What do you think?
Rate this book
48 Liberal Lies About American History
A historian debunks four-dozen PC myths about our nation?s past .
Over the last forty years, history textbooks have become more and more politically correct and distorted about our country?s past, argues professor Larry Schweikart. The result, he says, is that students graduate from high school and even college with twisted beliefs about economics, foreign policy, war, religion, race relations, and many other subjects.
As he did in his popular A Patriot?s History of the United States , Professor Schweikart corrects liberal bias by rediscovering facts that were once widely known. He challenges distorted books by name and debunks forty-eight common myths. A
? The founders wanted to create a ?wall of separation? between church and state
? Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only because he needed black soldiers
? Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to intimidate the Soviets with ?atomic diplomacy?
? Mikhail Gorbachev, not Ronald Reagan, was responsible for ending the Cold War
America?s past, though not perfect, is far more admirable than you were probably taught.
Over the last forty years, history textbooks have become more and more politically correct and distorted about our country?s past, argues professor Larry Schweikart. The result, he says, is that students graduate from high school and even college with twisted beliefs about economics, foreign policy, war, religion, race relations, and many other subjects.
As he did in his popular A Patriot?s History of the United States , Professor Schweikart corrects liberal bias by rediscovering facts that were once widely known. He challenges distorted books by name and debunks forty-eight common myths. A
? The founders wanted to create a ?wall of separation? between church and state
? Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only because he needed black soldiers
? Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to intimidate the Soviets with ?atomic diplomacy?
? Mikhail Gorbachev, not Ronald Reagan, was responsible for ending the Cold War
America?s past, though not perfect, is far more admirable than you were probably taught.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
115 people are currently reading
741 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 55 reviews
January 11, 2009
48 Liberal Lies About American History is a shocking read. In formatting this book, Larry Schweikart states a "liberal lie", and then provides evidentiary support to refute claims made. However, at times, he fails to realize that some of these "liberal arguments" are much more nuanced than the ones he posits.
Of particular interest is his take on “Lie # 14: Women had no rights in Early America.” Schweikart takes issue with Carol Berkin’s and Mary Beth Norton’s statement in Women of America that, “The United States had founding mothers… but on the whole our history celebrates only the white founding fathers.” I researched Berkin’s and Norton’s text; in fact, they do not dispute that women had rights in early America. What they do find problematic is the relative superiority of men to women prior to and after the American Revolution, and the continued espousal of patriarchal society. Schweikart skews their argument, making it far more extreme than it really is.
Moreover, in discussing why men dominate the medical field, Schweikart says, “Doctors—in an age without anesthesia—had to perform surgery and occasionally amputate limbs while restraining a patient who was protesting to no small degree… Small and less physically powerful women were at an important disadvantage in such work—but not in being midwives, which was exclusively a female domain.” I found Schweikart’s words extremely sexist and antifeminist. Schweikart easily falls prey to the claim that men are physically superior to women. For years, this school of thought has served to perpetuate a gender hierarchy. Here, Schweikart hardly acknowledges gender historians who would rightly repudiate his analysis. In fact, Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to graduate from medical school in 1849, became a physician before the widespread use of anesthesia.
There is much more to be criticized in Schweikart’s book. Indeed, Schweikart could not possibly imagine that any history text teaches that “The News Media Is Objective, Fair and Balanced – and Always Has Been.” Even a superficial study of American history debunks this notion. For example, in 1898, yellow journalism—the sensationalism and distortion of facts—surrounding the sinking of the USS Maine clearly led to the declaration of the Spanish-American War. In his attempt to introduce the conservative viewpoint in these historical discussions, Schweikart makes radical assertions that even those on the right might find disturbing. The intention of his book is honorable; however, Schweikart will need to reconfigure some of his arguments if he seeks to gain a wider audience for his work.
Review by Anita Sonawane
Of particular interest is his take on “Lie # 14: Women had no rights in Early America.” Schweikart takes issue with Carol Berkin’s and Mary Beth Norton’s statement in Women of America that, “The United States had founding mothers… but on the whole our history celebrates only the white founding fathers.” I researched Berkin’s and Norton’s text; in fact, they do not dispute that women had rights in early America. What they do find problematic is the relative superiority of men to women prior to and after the American Revolution, and the continued espousal of patriarchal society. Schweikart skews their argument, making it far more extreme than it really is.
Moreover, in discussing why men dominate the medical field, Schweikart says, “Doctors—in an age without anesthesia—had to perform surgery and occasionally amputate limbs while restraining a patient who was protesting to no small degree… Small and less physically powerful women were at an important disadvantage in such work—but not in being midwives, which was exclusively a female domain.” I found Schweikart’s words extremely sexist and antifeminist. Schweikart easily falls prey to the claim that men are physically superior to women. For years, this school of thought has served to perpetuate a gender hierarchy. Here, Schweikart hardly acknowledges gender historians who would rightly repudiate his analysis. In fact, Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to graduate from medical school in 1849, became a physician before the widespread use of anesthesia.
There is much more to be criticized in Schweikart’s book. Indeed, Schweikart could not possibly imagine that any history text teaches that “The News Media Is Objective, Fair and Balanced – and Always Has Been.” Even a superficial study of American history debunks this notion. For example, in 1898, yellow journalism—the sensationalism and distortion of facts—surrounding the sinking of the USS Maine clearly led to the declaration of the Spanish-American War. In his attempt to introduce the conservative viewpoint in these historical discussions, Schweikart makes radical assertions that even those on the right might find disturbing. The intention of his book is honorable; however, Schweikart will need to reconfigure some of his arguments if he seeks to gain a wider audience for his work.
Review by Anita Sonawane
March 31, 2009
Some new perspective on the old stories. Extensively footnoted, it allows the reader to go and do his/her own research to confirm/refute the assertions of either side of the argument. And, if you don't believe what he's saying in this book, please go do your own research and THEN write your review.
July 13, 2012
I think this book would make more sense if he substituted "liberal" for "New Left" because that is who he is really attacking. As a liberal I found this book insulting. As a historian, I disagree with many of his assertions. As someone who has not even been taught half the "myths" he "explodes", I find it comical.
January 6, 2011
Here is another book that collapses under the weight of its own gimmick. Books like “48 Liberal Lies” happen because there is a desire among writers and publishers to produce books that rely on gimmicks to grab and hold the modern American’s attention span. With forty-eight chapters, no particular repudiation is allowed to take up too much room, meaning that the reader is often privy to only rough sketches of an argument against something.
You’ll rarely hear me say this, but this book should have been much longer, and would have done well without the gimmick. Numerous chapters could have been combined and expanded upon, turning them into meaningful pieces. If you must stay with the gimmick, go with five or ten; forty-eight unnecessarily bogs down what *might* have been an honest effort to say something.
You’ll rarely hear me say this, but this book should have been much longer, and would have done well without the gimmick. Numerous chapters could have been combined and expanded upon, turning them into meaningful pieces. If you must stay with the gimmick, go with five or ten; forty-eight unnecessarily bogs down what *might* have been an honest effort to say something.
January 10, 2013
OK, so I got this book from my mother. Not one I would have picked up otherwise- the title alone is enough to make me cringe. However, taken with a grain of salt (as every political book ought to be taken) I found it very interesting. Anyone wanting to get to the truth ought to study both perspectives IMO.
February 12, 2012
One important aspect about this book is the continuation of the title..."that you probably learned in school"
So what did I think of this book? I was extremely interested in the book because of the extended portion of the title; I was actually concerned about what my grandchildren (or maybe even me)was or had learned concerning American history. First and foremost; I was never taught any of these so-called lies, not in grammer school, not in Junior or Senior high and not in college. So, I began to quiz my grandchildren, who range in age from 5 to 16; to date, none of my grandchildren have been taught any of these so-called lies. So, that left me with only one option....research these so-called lies by myself.
I did learn that approximately 99.9% of these so-called lies were indeed lies; however, the author of the book should have taken some advice himself "Repeat a fib often enough and it becomes accepted truth." It is my firm belief that this man either read up on historical conspiracy theories or decided it would be fun to screw with history because sooner or later, people who read this book would start discussing the fact that these lies were really taught in our schools or in the future, someone would use his book as a reference, taking the entire line of bull as fact.
The biggest problem I had with this book was that the author's explaination as to why the stated so-called lie was indeed a lie, in about 90% of the explainations did not justify what he was trying to get his readers to believe; but then.... "Repeat a fib often enough and it becomes accepted truth.
So what did I think of this book? I was extremely interested in the book because of the extended portion of the title; I was actually concerned about what my grandchildren (or maybe even me)was or had learned concerning American history. First and foremost; I was never taught any of these so-called lies, not in grammer school, not in Junior or Senior high and not in college. So, I began to quiz my grandchildren, who range in age from 5 to 16; to date, none of my grandchildren have been taught any of these so-called lies. So, that left me with only one option....research these so-called lies by myself.
I did learn that approximately 99.9% of these so-called lies were indeed lies; however, the author of the book should have taken some advice himself "Repeat a fib often enough and it becomes accepted truth." It is my firm belief that this man either read up on historical conspiracy theories or decided it would be fun to screw with history because sooner or later, people who read this book would start discussing the fact that these lies were really taught in our schools or in the future, someone would use his book as a reference, taking the entire line of bull as fact.
The biggest problem I had with this book was that the author's explaination as to why the stated so-called lie was indeed a lie, in about 90% of the explainations did not justify what he was trying to get his readers to believe; but then.... "Repeat a fib often enough and it becomes accepted truth.
September 7, 2011
The book is twisted. I did not enjoy it.
History of any nation is prone to get revised as time goes on. Leaders, who are common men/women, get elevated to a hero/demi-god status. Facts get left out and only accomplishments are remembered.
Not all revisionist historians have a hidden agenda. It is simply their intepretation and understanding of the facts.
This book is trying too hard to paint other authors as vicious liberal lie mongers.
History of any nation is prone to get revised as time goes on. Leaders, who are common men/women, get elevated to a hero/demi-god status. Facts get left out and only accomplishments are remembered.
Not all revisionist historians have a hidden agenda. It is simply their intepretation and understanding of the facts.
This book is trying too hard to paint other authors as vicious liberal lie mongers.
June 19, 2014
everything true is false
everything good is bad
everything right is wrong
your buffalo killed my indians
everything good is bad
everything right is wrong
your buffalo killed my indians
January 8, 2012
Good overview of some of the major flaws in modern college history texts. Should be read as a companion to typical college history texts.
January 11, 2024
This is a book of short articles. Some of them good, some of them not so great. Most are pretty good though. Good for casual reading.
October 31, 2018
The author knows what he is talking about when he criticizes textbooks for the lies they pass along, and he names names in this humorous and enlightening book about American history. In many ways, this particular book is a deliberate antagonist to Lies My Teacher Told Me, a work of progressive activism that sought to paint textbooks as being conservatively biased. Quite appropriately and accurately, the author finds this view to be a load of bunk and he takes aim at liberal biases in textbook histories that are based on the economics of textbook publishing that encourage textbook authors to engage the political motivations of the teaching unions and the professional educators of the area. As someone who has written a successful textbook on American history (which I have on my list of books to read in the nearish future), the author clearly has credibility in dealing with historians [1], and his perspective is one that I certainly appreciate as a reader. Those who actually believe the lies in this particular book--and there are 48 of them--will not view the author so highly as I do, but the rest of us can enjoy this book of historical polemic.
This book contains exactly what it sets out to do, writing refutations for 48 lies in a bit less than 250 pages in no particular order that names the lies and some of the lying historians at the beginning of the chapter and then refuting the lies with concise answers drawn from a firm knowledge of the history and texts involved. Included among the lies dealt with are the supposedly isolationist views of the founders, the view that corporate interests were behind the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars, FDR's supposed advanced knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, the atomic diplomacy of Truman's atom bomb drops, various JFK assassination conspiracies, anti-Nixon lies about Vietnam and Watergate, claims that various Communist spies and anarchist terrorists were innocent, the intolerance and racism of the early colonies, the absence of WMD's in Iraq, conspiratorial views of September 11th, the ineffectiveness of Star Wars, Joseph McCarthy's paranoia in concocting the red scare, mistaken views about the supposed separation of church and state, the meaning of the Scopes trial, views about Abraham Lincoln's call for black troops, the reason for the impeachment, the illegitimacy of the 2000 election, the reasons for Muslim terrorism as poverty and support of Israel, global warming, the effectiveness of health regulations, and Northern capitalism as the cause of the Civil War.
There are at least a few interrelated reasons for the lies that so many history teachers--most of them poorly educated in history themselves--attempt to pass off. For one, lies spread in textbooks because people see textbooks as a good way to indoctrinate others, and so many of the people who write histories themselves have obvious and unacceptable biases. It should be noted in fairness that the author has an obvious bias with his own Patriot's History Of The United States, but that is a bias that is not so unacceptable and one whose openness is praiseworthy. History should be written by honest patriots who wish for God to mend the flaws of their nation or church or community, but who honestly face the past and use it as inspiration for the present. At any rate, this book shows the author to be aware of a wide variety of historical disciplines and highly critical of others in his field that attempt to pass off shoddy and slanted scholarship as being worthy of instruction to young people as a way of indoctrinating them into an evil and self-destructive worldview. It is a good thing that there are books like this to counteract such lies.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
This book contains exactly what it sets out to do, writing refutations for 48 lies in a bit less than 250 pages in no particular order that names the lies and some of the lying historians at the beginning of the chapter and then refuting the lies with concise answers drawn from a firm knowledge of the history and texts involved. Included among the lies dealt with are the supposedly isolationist views of the founders, the view that corporate interests were behind the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars, FDR's supposed advanced knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, the atomic diplomacy of Truman's atom bomb drops, various JFK assassination conspiracies, anti-Nixon lies about Vietnam and Watergate, claims that various Communist spies and anarchist terrorists were innocent, the intolerance and racism of the early colonies, the absence of WMD's in Iraq, conspiratorial views of September 11th, the ineffectiveness of Star Wars, Joseph McCarthy's paranoia in concocting the red scare, mistaken views about the supposed separation of church and state, the meaning of the Scopes trial, views about Abraham Lincoln's call for black troops, the reason for the impeachment, the illegitimacy of the 2000 election, the reasons for Muslim terrorism as poverty and support of Israel, global warming, the effectiveness of health regulations, and Northern capitalism as the cause of the Civil War.
There are at least a few interrelated reasons for the lies that so many history teachers--most of them poorly educated in history themselves--attempt to pass off. For one, lies spread in textbooks because people see textbooks as a good way to indoctrinate others, and so many of the people who write histories themselves have obvious and unacceptable biases. It should be noted in fairness that the author has an obvious bias with his own Patriot's History Of The United States, but that is a bias that is not so unacceptable and one whose openness is praiseworthy. History should be written by honest patriots who wish for God to mend the flaws of their nation or church or community, but who honestly face the past and use it as inspiration for the present. At any rate, this book shows the author to be aware of a wide variety of historical disciplines and highly critical of others in his field that attempt to pass off shoddy and slanted scholarship as being worthy of instruction to young people as a way of indoctrinating them into an evil and self-destructive worldview. It is a good thing that there are books like this to counteract such lies.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
October 24, 2012
This book is very eye-opening. You know the saying those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it? Well, it's a bit hard to learn from history when the history that is being taught and learned is such a slanted view of what actually happened. The same mistakes will be made over and over again, and the liberals will just put the focus and the blame on someone else.
A lot of these lies are hurting our country right now. :(
A lot of these lies are hurting our country right now. :(
January 2, 2009
Each of the 'lies' was summarized in a few, concise pages. There were several that I remembered having been 'taught' -- and some that were so outrageous, I was stunned that anyone believes such drivel. For those who are convinced that they don't like history or that nothing important is ever misconstrued or misrepresented, this is a perfect book.
Currently reading
April 25, 2010Bruce gave me this for Christmas as a joke. In the spirit of good will I am reading it. I am half-way through it and it is a horrible piece of right slanted slander. I will finish it because it's always good to get inside the head of opposing viewpoints, but it sure does raise my blood pressure!!
February 15, 2016
With 45 pages of endotes, one can hardly say it isn't well-researched. Professor Schweikart does a fantastic job of providing a concise and fact-based accounting of historical people and events, which are under threat of "revision" by those who cannot be bothered with research, facts or objectivity.
Facts are pesky things that have a nasty habit of tripping up those who choose to ignore them.
Facts are pesky things that have a nasty habit of tripping up those who choose to ignore them.
February 18, 2009
A thinly veiled excuse to justify the Bush presidency, I don't know why I even bothered.
Read
June 2, 2010I could not finish this book. I am not an extreme liberal or an extreme conservative, but I do like to stay informed of both view points. This book made that actually impossible. Most of the "lies" were things I have never even heard about and the author's explanation did not make sense. He picked small parts to over-emphasize and just did not stop.
One sticks out in my mind: that Columbus, himself, actually killed millions of indigenous Americans. Has anyone else ever made that claim? In the history of the world? I don't think so.
I love political books but when they don't even try to show multiple view points I feel like they are mostly worthless.
One sticks out in my mind: that Columbus, himself, actually killed millions of indigenous Americans. Has anyone else ever made that claim? In the history of the world? I don't think so.
I love political books but when they don't even try to show multiple view points I feel like they are mostly worthless.
May 2, 2017
Rating - 7.2
A few interesting data points (Reaganomics, Truman & the Bomb) but most are forgettable & are more opinionated than fact; First I have read that it was the Democratic Congress that went on a $ spree
The Republican vs Democrat War of the Words is getting a bit stale & Schweikart's repetitive references tire itself; 'Academic' text (opening quotations) is defined liberally - they are non-fiction literature
A few interesting data points (Reaganomics, Truman & the Bomb) but most are forgettable & are more opinionated than fact; First I have read that it was the Democratic Congress that went on a $ spree
The Republican vs Democrat War of the Words is getting a bit stale & Schweikart's repetitive references tire itself; 'Academic' text (opening quotations) is defined liberally - they are non-fiction literature
December 28, 2013
Great book tackling some tough subjects exposing liberal bias' in our textbooks. I like that it is well sourced and not simply an opinion book. Also gives good examples of the fallout of some of our political policies, what Thomas Sowell calls "Beyond Stage One" thinking.
Read
July 31, 2011We want to believe the distortion of history when it fits within our prejudicial paradigm.
September 2, 2024
Some good, some bad.
November 13, 2023
Thought this would be an interesting look at how other people think, and I wasn't disappointed!
Among the more interesting things I noticed was that some of the "liberal lies" seem to be internal conservative squabbled, for example around the subject of isolationism (Washington's opinions on getting involved with other countries, whether FDR tried to manipulate things to get the US into war).
Others to some extent degenerate into uninteresting technical arguments: Did Iraq have uranium? Well, yes. So is the argument about the details of exactly what Colin Powell said at the UN; or is it about the fact that an unpredictable country did in fact have the potential to create a nuclear weapon?
Likewise did Reagan correctly exploit the Laffer curve? Well it's a fact that he both cut (some) federal taxes and that federal revenues rose over the 1980s. And the economy did in fact boom, just as Laffer said it would.
After that everything sinks into a stew of recrimination; was the revenue made up by tax increases on Social Security (but conservatives would counter that the Reagan cuts on the low-end, as opposed to at the high end, would have no Laffer effects, so the SS increases basically matched those decreases); or was it made up by the tax code rationalizations of 1984 which wiped away a slew of deductions, exemptions and loopholes (which presumably we all support, so wasn't that a reasonable trade? lower rates for all at the cost of removing loopholes for some?)
And then some issues are, perhaps, unresolvable to absolute perfection (isn't everything in history like that?) but the balance of evidence seems very much to indicate (at least IMHO) the guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti, of the Rosenbergs, of Alger Hiss, and of at least some of McCarthy's claims.
My primary take-aways from the book were, if anything, even more disgust with political evangelists than before.
On the one hand there are the multiple cases (like I said, from Sacco and Vanzetti forward) where guilt seems to have been pretty clearly established, and yet people are utterly uninterested in changing their minds or learning from their errors.
On the other hand, even when things are not cut-and-dried, political evangelists don't actually care about the details, only about the message of "my team was right and your team was wrong", which ends in nuanced (and possibly interesting) claims being collapsed to clearly nonsensical slogans.
On the third hand, almost no fight in politics is actually about facts, regardless of what either side claims. You can see this by the way the fight continues regardless of how the facts change as further historical evidence comes to light. Ask yourself whether you want to be involved with that. The person ranting at you about (to take today's examples) the historical something or other of Ukraine or Palestine
- probably knows very little about the details. Even if they ARE an expert, are they an HONEST expert?
- didn't make up their mind based on the "facts" and won't change them even if you show that their facts, or deductions from those facts, are wrong
So why are you wasting your time? Go read non-contentious history, or science, or something more edifying!
Among the more interesting things I noticed was that some of the "liberal lies" seem to be internal conservative squabbled, for example around the subject of isolationism (Washington's opinions on getting involved with other countries, whether FDR tried to manipulate things to get the US into war).
Others to some extent degenerate into uninteresting technical arguments: Did Iraq have uranium? Well, yes. So is the argument about the details of exactly what Colin Powell said at the UN; or is it about the fact that an unpredictable country did in fact have the potential to create a nuclear weapon?
Likewise did Reagan correctly exploit the Laffer curve? Well it's a fact that he both cut (some) federal taxes and that federal revenues rose over the 1980s. And the economy did in fact boom, just as Laffer said it would.
After that everything sinks into a stew of recrimination; was the revenue made up by tax increases on Social Security (but conservatives would counter that the Reagan cuts on the low-end, as opposed to at the high end, would have no Laffer effects, so the SS increases basically matched those decreases); or was it made up by the tax code rationalizations of 1984 which wiped away a slew of deductions, exemptions and loopholes (which presumably we all support, so wasn't that a reasonable trade? lower rates for all at the cost of removing loopholes for some?)
And then some issues are, perhaps, unresolvable to absolute perfection (isn't everything in history like that?) but the balance of evidence seems very much to indicate (at least IMHO) the guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti, of the Rosenbergs, of Alger Hiss, and of at least some of McCarthy's claims.
My primary take-aways from the book were, if anything, even more disgust with political evangelists than before.
On the one hand there are the multiple cases (like I said, from Sacco and Vanzetti forward) where guilt seems to have been pretty clearly established, and yet people are utterly uninterested in changing their minds or learning from their errors.
On the other hand, even when things are not cut-and-dried, political evangelists don't actually care about the details, only about the message of "my team was right and your team was wrong", which ends in nuanced (and possibly interesting) claims being collapsed to clearly nonsensical slogans.
On the third hand, almost no fight in politics is actually about facts, regardless of what either side claims. You can see this by the way the fight continues regardless of how the facts change as further historical evidence comes to light. Ask yourself whether you want to be involved with that. The person ranting at you about (to take today's examples) the historical something or other of Ukraine or Palestine
- probably knows very little about the details. Even if they ARE an expert, are they an HONEST expert?
- didn't make up their mind based on the "facts" and won't change them even if you show that their facts, or deductions from those facts, are wrong
So why are you wasting your time? Go read non-contentious history, or science, or something more edifying!
March 30, 2018
Larry Schweikart loves America, and in this book, he takes on many of the controversies surrounding American history. I very much appreciate Schweikart’s patriotism and his stalwart defense of the United States. This perspective is sorely lacking in most of our colleges and universities (and many of our public schools) today. For this, he should be commended.
The title is a bit unfortunate, however, as some of these issues aren’t necessarily “lies” so much as major disagreements over how to evaluate or interpret certain episodes of American history. Likewise, the term “liberal” is sometimes inappropriate, as some of these “lies” don’t necessarily come from the left.
Some of the chapters are stronger than others. And there doesn’t seem to be any kind of logical sequence to the “lies” the book covers.
All that having been said, if you’re someone who appreciates the United States, much of this book will resonate with you. And if you’re the type who has unquestioningly imbibed the anti-Americanism of Howard Zinn, this book will serve as an important counter to that. I would also recommend Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine the World Without Her.”
Overall... 4 stars and much gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Schweikwart, a man who loves his country. We need more such people today.
The title is a bit unfortunate, however, as some of these issues aren’t necessarily “lies” so much as major disagreements over how to evaluate or interpret certain episodes of American history. Likewise, the term “liberal” is sometimes inappropriate, as some of these “lies” don’t necessarily come from the left.
Some of the chapters are stronger than others. And there doesn’t seem to be any kind of logical sequence to the “lies” the book covers.
All that having been said, if you’re someone who appreciates the United States, much of this book will resonate with you. And if you’re the type who has unquestioningly imbibed the anti-Americanism of Howard Zinn, this book will serve as an important counter to that. I would also recommend Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine the World Without Her.”
Overall... 4 stars and much gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Schweikwart, a man who loves his country. We need more such people today.
March 27, 2014
I detest the title of this book. "Liberal Lies" is both inflammatory and inaccurate. Although I would guess most people know what he means, the definition of "liberal" is hotly disputed, and if he bothers to tell us exactly what he means by it, I missed it. And while these "lies" are certainly taught, I'd hazard a guess that most people teaching them believe in them, so they are not taught by "lying liars" but by people who're either misinformed or don't understand what really happened. Or, in a couple of cases, Schweikart has phrased the "lie" for his own purposes, meaning it isn't what's commonly taught anyhow (which he admits here and there).
One valid point he makes is that, when it comes to economics, history textbooks are dominated by Keynesians, and Keynesians get it wrong all the time. To offer a fairly recent example, while Austrian economists and those of the Chicago school warned that we were in a serious housing bubble in 2008, and that the bubble was due to burst, Keynesians had no clue, to the point that some insisted things were hunky dory. Not surprisingly, Keynesians are no better at analyzing the past than they are at analyzing present trends, because the foundations of their economic theory are wrong.
Since academics tend Keynesian, and since most textbooks are written by academics, textbooks are hopelessly unreliable when it comes to explaining economic issues. Which is not to say I agree with Schweikart's reasoning on the causes or cures of the Great Depression, either, particularly when it comes to the US sticking to the gold standard "too long." As Robert Murphy says about that theory, "It's odd that the gold standard could wreak so much havoc in the early 1930s — even though it had never done anything comparable earlier in US history — and then could continue to 'cause' the Great Depression, from 8 to 13 years after [our] abandoning it."
But, while I don't necessarily agree with his arguments against the various "lies," I do agree that nearly all of them are poor history. The US history book I used for my two teenagers (recommended in a CLEP-prep book) had a bunch of them, so I'd researched those pretty recently.
OTOH, Schweikart has his personal heroes, where he soft-pedals the facts. I don't like Reagan as much as Schweikart does, but he's right that it wasn't the tax cuts that caused the national debt to rise while Reagan was in power. However, Schweikart excuses Reagan's refusal to hold spending back on the grounds that Reagan needed to make deals to keep the military strong; to me, that was woefully short-sighted on Reagan's part and a betrayal of a lot of the people who voted him in. I also tend to see "the fall of the USSR" as more inevitable than Schweikart seems to, so I'm less impressed by Reagan's efforts to hurry it along. I did appreciate hearing Reagan's view of MAD, though.
One "lie" where I essentially disagree with Schweikart's position front to back is his chapter on prohibition. While I think Schweikart is technically correct in saying that "Prohibition was unpopular from the beginning and failed in all its objectives" is incorrect, I'm less convinced by his argument that a big part of the failure was due to confused and ineffective law enforcement, and not so convinced that he's really presenting the story as it's told in many textbooks.
While prohibition had a lot of popular support going in, and it lowered the alcoholic drinker rates probably for a couple generations (depending on how you count generations), as Schweikart himself points out, "Once the elites decided drinking was cool, and joined the journalists in their propaganda campaign that "crime was rising" and "enforcement didn't work," Prohibition's days were numbered." Without societal support, laws aren't going to stay on the books, even if they were at one time popular enough to become part of the Constitution.
It's also debatable that prohibition, as enforced, was what many supporters of it were looking for. The public's definition of "intoxicating liquors" often did not include wine or beer; it was the Volstead Act that probably killed prohibition in the long run, a possibility Schweikart doesn't even consider. He also doesn't consider the negative economic impact of the Volstead act; few breweries or other alcohol manufacturers survived, while restaurants, theaters, and many other entertainment venues took a hard hit as well. That did not bode well for many local economies.
And he ignores Richard Cowen's "iron law" of prohibition, namely, "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes." It's cheaper and easier to transport illegal hard liquor than beer or wine, so while some people quit drinking entirely, others went for the hard stuff even if they'd been perfectly happy with the milder stuff in the past. After Volkstead passed, the price of beer went up 700 percent; hard liquor "only" increased 270 percent. So although overall "liquor" consumption went down, consumption of hard liquor went up during prohibition. And the beer and wine that was around had a higher alcohol content.
But, of course, the problem with this sort of book is that none of the topics are well-covered. When I've already researched the issue, that doesn't bother me, but when it is something I don't feel up on, I like to use these kinds of books as a resource, a list of other books on various topics, hopefully books on both sides of the issue (which, admittedly, few are, but the good ones at least quote from both sides). While Schweikart does offer a lot of current-at-the-time-of-publication possibilities in some chapters, including web resources, the most current book on the topic of prohibition he lists is from 1976(!), which was rather a disappointment.
So not the resource I'd hoped it would be, but I picked this up at a freebie bin at McKay's Nashville, and for that price, it was fine.
One valid point he makes is that, when it comes to economics, history textbooks are dominated by Keynesians, and Keynesians get it wrong all the time. To offer a fairly recent example, while Austrian economists and those of the Chicago school warned that we were in a serious housing bubble in 2008, and that the bubble was due to burst, Keynesians had no clue, to the point that some insisted things were hunky dory. Not surprisingly, Keynesians are no better at analyzing the past than they are at analyzing present trends, because the foundations of their economic theory are wrong.
Since academics tend Keynesian, and since most textbooks are written by academics, textbooks are hopelessly unreliable when it comes to explaining economic issues. Which is not to say I agree with Schweikart's reasoning on the causes or cures of the Great Depression, either, particularly when it comes to the US sticking to the gold standard "too long." As Robert Murphy says about that theory, "It's odd that the gold standard could wreak so much havoc in the early 1930s — even though it had never done anything comparable earlier in US history — and then could continue to 'cause' the Great Depression, from 8 to 13 years after [our] abandoning it."
But, while I don't necessarily agree with his arguments against the various "lies," I do agree that nearly all of them are poor history. The US history book I used for my two teenagers (recommended in a CLEP-prep book) had a bunch of them, so I'd researched those pretty recently.
OTOH, Schweikart has his personal heroes, where he soft-pedals the facts. I don't like Reagan as much as Schweikart does, but he's right that it wasn't the tax cuts that caused the national debt to rise while Reagan was in power. However, Schweikart excuses Reagan's refusal to hold spending back on the grounds that Reagan needed to make deals to keep the military strong; to me, that was woefully short-sighted on Reagan's part and a betrayal of a lot of the people who voted him in. I also tend to see "the fall of the USSR" as more inevitable than Schweikart seems to, so I'm less impressed by Reagan's efforts to hurry it along. I did appreciate hearing Reagan's view of MAD, though.
One "lie" where I essentially disagree with Schweikart's position front to back is his chapter on prohibition. While I think Schweikart is technically correct in saying that "Prohibition was unpopular from the beginning and failed in all its objectives" is incorrect, I'm less convinced by his argument that a big part of the failure was due to confused and ineffective law enforcement, and not so convinced that he's really presenting the story as it's told in many textbooks.
While prohibition had a lot of popular support going in, and it lowered the alcoholic drinker rates probably for a couple generations (depending on how you count generations), as Schweikart himself points out, "Once the elites decided drinking was cool, and joined the journalists in their propaganda campaign that "crime was rising" and "enforcement didn't work," Prohibition's days were numbered." Without societal support, laws aren't going to stay on the books, even if they were at one time popular enough to become part of the Constitution.
It's also debatable that prohibition, as enforced, was what many supporters of it were looking for. The public's definition of "intoxicating liquors" often did not include wine or beer; it was the Volstead Act that probably killed prohibition in the long run, a possibility Schweikart doesn't even consider. He also doesn't consider the negative economic impact of the Volstead act; few breweries or other alcohol manufacturers survived, while restaurants, theaters, and many other entertainment venues took a hard hit as well. That did not bode well for many local economies.
And he ignores Richard Cowen's "iron law" of prohibition, namely, "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes." It's cheaper and easier to transport illegal hard liquor than beer or wine, so while some people quit drinking entirely, others went for the hard stuff even if they'd been perfectly happy with the milder stuff in the past. After Volkstead passed, the price of beer went up 700 percent; hard liquor "only" increased 270 percent. So although overall "liquor" consumption went down, consumption of hard liquor went up during prohibition. And the beer and wine that was around had a higher alcohol content.
But, of course, the problem with this sort of book is that none of the topics are well-covered. When I've already researched the issue, that doesn't bother me, but when it is something I don't feel up on, I like to use these kinds of books as a resource, a list of other books on various topics, hopefully books on both sides of the issue (which, admittedly, few are, but the good ones at least quote from both sides). While Schweikart does offer a lot of current-at-the-time-of-publication possibilities in some chapters, including web resources, the most current book on the topic of prohibition he lists is from 1976(!), which was rather a disappointment.
So not the resource I'd hoped it would be, but I picked this up at a freebie bin at McKay's Nashville, and for that price, it was fine.
July 2, 2025
A fun collection of disputed events assessed from a Conservative point of view. From the founders to Al Gore, it jumps around from event to event mostly chronologically, but not always. It was a little like listening to Rush Limbaugh assess some of these events. It was a good reminder of to not judge events till you have all the facts and that without careful thorough handling history can so easily slip into propaganda. I do think that without a general idea of some of the events and people discussed the reader could get easily confused. So, this might not be the best book to start a study of American history, but as a companion to any study of American history it would be great.
October 29, 2018
Schweikart always does a good job of going against what the mainstream history books report. That said, this book was so condensed that it left me wanting more. It's not that it's a bad book, it's just that there could have been a bit more depth. That said, since Schweikart uses way more first source material in context than, say, Kenneth C. Davis, it will be easy to go a bit deeper. This book is nowhere near as in-depth and detailed as the author's Patriot's History to the United States of America, but it is still a good read.
January 20, 2021
I'm a White Progressive, old enough that over a third of the chapters covered in the book hadn't happened yet when I was in school. While I found Mr. Schweikart's viewpoint interesting, and even agreed with some of his conclusions, I objected to the snarky comments and sarcasm directed towards those of us who are not die-hard conservatives. NOT what I wanted to read after the past four years.
December 26, 2017
Interesting but ultimately unsatisfying. Since Schweikart covers so much ground he doesn't have space to treat any of his topics in great depth. This book is probably most useful as a guide to future reading.
March 30, 2018
A little bit disjointed and hard to keep reading. I stopped and started several times. Recommend you read through it without stopping. Some of the items mentioned seemed to be a reach but much of the data appears legitimate. Overall interesting to see Mr. Schweikart's viewpoint.
January 1, 2021
While I don't agree with some moronic content like absence of human influence on climate, it is pleasantly surprising to view the events of the past through the eyes of a right winger.
Some of the arguments surprisingly actually make sense.
Some of the arguments surprisingly actually make sense.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews