocratic policies that left working class people behind. Of course they're pissed off and, even if republican policies don't improve their life, at least republican rallies are speaking to them. At least they're criticizing a democratic party that's become, in many ways, condescending.
I enjoyed Leonhardt's dive into US political history and economics. At times tedious - I didn't need quite as detailed background information on so many of the key players as he'd sometimes care to provide - the book is well written and makes strong arguments.
As an engineer by education, I have to call out that this book suffers from the general challenge with just about all economic books: correlation doesn't equal causation. Leonhardt doesn't really mention how much of our economic success post WWII stems from the key benefits the US had at the end of the war: emerging as a global super power able to dictate economic policies around the world, expanding on the fruits of an unprecedented amount of R&D that went into the war effort in the free market, geographic isolation yielding the US to have suffered the least devastation during the war and having our industrial and supply chain capabilities already set up at full tilt, and more. How much of this is what drove our 'shining future' as opposed to our labor-friendly economic policies? Were those policies practical only due to our superior positioning coming out of the war? I don't think there are solid answers to these questions, we can only argue about them. Still, I think they are important because, if we're going to 'fix' or 'return' America to a former state of greatness, we have to know if the economic policies of the past are still realistic in today's world. We aren't sitting on a wealth of military R&D that we can start pumping into the private market. We don't have the same global influence that we used to, either.
Some other particular tidbits I found interesting:
- Leonhardt attributes this quote to Michael Roth, but Google AI Gemini says it's often attributed to him when in fact it comes from Charles E. Reasons. Regarldess of the source, I found it thought provoking: "Nothing increases homicide rates more surely, at least in the short term, than en effort by a dedicated minority to create a more just society, as happened during the Revolution and in the struggle against slavery in the mid-nineteenth century."
- Leonhardt's argument around crime is that it correlates with social anomie more than poverty. He uses this to help explain rising crime during the 60's, when the US was experiencing less poverty and more progress, even among minorities.
- In the past, strong economic policies focused on elevating our working classes of people have helped close gaps in racial inequality. This is because those on the bottom are often racial minorities who will disproportionately benefit from these programs, even when they aren't explicitly racially targeted. Perhaps more smart economic policies like these can help us today, while skirting around some of the culture wars. Or perhaps that's wishful thinking, because we have seen with Nixon and since, racist US lawmakers are very comfortable at writing laws without mentioning race that specifically target minorities :/.
- RFK's campaign to run for president on the Democratic party may have led us in a very different direction, had it not been cut short by a Palestinian assassin. Leonhardt does not do service to this incident, it's almost a problem of journalistic integrity to write about this event as he chose to. The book doesn't focus on international matters at all, like most Americans, Leonhardt seems to think we exist in a vacuum. Yet he mentions that RFK had a stance on Israel and Palestine that led to his assassination. What was the stance? Never mentioned. When RFK is being introduced as a potential savior of the Democratic party, if only he could've won the nomination and gone onto the presidency, maybe, just maybe things would've been different. Alas, we will never know for sure. And why not? He said something pro Israel and a Palestinian shot him. Hmmmm, I'd much rather have heard more about this background than understanding Bork was a sociolist debater who practiced with his mom in high school so late into the night that his father would yell at them both to cut it out.
September 30, 2025
A must read for anyone who gives a d*ng about the future.
January 28, 2024
The author, a reporter for the New York Times, contrasts the America that existed from 1933 to 1980 with the transformed America resulting from the changes that started during the Reagan Administration. In his telling, the nearly half a century that started with the New Deal was a period that brought about the rise of a thriving middle class, which he attributes primarily to three factors: power, principally that of the working class, brought about by strong unionization and the support of progressive legislation proposed by Democratic administrations; culture, a sense that "we're all in this together," such that corporate leaders restrained their greed and acted in the best interests of all; and investment, principally by the government, but also by the private sector, helping to bring about innovations that improved lives in private industry. Beginning in the 1980s, those things all turned around. Unions fell out of favor and became less powerful, partially due to their acting for self-interest rather than for workers in general. Corporations decided to become more aggressive in pursuing their interests, and became greedy. And the government stopped investing in the future. Now we have a struggling working class, manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, and income inequality is as bad as it was in the 1920s. According to the author, we've gone away from "democratic capitalism" in favor of "rough and tumble capitalism."
The author makes a lot of good points, and his analysis has a lot of merit, but he makes it seem like things are a lot simpler than they really are. There is no question that the "Reagan Revolution" profoundly changed economics in the US. The rich decided that they wanted to pay a lot less in taxes and didn't want to be regulated. They took advantage of globalism and free trade agreements to export not only their products but manufacturing jobs overseas. They worked to break unions. They have been largely successful and the outcome could have been predicted.
If anything, the author is too soft on the wealthy conservatives who now seem to control the country. He pretends that grass roots movements can turn it all around. In fact, that is very difficult because of a number of factors that are either ignored or barely mentioned in the book. The most important of these is money in politics. Court decisions on campaign finance have caused politics to become flooded with dark money. Representatives don't represent their constituents, they represent their donors. Gerrymandering means that voters don't pick representatives, representatives choose their donors.
Much of the book is filled with discussions about the politics of the last half century that most reasonably informed readers are going to already be familiar with. There are some interesting parts, though. The author is rightly critical of the "New Left" and the transformation of the Democratic Party from the party of the working class to a party of wealthy, educated elites and "identity politics." He has an interesting discussion about immigration, pointing out that it used to be wealthy conservatives, eager to exploit workers to keep wages down, who used to favor easier immigration, whereas now conservatives basically want to close the borders. He points out the unintended consequences of the 1965 immigration bill, which has greatly increased the number of immigrants coming to the US. And those are just the legal ones. He presents the current divide as the product of philosophical differences: "Universalists" favor lots of immigration because they want to help the poor no matter where they come from. "Communalists" want to control immigration to protect their communities. I viewed it differently. Democrats want lots of immigrants because they think that they are always going to get the votes of racial minorities. "Demographics is destiny." Republicans oppose immigration because they need to keep the white supremacists on board. Like most things in politics, it's really about getting the votes to stay in power.
The book cries out for more sophisticated economic analyses than what we have here, which is mostly proof by anecdote. The author even admits at one point that he doesn't have the data to be able to draw conclusions about the economic effects of increased immigration. He is often repetitive and oversimplifies. For example he acts like it would be easy for the government to invest greater resources into education but ignores or downplays the stresses placed upon government budgeting by factors such as increased spending for entitlements, the expense of servicing the outstanding debt, the inability to raise taxes on anyone ever, and the fact that such deficits were deliberately created by tax cuts benefiting the wealthy in order to starve the government of funding. He finally gets around to mentioning, in the last few pages, that the dreams of a fairer system will probably require extensive amendment of the Constitution, such as to limit the power of the Supreme Court and to create a Senate that more fairly represents the population. Good luck with that.
Overall, not a great book. I have to remember that economic analyses of complicated issues require the sophistication of one with great knowledge of economics, just as history should be written by historians. Otherwise, you find yourself thinking that the book you just read is just a rehash of a lot of stuff you read in the newspapers. Which is kind of what I thought about this book.
The author makes a lot of good points, and his analysis has a lot of merit, but he makes it seem like things are a lot simpler than they really are. There is no question that the "Reagan Revolution" profoundly changed economics in the US. The rich decided that they wanted to pay a lot less in taxes and didn't want to be regulated. They took advantage of globalism and free trade agreements to export not only their products but manufacturing jobs overseas. They worked to break unions. They have been largely successful and the outcome could have been predicted.
If anything, the author is too soft on the wealthy conservatives who now seem to control the country. He pretends that grass roots movements can turn it all around. In fact, that is very difficult because of a number of factors that are either ignored or barely mentioned in the book. The most important of these is money in politics. Court decisions on campaign finance have caused politics to become flooded with dark money. Representatives don't represent their constituents, they represent their donors. Gerrymandering means that voters don't pick representatives, representatives choose their donors.
Much of the book is filled with discussions about the politics of the last half century that most reasonably informed readers are going to already be familiar with. There are some interesting parts, though. The author is rightly critical of the "New Left" and the transformation of the Democratic Party from the party of the working class to a party of wealthy, educated elites and "identity politics." He has an interesting discussion about immigration, pointing out that it used to be wealthy conservatives, eager to exploit workers to keep wages down, who used to favor easier immigration, whereas now conservatives basically want to close the borders. He points out the unintended consequences of the 1965 immigration bill, which has greatly increased the number of immigrants coming to the US. And those are just the legal ones. He presents the current divide as the product of philosophical differences: "Universalists" favor lots of immigration because they want to help the poor no matter where they come from. "Communalists" want to control immigration to protect their communities. I viewed it differently. Democrats want lots of immigrants because they think that they are always going to get the votes of racial minorities. "Demographics is destiny." Republicans oppose immigration because they need to keep the white supremacists on board. Like most things in politics, it's really about getting the votes to stay in power.
The book cries out for more sophisticated economic analyses than what we have here, which is mostly proof by anecdote. The author even admits at one point that he doesn't have the data to be able to draw conclusions about the economic effects of increased immigration. He is often repetitive and oversimplifies. For example he acts like it would be easy for the government to invest greater resources into education but ignores or downplays the stresses placed upon government budgeting by factors such as increased spending for entitlements, the expense of servicing the outstanding debt, the inability to raise taxes on anyone ever, and the fact that such deficits were deliberately created by tax cuts benefiting the wealthy in order to starve the government of funding. He finally gets around to mentioning, in the last few pages, that the dreams of a fairer system will probably require extensive amendment of the Constitution, such as to limit the power of the Supreme Court and to create a Senate that more fairly represents the population. Good luck with that.
Overall, not a great book. I have to remember that economic analyses of complicated issues require the sophistication of one with great knowledge of economics, just as history should be written by historians. Otherwise, you find yourself thinking that the book you just read is just a rehash of a lot of stuff you read in the newspapers. Which is kind of what I thought about this book.
November 27, 2025
I'm still thinking about this and I may want to go back and review before giving a definitive rating as it were. but this is definitely a worthy read it's well written and it's basically a history of the United States and some of our current political divides taking them back to mostly post ww2 roots. his stance is interesting. he makes a whole hearted attempt to be unbiased which sometimes he pulls off better than another ways. his pose as neutral tends to dismiss the real costs of political stances that curb the civil rights of women/people of color/labor.
his economic analysis seems good and interesting to me. I also found his analysis of immigration to be surprising and insightful. I'm pro immigration and the free movements of people who are enterprising enough to seek out life beyond where they've been born.
but date accounts and his analysis of whether or not wages are suppressed by immigrants or whether they do the work Americans won't do versus won't do at current paid rates is a valid question.
he made me recognize that I do in fact have some sort of knee-jerk reaction as a pro immigration person as opposed to putting dollars on it. and maybe that's where somewhere this analysis makes me feel a little bit uneasy in that ultimately he may talk about progressives versus conservatives but all of this assumes that the goals are capitalistic gain. he does discuss the shift from CEOs values over time to pure profit from something more community enhancing, sometimes it's difficult to make a comparison of one policy versus another if you're not taking into account the people and values for the country we want to have.
I think this would make a great discussion book
his economic analysis seems good and interesting to me. I also found his analysis of immigration to be surprising and insightful. I'm pro immigration and the free movements of people who are enterprising enough to seek out life beyond where they've been born.
but date accounts and his analysis of whether or not wages are suppressed by immigrants or whether they do the work Americans won't do versus won't do at current paid rates is a valid question.
he made me recognize that I do in fact have some sort of knee-jerk reaction as a pro immigration person as opposed to putting dollars on it. and maybe that's where somewhere this analysis makes me feel a little bit uneasy in that ultimately he may talk about progressives versus conservatives but all of this assumes that the goals are capitalistic gain. he does discuss the shift from CEOs values over time to pure profit from something more community enhancing, sometimes it's difficult to make a comparison of one policy versus another if you're not taking into account the people and values for the country we want to have.
I think this would make a great discussion book
August 28, 2024
Tl;dr - We've let the American Dream slip away through a number of factors that have made the US economy become more uneven and unfair but there are things we can do to fix that, including listening to each other and joining a union. I don't mean to be glib, because this is a very interesting long-form historical analysis, but goodness I was so bored. It took me forever to finish it. Maybe you need to be more interested in economics then I am for this? I wouldn't trust my own review, but wow do I suggest picking up the print copy so you can skim where you need to instead of listening to the audiobook like I did.
December 20, 2024
Poignant piece on the economic reality of contemporary America and the interwoven nature of politics and the economy. Leonhardt delivers his perspective following the chronology of the American economy and offers a candid view of what needs to be done to bridge the chasm of inequality in the United States. Futhermore, the author offers a pragmatic perspective, touching on the idea of collectivism contra universalism and how refracting idealism to match to reality is often the best path forward, especially in a nation as individualistic and free-spirited as America.
April 5, 2024
A fascinating economic history of the United States. Told in a very accessible story telling fashion featuring a remarkable cast of characters. Much food for thought for the future of the country with its institutions under great stress. More chapters of shorter duration with a more manifest structure would have made it even better. Commendable that it was largely written in a coffee shop while listening to Oscar Peterson.
April 2, 2025
Look at me out here learning history and stuff! Still plenty places I got a little lost or had to rewind, but hey. Lots of new knowledge in this one for me in terms of history beyond the years covered in HS. Quite a few bookmarks in intro, conclusion, and Ch 3-5, but enjoyed 9-10, too.
How do books win a Pulitzer Prize again?
Listened on audiobook.
How do books win a Pulitzer Prize again?
Listened on audiobook.
July 31, 2025
Proud of myself for finishing this! Honestly not sure when I started but it took a MINUTE because it's very text heavy and mostly factual information. I learned a lot more about the overlap between the American economy and politics so that was cool. A little too dense at times but educational.
Oh, also loved that the title came from a woman who was sitting on the BPL steps which is where I got this book.
Oh, also loved that the title came from a woman who was sitting on the BPL steps which is where I got this book.
February 6, 2024
Politicians today are caught trying to be influencers when they need to govern when’s the last time you saw a politician do their job and didn’t tell you bout it every five mins, they are doing tik toks now hahaha
Also a trust fund kid walking around in shorts isn’t populism
Also a trust fund kid walking around in shorts isn’t populism
April 21, 2024
Definitely have a better understanding about the history of economic policy after reading this. Wish there was a more definitive way to start a grass roots movement for the future that was more progressive and economically appealing to more of America.
Want to read
February 22, 2025Rec by N Kristoff
January 2, 2024
A central premise of this book is that progressives must look to the past in order to imagine a more hopeful future. Leonhardt spends te first third of the book recounting the successes of figures such as Frances Perkins, Grace Hopper , and A Phillip Randolph among others. He also pines for the Old Left, rooted solidly in the labor movement of the mid twentith century and disparages the New Left (who he describes as effete, cynical, and distracted) the historical precusor for the Brahmin political and economic elite that he distrusts. When the book shifts gear to the fall of the American Dream, Leonhardt's argument is more persuasive and his strongest claims concern crime and immigration as political issues. Here are my notes for this very good book
Ours Was the Shining Future by David Leonhardt
P.xiii The crux of Adams's American dream was the ability of people to rise above the circumstances of their birth. He did not mean only in terms of material comforts but emphasized that those comforts were a big part of it. Money matters, as anybody who has ever lacked it knows. It can buy food, shelter, transportation, medical care, education, and time to spend with family and friends.
P.xxix three forces have driven the rise and fall of democratic capitalism in the United States: power, culture, and investment
P.191 The crime wave that began in the 1960s became the subject of intense academic study in the following years. Eventually, scholars discovered a pattern that existed across multiple societies and eras: crime waves tended to coincide with periods of social discord. When political consensus came apart– when people questioned whether their society was fair and whether they could trust their fellow citizens– more began to break the law. Most of the crime was without any political motive
P.194 It is important to emphasize that rising anomie can be a rational reaction to serious problems. After decades of accepting injustices, including racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and intolerant conformism, Americans began to challenge them in the early 1960s
P.326 As Jordan studied the issue, she came to believe that being strongly pro-immigrant and strongly pro-immigration were not the same thing. At times, those two principles could be in conflict. When the citizens of a country grew unhappy about its immigration system, they could support policies that hurt immigrants who were already in the country. Proposition 187 was an example. In Jordan’s view, there was sometimes a trade-off between immigrant rights and immigrant numbers. Higher immigration levels could lead to the persecution of immigrants.
P.327 [Barbara Jordan] If Americans were going to be one people, they had to make decisions about whom they would and would not admit, as every other nation did. They had to decide what forms of immigration were in the national interest and what forms were not. “Immigration is not a right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to everyone anywhere in the world who thinks they want to come to the United States,” Jordan said. “Immigration is a privilege. It is a privilege granted, granted by the people of the United States to those we choose to admit.”
P.327 “Between 1990 and 1995, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the country had increased more than 60 percent, to almost six million. Jordan believed that the increase was undermining societal stability by creating an impression that rules did not matter, and she described unlawful immigration as unacceptable. “Any nation worth its salt must control its borders…”
P.328 …there was no mystery about how to reduce unlawful immigration. The government could hold employers responsible for verifying the status of their workers and levy substantial fines on lawbreaking employers, rather than the minimal fines that the 1986 law imposed. Critics of the Jordan recommendations, which included the use of Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses to verify citizenship, described them as a Big Brother system. Jordan thought they were common-sense law-enforcement measures. The United States, she said, should be “ a nation of immigrants dedicated to the rule of law.” With fewer job opportunities for undocumented immigrants, fewer would attempt to enter the country. Companies would instead need to hire more native workers, increasing the demand for them and their pay.
P.328 The 1965 law had led to the entrance of millions of workers who were not reuniting with their nuclear family, had no specific skills, and were not political refugees. They had been admitted through the loophole that kept extended family members from being counted toward the annual cap set by Congress. Jordan thought this loophole, like the surge in illegal immigration, hurt American workers.
PP.328-9 In Houston, Jordan’s hometown, wages for Black residents had barely kept pace with inflation; the median income for Black households was lower than for any other major racial group. Immigration may not have been the main reason, but it was not helping. “The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete with the most vulnerable parts of our labor force,” Jordan said. “Many American workers do not now have adequate job prospects, and they are not improving… We should not make that task harder with unskilled foreign labor.”
P.329 On net, the commission called for a large reduction– by roughly one-third– in legal immigration, to about 550,000 annual entrants, down from about 800,000
P.332 The new Democratic consensus on immigration is part of the rise of the Brahmin left– the shift by progressive parties in both the United States and western Europe toward the views of highly educated professionals
P.332 immigration is a fascinating part of this story. If you think about immigration as a social issue– a question of human rights– you might say that Democrats have moved to the left by favoring more immigration. If you think about it as a domestic economic issue– one that affects the power dynamic between American employers and workers– you would instead say that a policy of more immigration is a right-wing position. Either way, the pary’s shift on immigration policy is consistent with Brahminism, in which the party has become more progressive on social issues than economic ones.
P.334 Racism, of course, is part of this story. In both the United States and Europe, right-wing politicians like Trump have tried to raise fears of immigrants by using xenophobic stereotypes that echo the ugly, false claims of earlier times. These politicians accuse the newest generation of immigrants of bringing social ills from their home countries and being incapable of assimilation. This racism can be anti-Latino, anti-Asian, anti-Black, or anti-Muslim, depending on the time and place. Social media has spread these lies, as have right-wing television channels like Fox News and its European imitators. The tactic has proved distressingly effective at winning working-class voters.
P.335 When immigration is a salient issue, it serves to remind many working-class voters that they agree with conservative parties on questions of patriotism, nationhood, and security. When immigration fades as an issue, voters think less about these questions and more about society’s economic divisions. Those class divisions, in turn, remind workers that they generally agree with progressive parties on economic policies, such as tax rates and government benefits.
P.336 The United States of the mid-twentieth century is also telling. Immigration was so low during these decades that it disappeared as a major political issue. Polls found that Americans’ view of immigrants became more positive. Many native-born Americans saw immigrants primarily as fellow citizens, rather than outsiders or recent arrivals. Americanization, in other words, described more than just the assimilation of immigrants; it described a national process of binding. A slowdown in the diversification of the country made Americans more comfortable with their newfound diversity. This cohesion fostered a progressive economic consensus, making possible high taxes on the affluent, large government investments in infrastructure and science, and modern welfare state programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
P.337 Immigration tends to impose costs on lower-wage workers and to alter the political atmosphere in ways that make government policy less generous to those same workers. Could a political party break this cycle and win elections with an agenda that was both heavily pro-immigration and pro-working class? Theoretically, yes. But it has not happened.
P.353 One other area of government spending that has soared in recent decades is criminal justice. Spending on police, courts, and prisons, although much smaller than healthcare and retirement spending, has more than doubled as a share of national income, to between 1.5 percent and 2 percent. Clearly, a well-functioning society depends on having a manageable crime rate and a sense of public order. But the United States spends much more on criminal justice than is necessary to maintain public order. There is little reason to believe that the large-scale imprisonment of people for nonviolent offenses, like drug possession ,is necessary. Mass incarceration damages public order in some ways by separating people– who are disproportionately Black, Latino, and Native American men– from their families and undermining their ability to find decent-paying work after their release. The prison construction boom of recent decades has been a negative investment in the future
P.360 A central reason that America’s future oriented investment has stagnated is the working class’s loss of political power.
P.361 Entrenched interests, across political ideologies and economic classes, can prevail over the national interest.
P.373 Our modern Gilded Age is unlikely to end until there is a political movement dedicated to ending it.
P.385 It is possible to disagree with others without believing that their views are hateful and unacceptable . It should also be possible for citizens with differing views on some important subjects nonetheless to belong to the same political coalition. Any coalition that rejects this idea is unlikely to be very large.
Ours Was the Shining Future by David Leonhardt
P.xiii The crux of Adams's American dream was the ability of people to rise above the circumstances of their birth. He did not mean only in terms of material comforts but emphasized that those comforts were a big part of it. Money matters, as anybody who has ever lacked it knows. It can buy food, shelter, transportation, medical care, education, and time to spend with family and friends.
P.xxix three forces have driven the rise and fall of democratic capitalism in the United States: power, culture, and investment
P.191 The crime wave that began in the 1960s became the subject of intense academic study in the following years. Eventually, scholars discovered a pattern that existed across multiple societies and eras: crime waves tended to coincide with periods of social discord. When political consensus came apart– when people questioned whether their society was fair and whether they could trust their fellow citizens– more began to break the law. Most of the crime was without any political motive
P.194 It is important to emphasize that rising anomie can be a rational reaction to serious problems. After decades of accepting injustices, including racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and intolerant conformism, Americans began to challenge them in the early 1960s
P.326 As Jordan studied the issue, she came to believe that being strongly pro-immigrant and strongly pro-immigration were not the same thing. At times, those two principles could be in conflict. When the citizens of a country grew unhappy about its immigration system, they could support policies that hurt immigrants who were already in the country. Proposition 187 was an example. In Jordan’s view, there was sometimes a trade-off between immigrant rights and immigrant numbers. Higher immigration levels could lead to the persecution of immigrants.
P.327 [Barbara Jordan] If Americans were going to be one people, they had to make decisions about whom they would and would not admit, as every other nation did. They had to decide what forms of immigration were in the national interest and what forms were not. “Immigration is not a right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to everyone anywhere in the world who thinks they want to come to the United States,” Jordan said. “Immigration is a privilege. It is a privilege granted, granted by the people of the United States to those we choose to admit.”
P.327 “Between 1990 and 1995, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the country had increased more than 60 percent, to almost six million. Jordan believed that the increase was undermining societal stability by creating an impression that rules did not matter, and she described unlawful immigration as unacceptable. “Any nation worth its salt must control its borders…”
P.328 …there was no mystery about how to reduce unlawful immigration. The government could hold employers responsible for verifying the status of their workers and levy substantial fines on lawbreaking employers, rather than the minimal fines that the 1986 law imposed. Critics of the Jordan recommendations, which included the use of Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses to verify citizenship, described them as a Big Brother system. Jordan thought they were common-sense law-enforcement measures. The United States, she said, should be “ a nation of immigrants dedicated to the rule of law.” With fewer job opportunities for undocumented immigrants, fewer would attempt to enter the country. Companies would instead need to hire more native workers, increasing the demand for them and their pay.
P.328 The 1965 law had led to the entrance of millions of workers who were not reuniting with their nuclear family, had no specific skills, and were not political refugees. They had been admitted through the loophole that kept extended family members from being counted toward the annual cap set by Congress. Jordan thought this loophole, like the surge in illegal immigration, hurt American workers.
PP.328-9 In Houston, Jordan’s hometown, wages for Black residents had barely kept pace with inflation; the median income for Black households was lower than for any other major racial group. Immigration may not have been the main reason, but it was not helping. “The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete with the most vulnerable parts of our labor force,” Jordan said. “Many American workers do not now have adequate job prospects, and they are not improving… We should not make that task harder with unskilled foreign labor.”
P.329 On net, the commission called for a large reduction– by roughly one-third– in legal immigration, to about 550,000 annual entrants, down from about 800,000
P.332 The new Democratic consensus on immigration is part of the rise of the Brahmin left– the shift by progressive parties in both the United States and western Europe toward the views of highly educated professionals
P.332 immigration is a fascinating part of this story. If you think about immigration as a social issue– a question of human rights– you might say that Democrats have moved to the left by favoring more immigration. If you think about it as a domestic economic issue– one that affects the power dynamic between American employers and workers– you would instead say that a policy of more immigration is a right-wing position. Either way, the pary’s shift on immigration policy is consistent with Brahminism, in which the party has become more progressive on social issues than economic ones.
P.334 Racism, of course, is part of this story. In both the United States and Europe, right-wing politicians like Trump have tried to raise fears of immigrants by using xenophobic stereotypes that echo the ugly, false claims of earlier times. These politicians accuse the newest generation of immigrants of bringing social ills from their home countries and being incapable of assimilation. This racism can be anti-Latino, anti-Asian, anti-Black, or anti-Muslim, depending on the time and place. Social media has spread these lies, as have right-wing television channels like Fox News and its European imitators. The tactic has proved distressingly effective at winning working-class voters.
P.335 When immigration is a salient issue, it serves to remind many working-class voters that they agree with conservative parties on questions of patriotism, nationhood, and security. When immigration fades as an issue, voters think less about these questions and more about society’s economic divisions. Those class divisions, in turn, remind workers that they generally agree with progressive parties on economic policies, such as tax rates and government benefits.
P.336 The United States of the mid-twentieth century is also telling. Immigration was so low during these decades that it disappeared as a major political issue. Polls found that Americans’ view of immigrants became more positive. Many native-born Americans saw immigrants primarily as fellow citizens, rather than outsiders or recent arrivals. Americanization, in other words, described more than just the assimilation of immigrants; it described a national process of binding. A slowdown in the diversification of the country made Americans more comfortable with their newfound diversity. This cohesion fostered a progressive economic consensus, making possible high taxes on the affluent, large government investments in infrastructure and science, and modern welfare state programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
P.337 Immigration tends to impose costs on lower-wage workers and to alter the political atmosphere in ways that make government policy less generous to those same workers. Could a political party break this cycle and win elections with an agenda that was both heavily pro-immigration and pro-working class? Theoretically, yes. But it has not happened.
P.353 One other area of government spending that has soared in recent decades is criminal justice. Spending on police, courts, and prisons, although much smaller than healthcare and retirement spending, has more than doubled as a share of national income, to between 1.5 percent and 2 percent. Clearly, a well-functioning society depends on having a manageable crime rate and a sense of public order. But the United States spends much more on criminal justice than is necessary to maintain public order. There is little reason to believe that the large-scale imprisonment of people for nonviolent offenses, like drug possession ,is necessary. Mass incarceration damages public order in some ways by separating people– who are disproportionately Black, Latino, and Native American men– from their families and undermining their ability to find decent-paying work after their release. The prison construction boom of recent decades has been a negative investment in the future
P.360 A central reason that America’s future oriented investment has stagnated is the working class’s loss of political power.
P.361 Entrenched interests, across political ideologies and economic classes, can prevail over the national interest.
P.373 Our modern Gilded Age is unlikely to end until there is a political movement dedicated to ending it.
P.385 It is possible to disagree with others without believing that their views are hateful and unacceptable . It should also be possible for citizens with differing views on some important subjects nonetheless to belong to the same political coalition. Any coalition that rejects this idea is unlikely to be very large.
October 19, 2025
Honestly I should start giving people a copy of this 700+ page book instead of launching into my political tirades. This would save them time
April 8, 2024
3.75. a bit scattershot
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews