{"title":"The Kennedys in the World: How Jack, Bobby, and Ted Remade America's Empire","authors":"Joshua D. Farrington","doi":"10.1162/tneq_r_00926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"order that arose from the ashes of the New Deal Order. Neoliberalism marked a return to classical liberalism’s laissez-faire ethic and free markets, which, Gerstle reminds us, was not originally conservative but rather progressive and emancipatory. Per Adam Smith, classical liberalism “discerned in markets extraordinary dynamism” and sought to liberate that dynamism from established hierarchies, bureaucracy, red tape, artificial borders, and tariffs (262). That emancipatory spirit was—and is—present in neoliberalism, which attracted not just conservatives, but also progressive liberals and even parts of the New Left, as suggested in section three essays. While rejecting “big government” New Deal liberalism, neoliberalism was liberal in its embrace of freedom: “the freedom of movement, the freedom to don different identities, the ability to live as a cosmopolitan, the ability to think outside the box, as the hippie capitalist Steve Jobs did so brilliantly” (263). This energy blew away the old, established (New Deal) Order and created a new economy based on finance, tech, and levels of economic inequality not seen since the Gilded Age. Astutely, Gerstle calls Bill Clinton the Eisenhower of the Neoliberal Era. Just as the Republican Eisenhower grudgingly accepted the New Deal as a political reality, so too did the Democrat Clinton embrace welfare reform, globalization, and free trade, which further curtailed US-based manufacturing and labor unions, the heart of the old economy. Given this final essay on the Neoliberal Order, it is surprising that the volume did not contain any essays on globalization, trade, or the rise of the nonunion finance and tech sectors, which replaced manufacturing. This is a glaring oversight, especially since the roots of globalization, off-shoring, and international supply chains lay in the New Deal Order itself. The Democratic Party of Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Kennedy was internationalist and pursued lower tariffs, freer trade, and intercultural understanding throughout the years of its dominance, building the international infrastructure needed for the movement of goods, people, and services across borders. Moreover, there has been excellent work on the economic transformation Gerstle identifies in his final essay, including, for just one example, Gerald F. Davis’s Managed by Markets: How Finance ReShaped America (2011). Nonetheless, this is an extremely valuable book for anyone looking to understand the limits and unfulfilled promise of the New Deal state.","PeriodicalId":44619,"journal":{"name":"NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY-A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF NEW ENGLAND LIFE AND LETTERS","volume":"94 1","pages":"609-611"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY-A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF NEW ENGLAND LIFE AND LETTERS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_r_00926","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
order that arose from the ashes of the New Deal Order. Neoliberalism marked a return to classical liberalism’s laissez-faire ethic and free markets, which, Gerstle reminds us, was not originally conservative but rather progressive and emancipatory. Per Adam Smith, classical liberalism “discerned in markets extraordinary dynamism” and sought to liberate that dynamism from established hierarchies, bureaucracy, red tape, artificial borders, and tariffs (262). That emancipatory spirit was—and is—present in neoliberalism, which attracted not just conservatives, but also progressive liberals and even parts of the New Left, as suggested in section three essays. While rejecting “big government” New Deal liberalism, neoliberalism was liberal in its embrace of freedom: “the freedom of movement, the freedom to don different identities, the ability to live as a cosmopolitan, the ability to think outside the box, as the hippie capitalist Steve Jobs did so brilliantly” (263). This energy blew away the old, established (New Deal) Order and created a new economy based on finance, tech, and levels of economic inequality not seen since the Gilded Age. Astutely, Gerstle calls Bill Clinton the Eisenhower of the Neoliberal Era. Just as the Republican Eisenhower grudgingly accepted the New Deal as a political reality, so too did the Democrat Clinton embrace welfare reform, globalization, and free trade, which further curtailed US-based manufacturing and labor unions, the heart of the old economy. Given this final essay on the Neoliberal Order, it is surprising that the volume did not contain any essays on globalization, trade, or the rise of the nonunion finance and tech sectors, which replaced manufacturing. This is a glaring oversight, especially since the roots of globalization, off-shoring, and international supply chains lay in the New Deal Order itself. The Democratic Party of Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Kennedy was internationalist and pursued lower tariffs, freer trade, and intercultural understanding throughout the years of its dominance, building the international infrastructure needed for the movement of goods, people, and services across borders. Moreover, there has been excellent work on the economic transformation Gerstle identifies in his final essay, including, for just one example, Gerald F. Davis’s Managed by Markets: How Finance ReShaped America (2011). Nonetheless, this is an extremely valuable book for anyone looking to understand the limits and unfulfilled promise of the New Deal state.
期刊介绍:
Contributions cover a range of time periods, from before European colonization to the present, and any subject germane to New England’s history—for example, the region’s diverse literary and cultural heritage, its political philosophies, race relations, labor struggles, religious contro- versies, and the organization of family life. The journal also treats the migration of New England ideas, people, and institutions to other parts of the United States and the world. In addition to major essays, features include memoranda and edited documents, reconsiderations of traditional texts and interpretations, essay reviews, and book reviews.