The New York Times
The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Cultureby Brink Lindsey
Until the 1950s, the struggle to feed, clothe, and employ the nation drove most of American political life. From slavery to the New Deal, political parties organized around economic interests and engaged in fervent debate over the best allocation of agonizingly scarce resources. But with the explosion of the nation's economy in the years after World War II, a new
- Editorial Reviews
- Product Details
- Related Subjects
- Read an Excerpt
- What People Are Saying
- Meet the author
Until the 1950s, the struggle to feed, clothe, and employ the nation drove most of American political life. From slavery to the New Deal, political parties organized around economic interests and engaged in fervent debate over the best allocation of agonizingly scarce resources. But with the explosion of the nation's economy in the years after World War II, a new set of needs began to emerge—a search for meaning and self-expression on one side, and a quest for stability and a return to traditional values on the other.
In The Age of Abundance, Brink Lindsey offers a bold reinterpretation of the latter half of the twentieth century. In this sweeping history of postwar America, the tumult of racial and gender politics, the rise of the counterculture, and the conservative revolution of the 1980s and 1990s are portrayed in an entirely new light. Readers will learn how and why the contemporary ideologies of left and right emerged in response to the novel challenges of mass prosperity.
The political ideas that created the culture wars, however, have now grown obsolete. As the Washington Post aptly summarized Lindsey's take on the contradictions of American politics, "Republicans want to go home to the United States of the 1950s while Democrats want to work there." Struggling to replace today's stale conflicts is a new consensus that mixes the social freedom of the left with the economic freedom of the right into a potentially powerful ethos of libertarianism. The Age of Abundance reveals the secret formula of this remarkable alchemy. The book is a breathtaking reevaluation of our recent past—and will change the way we think about the future.
The New York Times
More than any other cause, economic prosperity transformed the United States after World War II into a nation unlike any other in recorded history, posits Lindsey of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute. Although Lindsey (Dead Hand: The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism) acknowledges that millions of Americans live below the poverty line, he argues that mass prosperity changed the equation in many areas, including gender relations, race relations, labor-management relations, parent-child dynamics and organized religion. The result was the rise of a politically liberal counterculture, a politically conservative backlash, the labeling of blue states and red states, and a multitude of other political phenomenon. Although the book offers details about political campaigning, drug use, and the rise of rock and roll music among other events that made headlines from the 1950s into the 21st century, the details often overwhelm Lindsey's hypothesis. Ultimately, the book reads more like a college freshman survey course textbook than a compelling narrative. (May)Copyright 2007 Reed Business Information
- HarperCollins Publishers
- Publication date:
- Sold by:
- NOOK Book
- Sales rank:
- File size:
- 554 KB
Read an Excerpt
The Age of Abundance
How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture
The Realm of Freedom
On July 24, 1959, in the depths of the Cold War, Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev stood face-to-face, close enough to smell each other's breath. Dozens of journalists and dignitaries crowded around them in increasingly nervous silence as the two argued heatedly. Khrushchev, the bald, brash son of Ukrainian peasants, raised his booming voice and waved his stubby hands in the air. Nixon, nearly a head taller, hovered over him, struggling to maintain his composure but then jabbing a finger into his adversary's chest. Precipitating this superpower showdown was a disagreement over . . . washing machines.
Nixon was in Moscow for the opening of the U.S. National Exhibition, a bit of Cold War cultural exchange cum oneupmanship that followed on the heels of an earlier Soviet exhibition in New York. He and Khrushchev were now in the fair's star attraction: a six-room, fully furnished ranch house, bisected by a central viewing hallway that allowed visitors to gawk at American middle-class living standards. The Soviet press referred to the house dismissively as the "Taj Mahal," contending that it was no more representative of how ordinary Americans lived than the Taj Mahal was of home life in India. Actually, it was priced at $14,000, or $100 a month with a 30-year mortgage—as Nixon put it, well within the reach of a typical steelworker.
Pausing before the model kitchen, packed with all the latest domestic gadgetry, Khrushchev blustered, "You Americans think that the Russian peoplewill be astonished to see these things. The fact is that all our new houses have this kind of equipment." He then proceeded to complain about the wastefulness of American capitalism—in particular, how foolish it was to make so many different models of washing machines when one would do. Nixon countered, "We have many different manufacturers and many different kinds of washing machines so that the housewives have a choice." From there he expanded to broader themes: "Isn't it better to be talking about the relative merits of our washing machines than the relative strength of our rockets? Isn't this the kind of competition you want?"
Whereupon Khrushchev erupted, "Yes, this is the kind of competition we want. But your generals say they are so powerful they can destroy us. We can also show you something so that you will know the Russian spirit." Nixon took the threat in stride. "We are both strong not only from the standpoint of weapons but from the standpoint of will and spirit," he shot back. "Neither should use that strength to put the other in a position where he in effect has an ultimatum."1
What came to be known as the "kitchen debate" was a moment of almost surreal Cold War drama. Had it been written as a piece of fiction, the scene could be criticized justly for the belabored obviousness of its symbolism. Here the great historic confrontation between capitalism and communism presented itself in distilled miniature—as a duel of wits between two of the era's leading political figures. Just as the Cold War combined ideological conflict with great power rivalry, so this odd, unscripted exchange fused both elements, as the disputants jumped from household appliances to nuclear doom without so much as a good throat clearing. Topping it all off, the spontaneous staging of the encounter in a transplanted American kitchen foreshadowed the Cold War's eventual outcome: communism's collapse in the face of capitalism's manifest superiority in delivering the goods. In capitalism, it turned out, lay the fulfillment of communism's soaring prophecies of mass affluence.
Richard Nixon made precisely this point during his formal remarks later that day at the official opening of the exhibition. He noted with pride that the 44 million American families at that time owned 56 million cars, 50 million television sets, and 143 million radios, and that 31 million of them owned their own homes. "What these statistics demonstrate," Nixon proclaimed, "is this: that the United States, the world's largest capitalist country, has from the standpoint of distribution of wealth come closest to the ideal of prosperity for all in a classless society."2 However casual his commitment to honesty over the course of his career, on that particular occasion Richard Nixon spoke the truth.
A century earlier, Karl Marx had peered into the womb of history and spied, gestating there, a radical transformation of the human condition. The traditional "idiocy of rural life," the newfangled misery of urban workers, would be swept away. The normal lot of ordinary people throughout history—to stand at the precipice of starvation—would be exchanged for a share in general abundance. In the new dispensation, the advanced development of productive forces would allow humanity's physical needs to be met with only modest effort. Consequently, the "realm of necessity" would yield to the "realm of freedom."
In that brave new realm, according to Marx, "begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself."3 A forbidding bit of Teutonic abstraction: what exactly could it mean? Marx was notoriously cryptic about his vision of utopia, but through the darkened glass of his dialectics we glimpse a future in which ordinary people, at long last, could lift their sights from the grim exigencies of survival. Freed from the old yoke of scarcity, they could concentrate instead on the limitless possibilities for personal growth and fulfillment.
It was Marx's genius to see this coming transformation at a time when the main currents of economic thought led toward altogether drearier forecasts. Thomas Malthus, of course, made his name by arguing—with ample justification in the historical record—that any increase in wages for the poor would be dissipated by a swelling birth rate. Meanwhile, David Ricardo, second only to Adam Smith in the pantheon of classical economists, posited an "iron law of wages" that mandated bare subsistence as the equilibrium toward which labor markets tended. With prophetic insight, Marx grasped that the progress of industrialization would render such fatalism obsolete. . . .The Age of Abundance
How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture. Copyright © by Brink Lindsey. Reprinted by permission of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Available now wherever books are sold.
What People are Saying About This
Meet the Author
Brink Lindsey is vice president for research at the Cato Institute. He is the author of Against the Dead Hand: The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism, which the Wall Street Journal called "compelling" and "excellent" and the Economist declared was "full of elegantly argued good sense." His articles have appeared in numerous leading newspapers and opinion magazines such as the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The New Republic, and the National Review. He lives with his family near Washington, D.C.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews