What do you think?
Rate this book
Ex America: The 50th Anniversary of the People's Pottage
For fifty years, Garet Garrett's The People's Pottage has stood as one of the seminal works outlining the intellectual debate that raged over Roosevelt's ambitious restructuring of the American body politic. The three monographs that made up The People's Pottage have been presented in hardcover form in Ex America , a 50th Anniversary Edition with a new foreword by historian Bruce Ramsey.
190 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2004
53 people want to read
About the author
Garet Garrett
61 books28 followersGaret Garrett was born in 1878 in Illinois. By 1903, he had become a well known writer for the Sun newspaper (1833–1950) in New York. In 1911, he wrote a fairly successful book, Where the Money Grows and Anatomy of the Bubble. In 1916, at the age of 38, Garrett became the executive editor of the New York Tribune, after having worked as a financial writer for The New York Times, the Saturday Evening Post, and The Wall Street Journal. From 1920 to 1933, his primary focus was on writing books.
Between 1920 and 1932 Garrett wrote eight books, including The American Omen in 1928 and A Bubble That Broke the World in 1932. He also wrote regular columns for several business and financial publications.
Between 1920 and 1932 Garrett wrote eight books, including The American Omen in 1928 and A Bubble That Broke the World in 1932. He also wrote regular columns for several business and financial publications.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 31, 2024
A REPRINTING OF THREE ESSAYS CONDEMNING GOVERNMENTAL POWER, ETC.
Garet Garrett (1878-1954; born ‘Edward Peter Garrett’) was an American journalist and author, who worked for publications including The New York Times, the New-York Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post, and American Affairs. This 1953 book consisted of three essays: ‘The Revolution Was’ (1944), ‘Ex America’ (1951), and ‘Rise of Empire’ (1952).
He wrote in the Preface, “in 1932 a group of intellectual revolutionaries, hiding behind the conservative planks of the Democratic Party, seized control of government. After that it was the voice of government saying to the people there had been too much freedom… Freedom was for the strong. The few had used it to exploit the many… So, instead of this willful private freedom, trust the government to administer freedom, for all the people alike, especially the weak… the government would redistribute the national wealth in an equitable manner… the government then would see to it that everybody had always enough money to buy a decent living, and… provide for the widows and orphans, the sick and disabled, and indigent and the old. To perform these miracles it would require… freedom to intervene in the lives of people for their own good… the individual was asked to surrender only the freedom to starve and what he received in return was freedom from want. Was that not a good bargain? What the people did in fact surrender was control of government.” (Pg. xxviii-xix) He adds, “The three essays brought together in this book … purport to tell what happened and how it happened, from a point of view in which there is no sickly pretense of neutralism.” (Pg. xxxii)
In ‘The Revolution Was,’ he states, “The scientific study of revolution included… analysis of opportunity… The Great Depression… was such an opportunity as might have been made to order… The economic distress… was very acute; and much worse than any actual hurt was a nameless fear… that assumed the proportions of a national psychosis.” (Pg. 7)
He asks, “Where was the New Deal going? … Every choice it made… was a choice unerringly true to the essential design of totalitarian government, never of course called by that name either here or anywhere else.” (Pg. 10) Later, he adds, “The New Deal’s enmity for that system of free and competitive private enterprise which we call capitalism was fundamental. And this was so for two reasons, namely: first, that its philosophy and that of capitalism were irreconcilable, and secondly, that private capitalism by its very nature limits government.” (Pg. 27)
He argues, “the revolutionary thesis… is not a question of law. It is a question of power. There must be a transfer of power… Instead of limiting by law the power of what it calls economic autocracy the government itself has seized the power.” (Pg. 37) He continues, “The unique American tradition of individualism was systematically attacked by propaganda in three ways… Firstly… the word ‘individualism’ was made the symbol of such hateful human qualities as greed, utter selfishness, and ruthless disregard to the sufferings… of one’s neighbors. Secondly, by suggestion that … the individual… was no longer able to cope with the adversities of circumstances… Thirdly… in place of all the old symbols of individualism the one great new symbol of SECURITY.” (Pg. 39)
He summarizes, “It was this that the hand of paternal government, having first seized economic power, traced the indelible outlines of the American Welfare State. In the welfare state the government undertakes to see to it that the individual shall be housed and clothed and fed according to a statistical social standard… and in consideration for this security the individual accepts in place of entire freedom a status and a number and submits his life to be minded and directed by an all-responsible government.” (Pg. 41)
In ‘Ex America,’ he says, “Suppose a true image of the present world had been presented to [the people] in 1900… together with the question, ‘Do you want it?’ No one can imagine that they would have said yes… first it happened and then they consented. They did not vote for getting into World War I. They voted against it… They did not vote for the New Deal… they elected Mr. Roosevelt on a platform that promised less government, a balanced Federal budget, and sound money… They did not vote for getting into World War II… They never voted for the Welfare State… They did not vote for the United Nations, nor for putting the United Nations flag above American troops in foreign countries… The people did not vote to debase the dollar…” (Pg. 70-74)
He observes, “Formerly it was natural for … an exasperated taxpayer to say to a supercilious bureaucrat, ‘Look, I support this government. You are working for me. Understand?’ That spirit has entirely disappeared. The taxpayer … [now] is timorous and respectful. He does not tell the bureaucrat; the bureaucrat tells him… Instead of thinking and speaking of MY government he now speaks of it as THE government…” (Pg. 75)
He predicts, “What the government will do in the next crisis is pre-determined… we [will] be through with the fiction of free prices, free markets… and free enterprise… A government that has arrived at the ultimate goal of total power may dispense with inflation… The consuming delusion is that because of what Americans were, this may not or cannot happen.” (Pg. 91)
In ‘Rise of Empire,’ he outlines, “The first requisite of Empire is: The executive power of the government shall be dominant…” (Pg. 101) “A second mark… is: Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.” (Pg. 112) “Another brand mark… is: Ascendancy of the military mind, to such a point at last that the civilian mind is intimidated.” (Pg. 114) “Another … structural feature is: A system of satellite nations.” (Pg. 122) “a curious and characteristic emotional weakness of Empire is: A complex of vaunting and fear.” (Pg. 127) “There is yet another sign… a time comes when Empire finds itself—A prisoner of history… What is it that now obliges the American people to act upon the world?... It is our turn… to assume the responsibilities or moral leadership in the world. Our turn to maintain a balance of power against the forces of evil everywhere… Our turn to save civilization… But this is the language of Empire.” (Pg. 129-130) “For the first time in the history of mankind … the paramount power of the world … wants only … a world in which all people shall be politically free to govern themselves… The view may be sublime. That will not save you if, as you reach for the stars, you step in a chasm.” (Pg. 132)
The ’classic’ book will appeal to some on the far ‘Right’ side of politics. (It was one of the John Birch Society’s top book recommendations.)
Garet Garrett (1878-1954; born ‘Edward Peter Garrett’) was an American journalist and author, who worked for publications including The New York Times, the New-York Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post, and American Affairs. This 1953 book consisted of three essays: ‘The Revolution Was’ (1944), ‘Ex America’ (1951), and ‘Rise of Empire’ (1952).
He wrote in the Preface, “in 1932 a group of intellectual revolutionaries, hiding behind the conservative planks of the Democratic Party, seized control of government. After that it was the voice of government saying to the people there had been too much freedom… Freedom was for the strong. The few had used it to exploit the many… So, instead of this willful private freedom, trust the government to administer freedom, for all the people alike, especially the weak… the government would redistribute the national wealth in an equitable manner… the government then would see to it that everybody had always enough money to buy a decent living, and… provide for the widows and orphans, the sick and disabled, and indigent and the old. To perform these miracles it would require… freedom to intervene in the lives of people for their own good… the individual was asked to surrender only the freedom to starve and what he received in return was freedom from want. Was that not a good bargain? What the people did in fact surrender was control of government.” (Pg. xxviii-xix) He adds, “The three essays brought together in this book … purport to tell what happened and how it happened, from a point of view in which there is no sickly pretense of neutralism.” (Pg. xxxii)
In ‘The Revolution Was,’ he states, “The scientific study of revolution included… analysis of opportunity… The Great Depression… was such an opportunity as might have been made to order… The economic distress… was very acute; and much worse than any actual hurt was a nameless fear… that assumed the proportions of a national psychosis.” (Pg. 7)
He asks, “Where was the New Deal going? … Every choice it made… was a choice unerringly true to the essential design of totalitarian government, never of course called by that name either here or anywhere else.” (Pg. 10) Later, he adds, “The New Deal’s enmity for that system of free and competitive private enterprise which we call capitalism was fundamental. And this was so for two reasons, namely: first, that its philosophy and that of capitalism were irreconcilable, and secondly, that private capitalism by its very nature limits government.” (Pg. 27)
He argues, “the revolutionary thesis… is not a question of law. It is a question of power. There must be a transfer of power… Instead of limiting by law the power of what it calls economic autocracy the government itself has seized the power.” (Pg. 37) He continues, “The unique American tradition of individualism was systematically attacked by propaganda in three ways… Firstly… the word ‘individualism’ was made the symbol of such hateful human qualities as greed, utter selfishness, and ruthless disregard to the sufferings… of one’s neighbors. Secondly, by suggestion that … the individual… was no longer able to cope with the adversities of circumstances… Thirdly… in place of all the old symbols of individualism the one great new symbol of SECURITY.” (Pg. 39)
He summarizes, “It was this that the hand of paternal government, having first seized economic power, traced the indelible outlines of the American Welfare State. In the welfare state the government undertakes to see to it that the individual shall be housed and clothed and fed according to a statistical social standard… and in consideration for this security the individual accepts in place of entire freedom a status and a number and submits his life to be minded and directed by an all-responsible government.” (Pg. 41)
In ‘Ex America,’ he says, “Suppose a true image of the present world had been presented to [the people] in 1900… together with the question, ‘Do you want it?’ No one can imagine that they would have said yes… first it happened and then they consented. They did not vote for getting into World War I. They voted against it… They did not vote for the New Deal… they elected Mr. Roosevelt on a platform that promised less government, a balanced Federal budget, and sound money… They did not vote for getting into World War II… They never voted for the Welfare State… They did not vote for the United Nations, nor for putting the United Nations flag above American troops in foreign countries… The people did not vote to debase the dollar…” (Pg. 70-74)
He observes, “Formerly it was natural for … an exasperated taxpayer to say to a supercilious bureaucrat, ‘Look, I support this government. You are working for me. Understand?’ That spirit has entirely disappeared. The taxpayer … [now] is timorous and respectful. He does not tell the bureaucrat; the bureaucrat tells him… Instead of thinking and speaking of MY government he now speaks of it as THE government…” (Pg. 75)
He predicts, “What the government will do in the next crisis is pre-determined… we [will] be through with the fiction of free prices, free markets… and free enterprise… A government that has arrived at the ultimate goal of total power may dispense with inflation… The consuming delusion is that because of what Americans were, this may not or cannot happen.” (Pg. 91)
In ‘Rise of Empire,’ he outlines, “The first requisite of Empire is: The executive power of the government shall be dominant…” (Pg. 101) “A second mark… is: Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.” (Pg. 112) “Another brand mark… is: Ascendancy of the military mind, to such a point at last that the civilian mind is intimidated.” (Pg. 114) “Another … structural feature is: A system of satellite nations.” (Pg. 122) “a curious and characteristic emotional weakness of Empire is: A complex of vaunting and fear.” (Pg. 127) “There is yet another sign… a time comes when Empire finds itself—A prisoner of history… What is it that now obliges the American people to act upon the world?... It is our turn… to assume the responsibilities or moral leadership in the world. Our turn to maintain a balance of power against the forces of evil everywhere… Our turn to save civilization… But this is the language of Empire.” (Pg. 129-130) “For the first time in the history of mankind … the paramount power of the world … wants only … a world in which all people shall be politically free to govern themselves… The view may be sublime. That will not save you if, as you reach for the stars, you step in a chasm.” (Pg. 132)
The ’classic’ book will appeal to some on the far ‘Right’ side of politics. (It was one of the John Birch Society’s top book recommendations.)
July 8, 2008
This is a classic book examining FDR's New Deal, and the subsequent repercussions to those failed policies and what it should mean for us today. A recommended book to anyone who is interested in economic philosophy and history, and one who is willing to understand how the United States entered into such deep economic troubles and what the future may hold for us if we continue our path.
March 18, 2021
Memory-holed book by a memory-holed author. Interesting analysis of the New Deal. Book is as relevant today as ever.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews