What do you think?
Rate this book
The Big Con: Crackpot Economics and the Fleecing of America
The scam of supply-side economics is clearly and convincingly explained in “a classic of political journalism” (Michael Lewis).
Jonathan Chait has written for a range of publications, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, and considers himself a moderate. But he’s convinced that American politics has been hijacked.
Over the past three decades, a fringe group of economic hucksters has corrupted and perverted our nation’s policies, Chait argues, revealing in The Big Con how these canny zealots first took over the Republican Party, and then gamed the political system and the media so that once-unthinkable policies—without a shred of academic, expert, or even popular support—now drive the political agenda, regardless of which party is in power. The principle is supposedly “small government”—but as he demonstrates, the government is no smaller than it was in the days of Ronald Reagan; it’s simply more debt-ridden and beholden to wealthy elites.
Why have these ideas succeeded in Washington even as the majority of the country recognizes them for the nonsense they are? How did a clique of extremists gain control of American economic policy and sell short the country’s future? And why do their outlandish ideas still determine policy despite repeated electoral setbacks? Explaining just how things work in Washington, DC, and distinguishing between short-term volatility in the “political weather” and the long-term, radical shift in the “political climate,” Chait presents a riveting drama of greed and deceit that should be read by every concerned citizen.
“Chait is both very serious and seriously funny as he traces the rise of conservatism over the past thirty years.” —Michael Kinsley
Jonathan Chait has written for a range of publications, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, and considers himself a moderate. But he’s convinced that American politics has been hijacked.
Over the past three decades, a fringe group of economic hucksters has corrupted and perverted our nation’s policies, Chait argues, revealing in The Big Con how these canny zealots first took over the Republican Party, and then gamed the political system and the media so that once-unthinkable policies—without a shred of academic, expert, or even popular support—now drive the political agenda, regardless of which party is in power. The principle is supposedly “small government”—but as he demonstrates, the government is no smaller than it was in the days of Ronald Reagan; it’s simply more debt-ridden and beholden to wealthy elites.
Why have these ideas succeeded in Washington even as the majority of the country recognizes them for the nonsense they are? How did a clique of extremists gain control of American economic policy and sell short the country’s future? And why do their outlandish ideas still determine policy despite repeated electoral setbacks? Explaining just how things work in Washington, DC, and distinguishing between short-term volatility in the “political weather” and the long-term, radical shift in the “political climate,” Chait presents a riveting drama of greed and deceit that should be read by every concerned citizen.
“Chait is both very serious and seriously funny as he traces the rise of conservatism over the past thirty years.” —Michael Kinsley
Kindle Edition
First published September 12, 2007
87 people are currently reading
711 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Chait
2 books36 followersJonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic and a former assistant editor of The American Prospect. He also writes a periodic column in the Los Angeles Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
March 31, 2013
This is the book to read if you want to understand supply-side economics. Well, perhaps you could read Wanniski's "The Way The World Works", but you might come away from that book assuming that supply-side economics actually works the way its proponents say it does.
Jonathan Chait absolutely thoroughly demolishes the intellectual underpinnings of supply-side economics, and provides a coherent and plausible account of how a theory that was proposed by people like Wanniski with no economics credentials at all was adopted enthusiastically by large swaths of the DC political class on both sides of the aisle.
The upshot is this: if you propose a theory, no matter how ludicrous, that says that we'll all be better off if taxes on rich people are lowered, there are a lot of rich people who will be interested in hearing more. Whole think tanks have been created with the express purpose of creating plausible-sounding reasons to cut taxes on rich people. It doesn't matter that cutting taxes for rich people has not in fact delivered the economic benefits that supply-siders promise. As long as there are suckers willing to vote for lower taxes on rich people, there will be rich people willing to fund new papers, conferences, and fellowships all about how high taxes on rich people are stifling progress.
It's mildly depressing that there really isn't much else driving supply-side economics and yet it's been a remarkably durable ideology. But that's politics for you.
This book is a great read, albeit pretty much guaranteed to raise your cynicism about politics.
Jonathan Chait absolutely thoroughly demolishes the intellectual underpinnings of supply-side economics, and provides a coherent and plausible account of how a theory that was proposed by people like Wanniski with no economics credentials at all was adopted enthusiastically by large swaths of the DC political class on both sides of the aisle.
The upshot is this: if you propose a theory, no matter how ludicrous, that says that we'll all be better off if taxes on rich people are lowered, there are a lot of rich people who will be interested in hearing more. Whole think tanks have been created with the express purpose of creating plausible-sounding reasons to cut taxes on rich people. It doesn't matter that cutting taxes for rich people has not in fact delivered the economic benefits that supply-siders promise. As long as there are suckers willing to vote for lower taxes on rich people, there will be rich people willing to fund new papers, conferences, and fellowships all about how high taxes on rich people are stifling progress.
It's mildly depressing that there really isn't much else driving supply-side economics and yet it's been a remarkably durable ideology. But that's politics for you.
This book is a great read, albeit pretty much guaranteed to raise your cynicism about politics.
October 24, 2016
Great Read
Whether or not this book leans left will be for each individual reader to decide. I found this book incredibly interesting in its explanation and analysis of how the American economy has been hijacked by Republican supply side economic theory. This is a clear, cogent presentation of the author's argument and is a must read for everyone who wonders how this theory has survived in spite of its utter failure over the past thirty years.
Whether or not this book leans left will be for each individual reader to decide. I found this book incredibly interesting in its explanation and analysis of how the American economy has been hijacked by Republican supply side economic theory. This is a clear, cogent presentation of the author's argument and is a must read for everyone who wonders how this theory has survived in spite of its utter failure over the past thirty years.
February 9, 2019
This is a fascinating book: a easily overlooked and (unfortunately) mostly forgoten piece of literature that is still shockingly relivent more than a decade after it's initial print.
For starters, this book is an excellent primer for the quackery of Supply Side Economics. It submits a crippling critique of the theory and presents the reader with a history of it's stunning failures. However, that's really just the first half of the book. The second half primarily focuses on how the GOP has managed to succeed in elections despite such a fanatical devotion to such a broken Economic ideology.
In this second half, the book is also exceptionaly good. It details how the GOP has managed to win and run despite it's failures and dives deeply into the personality and behavior of the modern GOP. It is too a shocking indictment of its gleefully partisan actions and takeover of the party by the paranoid far-right fringe.
To me, this shows that the writing on the wall for what was going to come next should had been obvious: the record breaking obstruction and Savage partisan actions of the GOP should had been seen coming from a mile away. The attempt to bargain and compromise (and hopelessy chase "the center"*) with such a group of fanatics should had been seen as futile (which unfortunately did not happen).
5/5 stars. A book that is as relivent in 2019 as it was in 2007.
I strongly urge anyone interested in political science or Economics to pick it up and give it a read.
You won't be disappointed.
*The book also engages in a brilliant analysis of the madness of chasing the political center in a world where the left party is moderate and the right party is absurdly conservative. The center between the two always ends up well to the right of public consensus.
P.s. I rather enjoyed how he brought up the universial healthcare and basic income plans endorsed by Nixon and how these plans would had put Nixon in the left wing of the Democratic party today. His respect for Paul Volcker was also greatly appreciated and well noted.
For starters, this book is an excellent primer for the quackery of Supply Side Economics. It submits a crippling critique of the theory and presents the reader with a history of it's stunning failures. However, that's really just the first half of the book. The second half primarily focuses on how the GOP has managed to succeed in elections despite such a fanatical devotion to such a broken Economic ideology.
In this second half, the book is also exceptionaly good. It details how the GOP has managed to win and run despite it's failures and dives deeply into the personality and behavior of the modern GOP. It is too a shocking indictment of its gleefully partisan actions and takeover of the party by the paranoid far-right fringe.
To me, this shows that the writing on the wall for what was going to come next should had been obvious: the record breaking obstruction and Savage partisan actions of the GOP should had been seen coming from a mile away. The attempt to bargain and compromise (and hopelessy chase "the center"*) with such a group of fanatics should had been seen as futile (which unfortunately did not happen).
5/5 stars. A book that is as relivent in 2019 as it was in 2007.
I strongly urge anyone interested in political science or Economics to pick it up and give it a read.
You won't be disappointed.
*The book also engages in a brilliant analysis of the madness of chasing the political center in a world where the left party is moderate and the right party is absurdly conservative. The center between the two always ends up well to the right of public consensus.
P.s. I rather enjoyed how he brought up the universial healthcare and basic income plans endorsed by Nixon and how these plans would had put Nixon in the left wing of the Democratic party today. His respect for Paul Volcker was also greatly appreciated and well noted.
October 4, 2007
While initially I thought I had read enough about the Republicanism's recent ascendancy and it's use of supply-side economics, this book gave me a break from the never ending onslaught of outrage I experience from the Bush administration. It was comforting to think of this all as a cohesive narrative and not just something that makes me cringe every time I hear a snippet from Bush or read about the latest sham the Republicans are trying to parade. Plus, it's a whole lot funnier to read stupid justifications that Bush may give for his inane actions and it's fun to relive egregious events that I thought everyone had surely forgotten about. Like this one:
Explaining why Cheney had to be at his side while being questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Bush offered only this nonanswer:
"Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us. An I'm looking forward to answering them."
The book is balanced enough for me and appears genuinely to seek out unbiased truth - countering every attack on conservatives with an honest look at the left. It usually gives the advantage to the left on journalistic integrity, adherence to party doctrin, etc. A fast read (I finished it in a day and a half), I found it a lot more enjoyable than the daily Op-Ed columns in the NY Times who may share the same convictions as Chait. It's comforting to read someone who sees the endless string of governmental disappointments and ties them all together.
Explaining why Cheney had to be at his side while being questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Bush offered only this nonanswer:
"Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us. An I'm looking forward to answering them."
The book is balanced enough for me and appears genuinely to seek out unbiased truth - countering every attack on conservatives with an honest look at the left. It usually gives the advantage to the left on journalistic integrity, adherence to party doctrin, etc. A fast read (I finished it in a day and a half), I found it a lot more enjoyable than the daily Op-Ed columns in the NY Times who may share the same convictions as Chait. It's comforting to read someone who sees the endless string of governmental disappointments and ties them all together.
September 14, 2011
Jonathan Chait does a great job of telling the history of GOP economic theory for the last 40 years. From the Laffer Curve drawn on a cocktail napkin, to Reagan's trickle-down-theory, to the current supply-side "tax cuts raise revenue" thinking, Chait shows how GOP thinking went off the rails.
The most remarkable thing about this book was that it was published in 2007 but is still spot on. The Great Recession of 2008 and the advent of the Tea Party have had zero influence on GOP talking points.
Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton had it right when he said, "We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans." I am a lefty, liberal Eisenhower Republican.
The most remarkable thing about this book was that it was published in 2007 but is still spot on. The Great Recession of 2008 and the advent of the Tea Party have had zero influence on GOP talking points.
Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton had it right when he said, "We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans." I am a lefty, liberal Eisenhower Republican.
March 13, 2017
Great information. This could really open people's eyes, but for one small failing. Chait often resorts to name-calling and emotional language, while a more straightforward albeit boring approach could reach more people. What he's saying, though, is that political conservatives and liberals alike have shifted to the right in the past 30 years. Not only has there been a shift, there has also been a marked drop in analytical and critical thinking among the media. He gives ample news sources, lengthy quotes, and in-depth interviews to support his thesis. I recommend this to critically thinking voters of all political views.
January 21, 2013
Even though this book is a few years old, it is of lasting value because of its description of the transition in the Republican Party over the past 50 years. It's also an eviscerating indictment of supply-side economics; the author goes to great lengths, with success, to provide incontrovertible evidence of this theory's Potemkin village nature. Its presenters know it to be a sham, yet continue to propound the sanctity of Milton Friedman and all supply-siders, including, so they allege, St. Reagan.
I enjoyed this book. It's the kind of book you want to just hand over to someone and say, "Read this, would you?"
So, read this, would you?
I enjoyed this book. It's the kind of book you want to just hand over to someone and say, "Read this, would you?"
So, read this, would you?
March 24, 2008
For someone raised in a conservative, Christian, Republican family, this book goes a long way in explaining the historical and cultural context behind why my feelings for George W. Bush border on loathing. Chait is a writer for The New Republic and so is clearly a liberal, but his argument is lucid. It presents at least "the other side" of the coin.
February 24, 2023
I was a big fan of Jon Chait during the naughties when he wrote for The New Republic. I saved & highlighted 44 of his essays from that decade. Now I can barely stand to read him.
I liked Chapter 1 of this book, which describes some of the crazy economists who pushed supply-side/trickle-down economics. But Stockman covers that subject much better in The Triumph of Politics (1986).
I also liked Chapter 8, which described how the GOP has sought to mainstream its 'crazy' ideas. But Tom Edsall covers that story much better in his books Building Red America (2006) and The Age of Austerity (2012).
Chait recently published an 8,000-word essay arguing Trump has long been a Russian spy, which struck me as an instance of what Matt Taibbi has called Putin derangement syndrome, "a dangerous case of mass hysteria."
Notice the pasive voice & verb tense that Chait uses:
Although I once read & admired his writing, I don't have much good to say about it now.
I liked Chapter 1 of this book, which describes some of the crazy economists who pushed supply-side/trickle-down economics. But Stockman covers that subject much better in The Triumph of Politics (1986).
I also liked Chapter 8, which described how the GOP has sought to mainstream its 'crazy' ideas. But Tom Edsall covers that story much better in his books Building Red America (2006) and The Age of Austerity (2012).
Chait recently published an 8,000-word essay arguing Trump has long been a Russian spy, which struck me as an instance of what Matt Taibbi has called Putin derangement syndrome, "a dangerous case of mass hysteria."
Notice the pasive voice & verb tense that Chait uses:
it would be dangerous not to consider the possibility that the [Trump-Putin] summit is less a negotiation between two heads of state than a meeting between a Russian-intelligence asset and his handler.
. . . it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back this far. But it can’t be dismissed completely. How do you even think about the small but real chance—10 percent? 20 percent?—that the president of the United States has been covertly influenced or personally compromised by a hostile foreign power for decades?
It is not difficult to imagine that Russia quickly had something on Trump, from either exploits during his 1987 visit or any subsequent embarrassing behavior KGB assets might have uncovered. But the other leverage Russia enjoyed over Trump for at least 15 years is indisputable—in fact, his family has admitted to it multiple times. After a series of financial reversals and his brazen abuse of bankruptcy laws, Trump found it impossible to borrow from American banks and grew heavily reliant on unconventional sources of capital. Russian cash proved his salvation. In July 2013, Trump visited Moscow again. If the Russians did not have a back-channel relationship or compromising file on Trump 30 years ago, they very likely obtained one then. There is growing reason to think the pee tape might indeed exist.
Although I once read & admired his writing, I don't have much good to say about it now.
July 17, 2019
More than an economic con
I have just one minor criticism of this book: the subtitle, “The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics.” Strange to say this somewhat misrepresents the content of the book. The real con was played on the American public not just Washington, and it was more of a political con than an economic one.
It is true that the Reagan and especially the George W. Bush administrations systematically stole money from the middle class and gave it to the rich, but that is only part of the story. The real con, as Jonathan Chait makes clear, is in their attempted destruction of the checks and balances of our democratic/republican form of government as established by the founding fathers. The Republicans have simply made Congress irrelevant in many respects. Chait shows how the Bush administration was able to stifle opposing views by intimidating a cowardly press, and with a near dictatorial level of executive privilege in the White House and a storm trooper like control of committees and procedures in the Congress, was able to empty the treasury and fatten the pockets of cronies in big corporations.
In their zeal to make government smaller, the voodoo economists, the neocons, and their clueless allies, the evangelical social conservatives, have eviscerated the machinery of government to the point that all the appointed posts are filled with Bush buddies, party hacks and corporate henchmen, many of whom are incompetent and loyal not to the American people but to the very institutions and corporations that they are supposed to oversee and regulate. Furthermore Bush has greatly weakened America abroad with his wasteful and immoral war in Iraq while at the same time has strengthened both Al Qaeda and the theocracy in Iran. Additionally, Bush’s personal incompetence and immorality in international affairs has made the US not just the butt of jokes but has brought shame upon the US, once arguably the moral leader of the world.
As Chait chronicles it, this thievery and desecration of America was tried before during the reign of the robber barons and continued until the power structure realized that if they kept stealing from the masses they might invite the specter that was haunting Europe into the heartland of American—that specter being communism. Now with communism nearly dead, the new robber barons are again emboldened. The thievery began again in earnest during the Reagan administration with the laughable economics of the Laffer Curve. The idea is that--miracle of miracles!—you can increase government revenues by lowering taxes. Yes! If governments tax at too high a rate people will lose the initiative to work or invest because of diminishing returns from their labor and capital. But if you lower taxes allowing people to keep a higher percentage of what they have earned, low and behold they work harder and invest more and this stimulates the economy!
This idea, as Chait acknowledges, contains a germ of truth. There probably IS a point on the Laffer Curve at which the optimum amount of revenue can be collected from any given economy. Of course knowing exactly where this point lies would involving understanding much more about the American economy than can really be known. And of course the locus of that point would be constantly changing with changing circumstances. No matter. If, through high toned pronouncements from think tanks and control by intimidation of the media, the idea of lowering taxes for the investing class can be sold to a gullible public as good for the hungry masses, then we are home free! Call it all part of the dumbing down of America on the way to creating a huge and permanent underclass.
And so it came (partly) to pass. And then in the George W. Bush administration they went—how shall I phrase it?—ape sh-t! However nobody in Washington seemed to notice that across the Atlantic Ocean where the corporate and income tax rates were much higher than in the US, the dollar was getting clobbered. The average American’s net worth vis-à-vis the average Chablis-swilling Frenchy was in free fall, not to mention how the burghers in Deutschland were making out. Whereas Tokyo used to be the most expensive city on earth for Americans, now it was London where the dollar bought only a fraction of the Euro.
The rhetoric from the right intones: “You earned it. You ought to be able to keep it!” But this simplistic slogan ignores the fact that even the road you drive on was built and paid for by somebody else. All the riches that can be created today out of the economy cannot be considered riches that you or I earned alone. Without the vast infrastructure already in place we would be as poor as African Bushmen. And yes the rich should pay more in taxes since they have more to conserve and protect, and therefore benefit disproportionately from the military, the police, and all the other institutions of government aimed at insuring domestic tranquility and safety--and that includes social welfare services which help keep the masses from the ramparts.
What Chait demonstrates only too well in this very readable tome is that of late the greed has gotten out of control. I suspect that those with half a brain on the right who are in positions of power will recognize that there is a limit to how much you can steal and get away with it. No communist menace is at hand, but an incompetent government and an internationally weak America may bring about some unwelcome changes, such as the US becoming a gigantic banana republic ripe for revolution.
A good companion volume to this excellent work, covering much of the same ground from a similar point of view, is John W. Dean’s “Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches” (2007).
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
I have just one minor criticism of this book: the subtitle, “The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics.” Strange to say this somewhat misrepresents the content of the book. The real con was played on the American public not just Washington, and it was more of a political con than an economic one.
It is true that the Reagan and especially the George W. Bush administrations systematically stole money from the middle class and gave it to the rich, but that is only part of the story. The real con, as Jonathan Chait makes clear, is in their attempted destruction of the checks and balances of our democratic/republican form of government as established by the founding fathers. The Republicans have simply made Congress irrelevant in many respects. Chait shows how the Bush administration was able to stifle opposing views by intimidating a cowardly press, and with a near dictatorial level of executive privilege in the White House and a storm trooper like control of committees and procedures in the Congress, was able to empty the treasury and fatten the pockets of cronies in big corporations.
In their zeal to make government smaller, the voodoo economists, the neocons, and their clueless allies, the evangelical social conservatives, have eviscerated the machinery of government to the point that all the appointed posts are filled with Bush buddies, party hacks and corporate henchmen, many of whom are incompetent and loyal not to the American people but to the very institutions and corporations that they are supposed to oversee and regulate. Furthermore Bush has greatly weakened America abroad with his wasteful and immoral war in Iraq while at the same time has strengthened both Al Qaeda and the theocracy in Iran. Additionally, Bush’s personal incompetence and immorality in international affairs has made the US not just the butt of jokes but has brought shame upon the US, once arguably the moral leader of the world.
As Chait chronicles it, this thievery and desecration of America was tried before during the reign of the robber barons and continued until the power structure realized that if they kept stealing from the masses they might invite the specter that was haunting Europe into the heartland of American—that specter being communism. Now with communism nearly dead, the new robber barons are again emboldened. The thievery began again in earnest during the Reagan administration with the laughable economics of the Laffer Curve. The idea is that--miracle of miracles!—you can increase government revenues by lowering taxes. Yes! If governments tax at too high a rate people will lose the initiative to work or invest because of diminishing returns from their labor and capital. But if you lower taxes allowing people to keep a higher percentage of what they have earned, low and behold they work harder and invest more and this stimulates the economy!
This idea, as Chait acknowledges, contains a germ of truth. There probably IS a point on the Laffer Curve at which the optimum amount of revenue can be collected from any given economy. Of course knowing exactly where this point lies would involving understanding much more about the American economy than can really be known. And of course the locus of that point would be constantly changing with changing circumstances. No matter. If, through high toned pronouncements from think tanks and control by intimidation of the media, the idea of lowering taxes for the investing class can be sold to a gullible public as good for the hungry masses, then we are home free! Call it all part of the dumbing down of America on the way to creating a huge and permanent underclass.
And so it came (partly) to pass. And then in the George W. Bush administration they went—how shall I phrase it?—ape sh-t! However nobody in Washington seemed to notice that across the Atlantic Ocean where the corporate and income tax rates were much higher than in the US, the dollar was getting clobbered. The average American’s net worth vis-à-vis the average Chablis-swilling Frenchy was in free fall, not to mention how the burghers in Deutschland were making out. Whereas Tokyo used to be the most expensive city on earth for Americans, now it was London where the dollar bought only a fraction of the Euro.
The rhetoric from the right intones: “You earned it. You ought to be able to keep it!” But this simplistic slogan ignores the fact that even the road you drive on was built and paid for by somebody else. All the riches that can be created today out of the economy cannot be considered riches that you or I earned alone. Without the vast infrastructure already in place we would be as poor as African Bushmen. And yes the rich should pay more in taxes since they have more to conserve and protect, and therefore benefit disproportionately from the military, the police, and all the other institutions of government aimed at insuring domestic tranquility and safety--and that includes social welfare services which help keep the masses from the ramparts.
What Chait demonstrates only too well in this very readable tome is that of late the greed has gotten out of control. I suspect that those with half a brain on the right who are in positions of power will recognize that there is a limit to how much you can steal and get away with it. No communist menace is at hand, but an incompetent government and an internationally weak America may bring about some unwelcome changes, such as the US becoming a gigantic banana republic ripe for revolution.
A good companion volume to this excellent work, covering much of the same ground from a similar point of view, is John W. Dean’s “Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches” (2007).
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
June 14, 2008
First - you don't have to be an economic guru to read this book. It will interest anyone wondering how we got in the bad economic situation we are in today, all Democrats, Republicans wondering what the hell happened to their political party, anyone interested in the upcoming election, and anyone who cares that future generations will have to pay up the wazoo for the tax cuts of today. The beginning and middle sections are scary indeed - especially when seeing the recent McCain pronouncements on tax cuts he will add to the Bush mix (he is selling out) - while the end dragged a bit for me. Still, I think most moderate-minded people will find the information in the book alarming and thought provoking.
October 20, 2024
Rating: 4* of five
The Publisher Says: The scam of supply-side economics is clearly and convincingly explained in “a classic of political journalism” (Michael Lewis).
Jonathan Chait has written for a range of publications, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, and considers himself a moderate. But he’s convinced that American politics has been hijacked.
Over the past three decades, a fringe group of economic hucksters has corrupted and perverted our nation’s policies, Chait argues, revealing in The Big Con how these canny zealots first took over the Republican Party, and then gamed the political system and the media so that once-unthinkable policies—without a shred of academic, expert, or even popular support—now drive the political agenda, regardless of which party is in power. The principle is supposedly “small government”—but as he demonstrates, the government is no smaller than it was in the days of Ronald Reagan; it’s simply more debt-ridden and beholden to wealthy elites.
Why have these ideas succeeded in Washington even as the majority of the country recognizes them for the nonsense they are? How did a clique of extremists gain control of American economic policy and sell short the country’s future? And why do their outlandish ideas still determine policy despite repeated electoral setbacks? Explaining just how things work in Washington, DC, and distinguishing between short-term volatility in the “political weather” and the long-term, radical shift in the “political climate,” Chait presents a riveting drama of greed and deceit that should be read by every concerned citizen.
“Chait is both very serious and seriously funny as he traces the rise of conservatism over the past thirty years.” —Michael Kinsley
I RECEIVED THIS BOOK AS A GIFT. THANKS!
My Review: We knew the 1980 election was stolen. We knew why, too. Milton Friedman told us why it had to be in Free to Choose, book and TV show. He operated in the libertarian/laissez-faire world of F.A. Hayek. The men behind Reagan were supply-side radicals who wanted more than anything to cripple the Federal government's ability to act against the businesses polluting out planet, and "taking their money." Instead the Federal government would need to borrow money...at interest...from the banks; enriching the bankers and hobbling the politicians who could enforce change on the reactionary elite.
What tendentious Author Chait does in this seventeen-year-old book is detail the ways this brazen theft (my words, not his) has resonated down the decades to the present moment of radicalized fascist terrorism meeting economic royalism in an ongoing enshittification of the world's social fabric. And it's being done to us all under the name "supply-side economics."
Call it whatever you like. We're forty-four years into the world's first experiment in this snake-oil system of not taxing the rich and not acting to protect the poor and the needy, after seeing the huge economic and societal gains of the Keynesian interventionist years. The promises of economic growth and technological innovation, of booming investment by those untaxed billionaires, etc etc ad nauseam, have not materialized. There's never been a glimmer of benefit to anyone except the untaxed wealthy.
Yet the entire conversation about the economy is still framed in terms that comport with this failed-in-practice theory.
The essence of insanity is doing the same thing repetitively and expecting different results to come of it.
Author Chait isn't kidding around with this takedown of the naked emperors of the economic establishment. It is refreshing to see a commonsensical moderate-to-conservative poloitical thinker confront orthodoxy, hold it to the test of results-versus-promises, and report honestly on his findings. Reading this book before the 2024 election would be wise. Reading it, and considering deeply its message and its implications, is something I'd call a civic duty.
NB The blogged review has links to definitions
The Publisher Says: The scam of supply-side economics is clearly and convincingly explained in “a classic of political journalism” (Michael Lewis).
Jonathan Chait has written for a range of publications, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, and considers himself a moderate. But he’s convinced that American politics has been hijacked.
Over the past three decades, a fringe group of economic hucksters has corrupted and perverted our nation’s policies, Chait argues, revealing in The Big Con how these canny zealots first took over the Republican Party, and then gamed the political system and the media so that once-unthinkable policies—without a shred of academic, expert, or even popular support—now drive the political agenda, regardless of which party is in power. The principle is supposedly “small government”—but as he demonstrates, the government is no smaller than it was in the days of Ronald Reagan; it’s simply more debt-ridden and beholden to wealthy elites.
Why have these ideas succeeded in Washington even as the majority of the country recognizes them for the nonsense they are? How did a clique of extremists gain control of American economic policy and sell short the country’s future? And why do their outlandish ideas still determine policy despite repeated electoral setbacks? Explaining just how things work in Washington, DC, and distinguishing between short-term volatility in the “political weather” and the long-term, radical shift in the “political climate,” Chait presents a riveting drama of greed and deceit that should be read by every concerned citizen.
“Chait is both very serious and seriously funny as he traces the rise of conservatism over the past thirty years.” —Michael Kinsley
I RECEIVED THIS BOOK AS A GIFT. THANKS!
My Review: We knew the 1980 election was stolen. We knew why, too. Milton Friedman told us why it had to be in Free to Choose, book and TV show. He operated in the libertarian/laissez-faire world of F.A. Hayek. The men behind Reagan were supply-side radicals who wanted more than anything to cripple the Federal government's ability to act against the businesses polluting out planet, and "taking their money." Instead the Federal government would need to borrow money...at interest...from the banks; enriching the bankers and hobbling the politicians who could enforce change on the reactionary elite.
What tendentious Author Chait does in this seventeen-year-old book is detail the ways this brazen theft (my words, not his) has resonated down the decades to the present moment of radicalized fascist terrorism meeting economic royalism in an ongoing enshittification of the world's social fabric. And it's being done to us all under the name "supply-side economics."
Call it whatever you like. We're forty-four years into the world's first experiment in this snake-oil system of not taxing the rich and not acting to protect the poor and the needy, after seeing the huge economic and societal gains of the Keynesian interventionist years. The promises of economic growth and technological innovation, of booming investment by those untaxed billionaires, etc etc ad nauseam, have not materialized. There's never been a glimmer of benefit to anyone except the untaxed wealthy.
Yet the entire conversation about the economy is still framed in terms that comport with this failed-in-practice theory.
The essence of insanity is doing the same thing repetitively and expecting different results to come of it.
Author Chait isn't kidding around with this takedown of the naked emperors of the economic establishment. It is refreshing to see a commonsensical moderate-to-conservative poloitical thinker confront orthodoxy, hold it to the test of results-versus-promises, and report honestly on his findings. Reading this book before the 2024 election would be wise. Reading it, and considering deeply its message and its implications, is something I'd call a civic duty.
NB The blogged review has links to definitions
November 1, 2011
I give this a 2.5 because it was half-way b/w 3 for the information and 2 for its partisanship.
Although Jonathan sounds like a partisan crack pot conspiracy theorist himself, I think he is right in thinking the tax rate especially for upper income people has no bearing in economic growth or contraction. What matters in terms of government and the economy is deficit reduction and increase in R&D spending and making sure our infrastructure is up to par. I now think that once government decreases the deficit, it should focus its funds in R&D, education, infrastructure as well as make this country one of the easiest places to start and grow a business. Clearly what made Clinton's economy boom is his emphasis in deficit reduction as well as the military technology (govt. R&D) of the internet hitting the private market thus creating a new industry that now dominates the US economy.
Why does tax rate not matter in macro-economics? Clinton and Reagan raised taxes and their economy boomed. Bush decreased taxes into unprecedented levels and the economy tanked. Tax cuts by themselves don't do anything to the economy. At best, tax cuts will boost short term economy but do not do anything to the permanent. At worst, tax cuts contribute to deficit spending, especially without the corresponding cuts in government.
How did this all come to be? Chait says that supply-side economics gained traction due to 70's stagflation that discredited the Keynsnian notion of inverse relationship b/w unemployment and inflation, the GOP wanting to be the dominant party thus wanting to pry the rich from the democratic party, and the rich themselves who wanted more money for themselves.
This environment set the stage for the brain (Laffer), the mouthpiece (Wanniski), and the movt. via politics (Cheney and Kemp). Although the centerpiece of the Laffer curve is income tax for the rich should be cut b/c they are the entrepreneurial engines of America and thus American growth and all that growth would somehow add to government coffers, we now know that a permanent tax decrease does not contribute to permanent economic growth as seen in Clinton vs.W's administrations.
I have nothing against businesses lobbying for their interests as long as unemployment is low. But, once business’ interests are honored without the expectant trickle-down effect then you know that business interest are not necessarily synonymous with the countries. Apparently, business lobbying, like the conservative movement itself, grew out of the backlash against 60’s liberalism as well as global competition. When business interest married itself to the GOP, they had to follow the GOP important agenda whether it was to their interest or not. The most apparent example of this came is Clinton’s health care initiative. Corporations supported a push toward universal health care b/c health care insurance was eating their bottom line but GOP ideologues demanded that corporations withdraw their support of it since it was deemed anti-GOP.
Even though lobbyist are as old as the political system, the GOP coaxing business lobbying to be only loyal to them via the K street project ( Delay) is absolutely troubling. Because in exchange for total loyalty toward the GOP via campaign contributions, lobbyist get to write the rules for their industry thus going against the conservative principle of free market economics by picking sides. For example, the book points to numerous instances in which W. abandoned conservative free-market principles in favor of appeasing various lobbyist constituencies. Also, W as well as Republican’s disdain for non-partisan bureaucrats who are there to do their jobs allowed lobbyist to take over the role of bureaucrats. According to the book in W’s administration the bureaucrats were there to sell W’s policies not to create them.
The Faustian deal that the GOP made now has created a monster that they can no longer control. Since the GOP let lobbyist get used to writing bills for them, it is now one of a lobbyist major job descriptions no matter who is in power. I would not be surprised if large parts of the health care and financial regulation bills were written by industries that seek to protect themselves. Even the democrats now have to play by lobbyist rule if they want to be backed into office. So, what was once a GOP phenomenon has no become a de facto government phenomenon.
Thus, it seems that special interest groups and especially ones that can pay are the ones who are the new machine bosses of the 21 century.
How can we get out of the mess we are in if legislation is created to protect special interest groups instead of the country? Maybe it is better to be a lobbyist b/c at least you know what your job description is influence-peddling.
Reagan ideology as the gold standard for the GOP is absolutely ludicrous combined with Norquist pledge of not to cut taxes as the litmus test for Republican politicians is the death knell to deficit reduction. If Reagan himself raised taxes 3 times and have the economy up and running then why should every Republican politician forswear to raising taxes. I see this as idiocy.
I am actually pro-business and I am for the entrepreneurial spirit that made this a great country but I am pro-business as a means to an end and that end being the economic engine of the US. If that engine stops, we need fresh ideas not rehash of Reaganomics while it might have worked then; I am not sure it will work now.
For long-term American prosperity, I would decrease the deficit via structural revision to entitlement programs, have short-term middle class tax cuts, let the income tax cuts for the wealthy expire, have a tax cut to capital gains tax only if capital gains goes toward US businesses otherwise I would increase the capital gains tax to the rate of a middle class income wage earner, re-enforce the estate tax, have the friendliest immigration policy for highly skilled workers in the world, have education reform to increase American competitiveness, create private-public infrastructure bank to fund infrastructure costs, increase funding toward basic science R&D, and make it structurally and economically the friendliest place for entrepreneurial business.
How did this happen?
Republicans are generally a better party in creating the image of their candidates, narrative that accompanies it, and circulating rumors that become “fact” of their opponents. That is, they are better at manipulating the media. Whereas democrats run on policy prescription, the public and more importantly the media enjoy character and anecdotal personality stories better which Republicans are inherently better at. I have contended that elections are won or lost based on emotions while ruling the country is best run by people with brains.
As far as the tax cuts go, people are generally not interested in economic discussion unless they are directly affected by it. This is the reason why the economy only becomes an issue during a recession. Other than a recession, Republicans can focus on the rich in terms of economic policy because that is the only constituency who cares about money in absolute terms. The self-made rich are usually rich for a reason----because they care about money the most.
Other things that I leaned from this book:
1) "Left-wing" mainstream media and think tanks are more objective and thus easily trusted over the "right-wing" media/think tanks which is just a propaganda arm of conservative party. Ideologues in the Republican party keep politicians in check.
2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we should avoid having an ideological similar executive and legislative branch again. I find it disconcerting that the Republican Congress was not doing its job as a check to Executive power. It is as if they were just a rubber stamp of the presidency, thus making the separation of powers largely a myth. W. also made the conservative media the propaganda arm of the government.
This happened because power centralized in the House in which committee leadership was assigned by party loyalty not seniority any longer. It also made the House of Representative reward loyalty to the party above its constituents de facto rule. And in the Senate, the Conference Committee made sure that the House was calling the shots not the Senate.
Although Jonathan sounds like a partisan crack pot conspiracy theorist himself, I think he is right in thinking the tax rate especially for upper income people has no bearing in economic growth or contraction. What matters in terms of government and the economy is deficit reduction and increase in R&D spending and making sure our infrastructure is up to par. I now think that once government decreases the deficit, it should focus its funds in R&D, education, infrastructure as well as make this country one of the easiest places to start and grow a business. Clearly what made Clinton's economy boom is his emphasis in deficit reduction as well as the military technology (govt. R&D) of the internet hitting the private market thus creating a new industry that now dominates the US economy.
Why does tax rate not matter in macro-economics? Clinton and Reagan raised taxes and their economy boomed. Bush decreased taxes into unprecedented levels and the economy tanked. Tax cuts by themselves don't do anything to the economy. At best, tax cuts will boost short term economy but do not do anything to the permanent. At worst, tax cuts contribute to deficit spending, especially without the corresponding cuts in government.
How did this all come to be? Chait says that supply-side economics gained traction due to 70's stagflation that discredited the Keynsnian notion of inverse relationship b/w unemployment and inflation, the GOP wanting to be the dominant party thus wanting to pry the rich from the democratic party, and the rich themselves who wanted more money for themselves.
This environment set the stage for the brain (Laffer), the mouthpiece (Wanniski), and the movt. via politics (Cheney and Kemp). Although the centerpiece of the Laffer curve is income tax for the rich should be cut b/c they are the entrepreneurial engines of America and thus American growth and all that growth would somehow add to government coffers, we now know that a permanent tax decrease does not contribute to permanent economic growth as seen in Clinton vs.W's administrations.
I have nothing against businesses lobbying for their interests as long as unemployment is low. But, once business’ interests are honored without the expectant trickle-down effect then you know that business interest are not necessarily synonymous with the countries. Apparently, business lobbying, like the conservative movement itself, grew out of the backlash against 60’s liberalism as well as global competition. When business interest married itself to the GOP, they had to follow the GOP important agenda whether it was to their interest or not. The most apparent example of this came is Clinton’s health care initiative. Corporations supported a push toward universal health care b/c health care insurance was eating their bottom line but GOP ideologues demanded that corporations withdraw their support of it since it was deemed anti-GOP.
Even though lobbyist are as old as the political system, the GOP coaxing business lobbying to be only loyal to them via the K street project ( Delay) is absolutely troubling. Because in exchange for total loyalty toward the GOP via campaign contributions, lobbyist get to write the rules for their industry thus going against the conservative principle of free market economics by picking sides. For example, the book points to numerous instances in which W. abandoned conservative free-market principles in favor of appeasing various lobbyist constituencies. Also, W as well as Republican’s disdain for non-partisan bureaucrats who are there to do their jobs allowed lobbyist to take over the role of bureaucrats. According to the book in W’s administration the bureaucrats were there to sell W’s policies not to create them.
The Faustian deal that the GOP made now has created a monster that they can no longer control. Since the GOP let lobbyist get used to writing bills for them, it is now one of a lobbyist major job descriptions no matter who is in power. I would not be surprised if large parts of the health care and financial regulation bills were written by industries that seek to protect themselves. Even the democrats now have to play by lobbyist rule if they want to be backed into office. So, what was once a GOP phenomenon has no become a de facto government phenomenon.
Thus, it seems that special interest groups and especially ones that can pay are the ones who are the new machine bosses of the 21 century.
How can we get out of the mess we are in if legislation is created to protect special interest groups instead of the country? Maybe it is better to be a lobbyist b/c at least you know what your job description is influence-peddling.
Reagan ideology as the gold standard for the GOP is absolutely ludicrous combined with Norquist pledge of not to cut taxes as the litmus test for Republican politicians is the death knell to deficit reduction. If Reagan himself raised taxes 3 times and have the economy up and running then why should every Republican politician forswear to raising taxes. I see this as idiocy.
I am actually pro-business and I am for the entrepreneurial spirit that made this a great country but I am pro-business as a means to an end and that end being the economic engine of the US. If that engine stops, we need fresh ideas not rehash of Reaganomics while it might have worked then; I am not sure it will work now.
For long-term American prosperity, I would decrease the deficit via structural revision to entitlement programs, have short-term middle class tax cuts, let the income tax cuts for the wealthy expire, have a tax cut to capital gains tax only if capital gains goes toward US businesses otherwise I would increase the capital gains tax to the rate of a middle class income wage earner, re-enforce the estate tax, have the friendliest immigration policy for highly skilled workers in the world, have education reform to increase American competitiveness, create private-public infrastructure bank to fund infrastructure costs, increase funding toward basic science R&D, and make it structurally and economically the friendliest place for entrepreneurial business.
How did this happen?
Republicans are generally a better party in creating the image of their candidates, narrative that accompanies it, and circulating rumors that become “fact” of their opponents. That is, they are better at manipulating the media. Whereas democrats run on policy prescription, the public and more importantly the media enjoy character and anecdotal personality stories better which Republicans are inherently better at. I have contended that elections are won or lost based on emotions while ruling the country is best run by people with brains.
As far as the tax cuts go, people are generally not interested in economic discussion unless they are directly affected by it. This is the reason why the economy only becomes an issue during a recession. Other than a recession, Republicans can focus on the rich in terms of economic policy because that is the only constituency who cares about money in absolute terms. The self-made rich are usually rich for a reason----because they care about money the most.
Other things that I leaned from this book:
1) "Left-wing" mainstream media and think tanks are more objective and thus easily trusted over the "right-wing" media/think tanks which is just a propaganda arm of conservative party. Ideologues in the Republican party keep politicians in check.
2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we should avoid having an ideological similar executive and legislative branch again. I find it disconcerting that the Republican Congress was not doing its job as a check to Executive power. It is as if they were just a rubber stamp of the presidency, thus making the separation of powers largely a myth. W. also made the conservative media the propaganda arm of the government.
This happened because power centralized in the House in which committee leadership was assigned by party loyalty not seniority any longer. It also made the House of Representative reward loyalty to the party above its constituents de facto rule. And in the Senate, the Conference Committee made sure that the House was calling the shots not the Senate.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 30, 2021
A very disturbing and depressing book.
Jonathan Chiat describes, with sources and in great detail, how the end of the postwar boom in the early 1970s led to a confluence of corporate leaders deciding that, since the future was so shaky, they no longer needed to temper their businesses to work for the good of the country. From now on, it was every man for himself.
It didn't always used to be that way. Look at an accounting textbook from the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s. In those days, the standard accounting rule was that your employees were both a cost AND an asset, and you needed to treat them accordingly, minimizing their expense but also protecting their value.
But in 1970, a rogue economist named Milton Friedman wrote a paper declaring that employees are nothing but an expense, and the more you could do away with them, the better your business will be. Business leaders took that to heart, and almost immediately the wage/productivity gap for American workers started to widen.
(I distinctly remember the day in 1980 when Ronald Reagan presented Friedman to the nation as head of the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board: he introduced him as "Doctor Milton Friedman. A scientist!" As if the mantle of "science" made his words true.)
Combine Friedman's economic crackpottery with the work of his disciple Arthur Laffer, and you've got "supply-side" economics -- the belief that the goal of any economy is to make the rich richer, and the scraps that fall from their table will be enough for the other 99% of the population. This is a story rich people love, and do a lot to help spread.
Combine that craziness with a handful of 1970s Marshall McLuhan disciples led by Roger Ailes and Karl Rove, who believe that control of the population depends on control (or at least manipulation) of the media they consume, and who set out to do just that, armed with rich people's money.
Combine that level of evil with the burning revolutionary ambition of New Gingrich, who sees bipartisanship as a weakness, who believes Reagan is not divisive enough, who threatens and bullies corporations and the rich into donating only to Republicans (and who pays them back by letting rich people and corporations literally write the laws that Congress votes on).
As I said, a very disturbing and depressing book.
Jonathan Chiat describes, with sources and in great detail, how the end of the postwar boom in the early 1970s led to a confluence of corporate leaders deciding that, since the future was so shaky, they no longer needed to temper their businesses to work for the good of the country. From now on, it was every man for himself.
It didn't always used to be that way. Look at an accounting textbook from the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s. In those days, the standard accounting rule was that your employees were both a cost AND an asset, and you needed to treat them accordingly, minimizing their expense but also protecting their value.
But in 1970, a rogue economist named Milton Friedman wrote a paper declaring that employees are nothing but an expense, and the more you could do away with them, the better your business will be. Business leaders took that to heart, and almost immediately the wage/productivity gap for American workers started to widen.
(I distinctly remember the day in 1980 when Ronald Reagan presented Friedman to the nation as head of the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board: he introduced him as "Doctor Milton Friedman. A scientist!" As if the mantle of "science" made his words true.)
Combine Friedman's economic crackpottery with the work of his disciple Arthur Laffer, and you've got "supply-side" economics -- the belief that the goal of any economy is to make the rich richer, and the scraps that fall from their table will be enough for the other 99% of the population. This is a story rich people love, and do a lot to help spread.
Combine that craziness with a handful of 1970s Marshall McLuhan disciples led by Roger Ailes and Karl Rove, who believe that control of the population depends on control (or at least manipulation) of the media they consume, and who set out to do just that, armed with rich people's money.
Combine that level of evil with the burning revolutionary ambition of New Gingrich, who sees bipartisanship as a weakness, who believes Reagan is not divisive enough, who threatens and bullies corporations and the rich into donating only to Republicans (and who pays them back by letting rich people and corporations literally write the laws that Congress votes on).
As I said, a very disturbing and depressing book.
February 19, 2020
Written in 2007, this book precedes a lot of momentous political events, yet its core observations hold true. It will radicalize you
February 5, 2009
Ok, I should start by stating that "technically" I have not finished this book - but I will either tonight or tomorrow morning. For me, this was an educational book on how the Republican Party has taken an obscure and untested economic theory - basically cutting taxes - and promoted it to the point where millions of us Americans have either fallen into line in agreement or probably more likely never really looked at the realistic outcomes. However, if you are a Republican I highly suspect you will disagree with all of this and claim that Chait is a conservative hater or wants to take from the rich to give to the poor.
December 20, 2007
A good overview of the present stupidity we're mired in, for those unfamiliar with the neo - conartists who have hijacked this once great nation. For those of you who have been paying attention you won't find much new stuff here. I fact I feel that Chait in the interest, perhaps, of maintaining his credibility with the publishing cliques doesn't really go far enough. He could dig a little more for the historical roots of this dirt. But he does document the kind of crazy shit flying around in D.C. these last couple of decades.
November 28, 2012
Few books have better helped me understand the peculiarities of American politics than this one has. I had wondered why most other industrialized nations felt that a mix of taxes and spending cuts were the answers to the fiscal crisis when this country flinches at the word "tax." I had known of Grover Norquist, of course, but it's more useful to understand how such a character could ever hold sway with a major political party.
The book manages to inform and entertain while discussing topics that can be very frustrating. That feat makes it amazing.
The book manages to inform and entertain while discussing topics that can be very frustrating. That feat makes it amazing.
September 13, 2009
Should be read by anyone who wonders why the wingnuts didn't mind Bush spending our grandkids into poverty, but freak out when Obama suggests we raise taxes (a little) and increase spending to get us out of financial quicksand that we blundered into because Bush, Bush & Reagan led us there through slavish adherence to a nutty fiscal ideology (gasp). Actually Chait points out that the elder Bush tried to redress the damage done under Reagan and paid a frightful price in Republican circles.
July 9, 2015
I thought this book was written after the Great Recession not before. It shows how shameless ultra-conservatives have taken over the Republican party and are railroading the United States into a path of economic destruction that will only benefit the top of the top 1%.
A great overview of our current situation but it offers little in solutions that common people can take. Reading these kinds of books just make me more and more anxious.
A great overview of our current situation but it offers little in solutions that common people can take. Reading these kinds of books just make me more and more anxious.
June 22, 2008
I gave up reading the end of this - maybe I had just heard enough of the argument and I felt like a choir being preached to.
Lots of interesting (and true) interpretations of the Bush Regime's actions and the history that made it possible.
Lots of interesting (and true) interpretations of the Bush Regime's actions and the history that made it possible.
December 12, 2019
I should probably have read this a few years ago; it is at some level a anti-Bush screed. Using Jack Abramoff as an example of conservative economics seems a bit low even for Chait. I suppose one ought to read books on economics when they are somewhat more timely.
October 30, 2007
Really awesome so far. This is guy is like Paul Krugman, only wittier.
September 18, 2007
Great; but honestly the "acknowledgements" page is the truly moving part of the book.
February 17, 2011
Surprisingly readable discussion of the issues and problems with "supply-side" economics and how an unsupported economic theory is now driving republican part policy.
August 11, 2010
This is a must-read for every American. Even more relevant now that our tanking economy is proving the thesis of the book.
August 10, 2010
I found it to be more balanced than other books I've read on the subject. Also I really did enjoy and found the history of the republican conservative movement quite insightful.
Read
July 26, 2011A good overview of the American political situation.
January 21, 2012
Great overview of how America is getting fucked in the ass by the right.
July 25, 2013
I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/12077764
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/12077764
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews