James Carville famously reminded Bill Clinton throughout 1992 that "it's the economy, stupid." Yet, for the last forty years, historians of modern America have ignored the economy to focus on cultural, social, and political themes, from the birth of modern feminism to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now a scholar has stepped forward to place the economy back in its rightful place, at the center of his historical narrative. In More , Robert M. Collins reexamines the history of the United States from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, focusing on the federal government's determined pursuit of economic growth. After tracing the emergence of growth as a priority during FDR's presidency, Collins explores the record of successive administrations, highlighting both their success in fostering growth and its partisan uses. Collins reveals that the obsession with growth appears not only as a matter of policy, but as an expression of Cold War ideology--both a means to pay for the arms build-up and proof of the superiority of the United States' market economy. But under Johnson, this enthusiasm sparked a spending on Vietnam unleashed runaway inflation, while the nation struggled with the moral consequences of its prosperity, reflected in books such as John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring . More continues up to the end of the 1990s, as Collins explains the real impact of Reagan's policies and astutely assesses Clinton's "disciplined growthmanship," which combined deficit reduction and a relaxed but watchful monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. Writing with eloquence and analytical clarity, Robert M. Collins offers a startlingly new framework for understanding the history of postwar America.
This book is an indispensable resource to those concerned with political economy, particularly those who are interested in the development of American Economic ideology. More argues with great brevity that the importance of a balanced budget does not lie in economic utility, but win symbolic importance that alters depending upon whatever economic ideology is accepted by voters, politicians, business elites, and bureaucratic institutions like the Federal Reserve. Collins makes a great case that it is "the politics of Growth" that directs the budgetary process and the public debate regarding it. Essentially, technological restlessness, America's liberal foundations and the rise of Keynesian economics/technocracy has resulted in a economic ideology based upon the idea that unbounded economic growth is the fundamental indicator of a healthy economy as opposed to growth within the means of a community; psychologically and financially.
"More" is even greater when one applies it to political theory and sociology. For instance, More's insistence that the budget reflects the interests of competing power structures rather than objective, critical debate makes more sense if one views it from a Foulcaultian perspective as it suggests that no one "controls" the budgetary process, but that the budget is a result of power relations. Moreover, this serves as a great gateway into thinkers such as Karl Polanyi, Max Weber, and Hannah Arendt, all of whom agree that economic doctrines such as the one accepted in American society is ultimately hazardous psychologically, economically, spiritually, and intellectually.
Indispensable resource on the history of America's postwar political obsession with growth -- dated now only because it was published nearly 20 years ago and therefore could not have foreseen the way the growth story would come to a coughing, sputtering, stumbling halt after the financial crisis of 2008. The post-2008 story vindicates Collins's thesis that American politicians have been unable to conceive a form of post-growth politics -- at least not one that would both be electable and legitimate.
read this because there have been a lot of articles recently about (what collins would call) growth liberalism having a bit a revival moment with the 2008 stimulus, CARES, and ARPA + green new deal becoming an object of wider discussion. anyway, collins writes an interesting study of how growth was achieved and perceived in postwar america, from depression-era fights of whether growth was even possible in the long-run to the heyday of growth liberalism in the '50s and '60 to the ford/carter age of limits to the growth conservatism/supply-side economics of reagan/clinton. at least for me, the two most interesting parts were (a) the 1930s discussions on whether american economic growth had leveled permanently - obv this was wrong in hindsight, but reading the very...doomer predictions of some intellectuals and politicians from the time period was an important reminder to me that sometime we can be overly pessimistic about our visions of the future, something to keep in mind when we think about the future now and (b) finally getting a satisfying explanation of richard nixon's hopes and dreams for america. thinking of him as a whiggish progressive conservative who wanted to use growth to redeem america really helped to square his seemingly more liberal policies with the reactionary politics.
Irrespective of one's ideological leanings, this is an often wise and perhasp even indispensable look at the crucial but overlooked, dismissed, or obscured fact about American life: mostly everyone wants "more." Collins gives a nuanced look at what that means, not all of which is obvious or congruent. Whether one is scornful of consumerism or a fan of business (or something in between), this mostly dispassionate examination would be a helpful component of one's survey of realistic social and economic assessments, and a deeper socio-economic understanding of the impulses comprising the American Dream of the last century and a half, or longer.
Collins provides excellent historical coverage of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that gave rise to a culture of economic growth in the U.S. President Eisenhower, for one, was dubious of the wisdom of heightening economic growth to new levels. Advocates of maximum growth eventually carried the day, leading to the current situation, in which both major political parties try to outdo each other in promising and delivering economic growth, with little attention to the quality of life.
Very solid book - kind of like Galbraith's The Affluent Society, but really concise - easy to read and to reference later. Great resource as I earned my MA in History at UNLV, continue at UC Berkeley, and finish my first book, "The Case of the Cleantech Con Artist: A True Vegas Tale" and "Solar's Crucible" - history of solar energy in the Mojave.