Humans have limits, and the Great Society did not acknowledge those limits. It did not look evil. But in fact, arrogance that denies limits is deeply evil.

Like you, I’m busy. I’m a pastor with a sermon to write and a flock to tend. Why did I read a 400-page book about the history of 1960s America? Shouldn’t I read, instead, about our own turbulent times?
My answer to that question might not lead you to read Amity Shlaes’s Great Society: A New History.[1] However, I hope it will inspire you to become more familiar with the vision of some of our fellow Americans during this period, a vision that they dubbed “The Great Society”—a program, like so many other grand schemes, that failed to live up to its name. Some truly great legislation came from this era, but enmeshed within them came much damaging legislation as well.[2] As Shlaes reminds us, “Nothing is new, just forgotten.”[3] Or as Solomon put it, “There’s nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9).
So, what was The Great Society? Why did it fail? And what must we learn from it? That is the question that this review essay attempts to answer as it follows and interacts with the story Shlaes tells of this epoch. It is a tornado siren for our own day. Those who care deeply about justice in our day will care deeply about the weather conditions that caused so much systemic wreckage for the precious people with whom justice is concerned.
Truly, Shlaes offers a cautionary tale for our compassionate nation.
This essay is a Christian exercise in stewarding history’s lessons in love for neighbor. This is a pastoral exercise in guarding the church from faulty visions of both humanity and heaven. It’s long, but only because this is a long-neglected subject. We have heard much over the last decade—from politicians and pastors alike—about the legacy of slavery in the form of a straight line from American’s founding to Jim Crow to the present as an explanation for real problems in America. Americans at our best are concerned to get our history right for the sake of doing right by our neighbors today. But what about that period we call “The Sixties” that was filled with programs and projects designed to eradicate poverty and racism? And why do we hear so little about these dramatic political efforts and their outcomes? Why is this so, especially given that their aims are the aims of modern justice movers and shakers today?
If you care about justice, about the poor, and about the lingering effects of slavery, then come with me on this journey into our country’s more recent history.
The Legacy of Slavery or the Legacy of Liberalism?
An exchange between columnists back in 2014 piqued my interest in this period. Nicholas Kristof, in his New York Times piece titled “When Whites Just Don’t Get It,” writes the following: “The presumption on the part of so many well-meaning white Americans [is] that racism is a historical artifact. They don’t appreciate the overwhelming evidence that centuries of racial subjugation still shape inequity in the 21st century.”[4] Racists have existed and do exist. No problem with this claim. But Kristof says more: that present inequities are shaped by the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, by past and enduring racism, both personal and systemic.
Thomas Sowell sees the same situation differently: “If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state.”[5] The title of his piece was his thesis, “A Legacy of Liberalism.” According to Sowell, “Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and ‘war on poverty’ programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began . . . from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.”[6]
This resonated with me.
Cabrini-Green Homes, the public housing project just outside my window in downtown Chicago when I was a college student in the late nineties, was by then notorious for crime and violence. “The Projects”—Whose idea was that? And what precisely did they expect to achieve by building these inner city monoliths?
My father, then a district manager for a retail chain in St. Louis, was awakened many nights by the police due to break-ins at his stores in East St. Louis. What was the backstory for that “bad part of town”? Later, when I sold cell phones to fund my years as a seminary student, I encountered different cultures in different stores, each with their own admirable qualities and predictable sins. Upper-middle-class folks worked hard but frequently asked to split their accounts following a divorce. Rural folks frequently needed new phones for a child returning from Afghanistan or else for a man in the home who lost his phone in another drunken fishing incident. Then there were the black urban poor, many lovely individuals and loving mothers. In this community, however, few were married, “baby daddies” were a daily thing, and there was a refrain in the context of selling: “I’m waiting on my check,” that is, a government check. This was a cultural norm. More than the rest, this part of town felt stuck, trapped, downtrodden.
As statistics will show, not all blacks are stuck. Not hardly. The community I encountered does not characterize the whole of blacks in America, an important clarification. Today 82% of black Americans are above the poverty line despite only 30% being married.[7] 94% of black married couples are above the poverty line.[8] That we hear so much about black poverty is owing more to political rhetoric that exploits poor urban blacks, painting this subculture as the state of blacks as a whole. The dynamics I explore in this essay apply equally to whites and blacks, a point Shlaes makes.[9] The difference is that one group’s poor are exploited for political and social gain and the other are not.
For that downtrodden part of town in my sales experience, it did seem that something structural was going on—something systemic that shaped cultures and the precious individuals embedded within them. But I did not resonate with Kristof’s take in the New York Times.
What were these “war on poverty” programs Sowell wrote of, and how were they related to the passage of the civil rights laws of the 1960s? What were these “serious retrogressions,” and what might they have to do with “the liberal welfare state,” as Sowell claims? Sowell’s own body of work has been helpful on these questions, especially in the realm of researched statistics.[10]
But what is the story behind these stats, these policies? Who were the personalities involved in them? Why did the American public embrace them? What might all of this have to do with the “legacy of slavery” and the various disparities we see today?
Shlaes’s book Great Society tells that story.
This is the story not of cruel people, but in Shlaes’s words, “lovable people who, despite themselves, hurt those they loved.”[11]
At the start of the 1960s the country was affluent. That’s the first word that describes America at the start of the decade. The post-war American industries stood head and shoulders above those of other countries. The sharpest contrast was in the automotive industry. That a small Japanese company like Toyota could ever be competitive in the US was not on even the shrewdest industry leader’s mind. The American middle class thrived, work was in demand, and jobs paid well. If you weren’t skilled, a company would train you and then employ you. Young people growing up at this time had a different perspective than their parents who grew up during the Great Depression. Poverty was the exception rather than the rule. Add to this America’s recent industrial and managerial achievements in the Second World War and you have a generation marked by a second word: confidence. This was an optimistic generation. America could do anything and in particular, the United States government could do anything. Trust in government was high and so were hopes in the possibilities of government. We hear it in Kennedy’s words at Rice University on the Nation’s space effort in 1962: “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”[12] This affluence and confidence made for a generation intrigued with socialism. Sound familiar?
The New Deal era programs of the 1930s failed to address the economic depression, leading to a truly Great Depression.[13] The Second World War pulled the country out of its economic plight. But those failures had faded just enough for a renewed optimism in big-government solutions.
The 60s were also dominated by ambition, a third word for the era that stirred popular intrigue with socialism to political action. This was a moral ambition, ambition for a cause, ambition with “a fierce urgency of now.”[14] The Great Depression era had its great crisis to overcome, and the World War II generation accomplished a truly great feat overseas. What great achievement might this generation undertake? If that wasn’t on the mind of average Americans, it was certainly on the mind of their political leaders. President Lyndon B. Johnson answered that question with what he called “The Great Society.”
What Was the Great Society?
We can answer that question from six angles: legal, historical, religious, political, sociological, and economic. This is not the outline for Shlaes’s book, which works across the sixties chronologically. Her story dramatizes the events of this period and humanizes its many characters. I commend it to you. This here is my attempt to synthesize what I learned from her narrative account.
1. Legally, the Great Society was Lyndon Johnson’s sweeping domestic legislative agenda to eliminate poverty and racial disparities.
Yes, that’s exactly what it was. This was in an era before the loss of trust in the government that makes that kind of legislative ambition sound hollow. In fact, it was in part the great failure of these promises that explains our present cynicism. But make no mistake: this is what they set out to do by legislation.
This package of legislative initiatives created new federal programs and whole agencies to help Americans in nearly every area of life: education, housing, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, and transportation, including bussing for school integration.
In her narrative history, Shlaes spends most of her volume tracing the personalities around the President during this time—aids, fed chairmen, famed economists, and union bosses. The mingling of genuine altruistic motives and blinding political ambition—often in the same characters—is a study of human nature and the nature of government. Among this cast of characters, President Johnson, as one of his aids put it, “made laws the way other men eat chocolate chip cookies.”[15] That was his expertise from the Senate. That’s what he became famous for in the White House. The sheer amount of legislation passed during this period was unparalleled.
2. Historically, the Great Society was an ambitious moniker reflecting that period’s mindset: confidence in what government could do and should do.
“Let’s not alleviate poverty; let’s cure it,”[16] President Johnson stridently and repeatedly insisted. He meant it. America after the Second World War was confident in its federal government. So too were government officials. Lyndon Johnson wanted to expand government in a way that eclipsed Roosevelt’s transformative presidency, but Johnson did not have Roosevelt’s crises: economic depression and war. Johnson, rather, had affluence. Things were not just going well for Americans, but exceptionally well. Johnson’s challenge, then, was to generate a sense of urgency for America to see it go well for everyone—literally.[17] His legacy as president—and the legacy of those whose careers were bound to his presidency—depended on such grand plans.
A “good society” would not do. He rejected that suggestion.[18] He insisted, rather, on a “Great Society,” and this became his rallying cry. America had already organized itself to finish a war overseas. Winning the war on poverty, it was said, would be a “mopping up action.”[19] This war, like any war, would be a job for the federal government. They were not sloganeering. They really were that optimistic in the power and precision of government planning.
3. Religiously, the Great Society was the expression of the nation’s collective human and religious—even Christian-informed—impulse to do something good for those who are hurting.
This legislative vision did not emerge in a vacuum. Johnson’s vision was a continuation of what President Kennedy pursued before him, in part, and what President Nixon continued after him. In his own time, it was marketable as the political expression of the human desire to help those in need, a good desire shaped by America’s Christian roots.
It was President Kennedy who by executive order established the Peace Corps, headed by Yale-grad and decorated officer Sargent Shriver. Shriver became President Johnson’s poverty czar, the principal architect of his “War on Poverty,” and head of the Office for Economic Opportunity. Along with many Americans, Shriver believed that what the church already did for the poor, the federal government could and should do through its programs.[20] To a national conscience informed by its Christian heritage, this just seemed right.
4. Politically, the Great Society was a political project with all the incentives and complexities intrinsic to politics.
Political motivations and incentives abounded. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society vision was curious on the heels of Kennedy’s death. Lyndon Johnson to that point was known for his opposition to civil rights legislation.[21] Johnson wanted to exceed the accomplishments of his predecessor, President Kennedy. This was something of a political imperative given that the House and the Senate went to Democrats following Kennedy’s assassination. He must do more. But he also wanted to best his intellectual and political father, President Roosevelt, and his New Deal. What Roosevelt did in creating infrastructure jobs to supposedly energize the economy, Johnson intended to do with the influx of cash to impoverished communities. Johnson expected these communities to begin to work, to contribute, and to join the rest of their American peers in their share of affluence. Without the crisis of a depression, Johnson leveraged the crisis of Kennedy’s death to move on this apparent political opportunity.[22] He forwarded this vision on a wave of empathy and optimism. As they said, Roosevelt had his “New Deal,” and Johnson had his “Fast Deal.” But had it, he did.[23]
A lawmaker by trade, Johnson was more attentive to legislative inputs and intentions than he was to results. Laws—and the promises they held out—were the goal. The more the better. Not so much the outcomes. As the war in Vietnam became complicated and politically costly, neither Johnson nor his successor, Richard Nixon, could afford politically to go back on these promises. The Great Society had to move forward no matter the results. The priority of winning elections consumed and compromised even the most principled economists and advisors at the time to such an embarrassing extent that many later acknowledged their complicity.[24]
5. Sociologically, the Great Society institutionalized America’s commitment to a desegregated society.
The Great Society was an expansive vision that merged ambitions and political visions beyond an interest in helping the poor. In one of his famous speeches, Johnson, who was fashioned as the “Great Emancipator” of the twentieth century, said, “We’ve got to find a way to let Negroes get what most white folks already have.” He continued, “Freedom is not enough. You do not take a person who has been hobbled by chains and put him at the starting line of a race and say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others.’” What the nation needed was, “equality as a fact and equality as a result.”[25]
Thomas Sowell, a young economist at the time, disagreed: “To expect civil rights to solve our economic and social problems was barking up the wrong tree.”[26] Blacks, for all the gains they had remarkably made, were nevertheless underdeveloped and, for that reason, genuinely and understandably discouraged.[27] Much to the embarrassment of whites and blacks, reading scores were significantly lower among blacks. From Sowell’s perspective, the black community should have turned away from counting on political leaders to change their circumstances and toward an investment in “our own self-development as a people.”[28] As Sowell has demonstrated in his own research, this is how any formerly-oppressed group rises out of the developmental consequences of their oppression.
In this attempt to compensate the black community, Johnson went further than the vision to which Martin Luther King Jr. rallied a generation in his early speeches. He went further than the call for equal treatment before the law, further than seeing that the children of the civil rights era were treated “according to the content of their character.”[29] Instead, Johnson wanted a policy of redistribution to make up for what was lost in the black community’s development under oppressive laws. Not only was school segregation outlawed—a good thing—but mandated school integration required that students be bussed from one part of town to another, a bad decision, as we’ll see.
Read More
Related Posts:

We’ve seen through the charlatans like Fauci, claiming that they are the experts, and we are not. In fact, we have what they fear most: plain, honest, and straightforward common sense. We are individuals with our own capable minds, and we will continue to question and debate and draw our own conclusions. 

When the pandemic struck, I was living in Luxor, Egypt. I had started the first boxing club for girls on the West Bank and had hoped to start a writing and art program connecting kids in Luxor with kids in Los Angeles. Then this mysterious illness called COVID-19 appeared and the programs fizzled out.
Word traveled fast through the villages. The illness had been identified on a cruise ship that had docked in Luxor. Authorities made a few half-hearted rules, but nobody paid attention.
Life in Luxor went on as normal. Masks? Only women covered their faces! Social distancing? An impossibility when families lived so close together. After a few days of uncertainty, I went back to my daily routine of meeting friends at a favorite arts café, shopping for food, riding my bike along the Nile and to the Valley of the Kings.
The tourists quickly fled back home to lock themselves inside. From afar, I watched as the Western world fell victim to hysteria and fear.
I’d been raised by God-fearing parents to have a healthy skepticism of the media and government. But nothing prepared me for the lies and manipulations that became the story of COVID.
Stories are the most powerful force we have, either to solidify beliefs or to change them. People quickly invested in the official COVID narrative, trusting Anthony Fauci’s assertions that only through mindless submission to the rituals of obsessive cleanliness, masking, and lockdowns would people be saved from illness and death. Even when evidence surfaced to the contrary, people still clung to their newfound faith.
From my vantage in Luxor, I was able to see the big picture without being engulfed in it. I noticed how every story popping into my newsfeed parroted state propaganda. In the 1980s, I’d lived in Yugoslavia under communism and the coordinated, almost hypnotic repetitiveness of the media was beginning to look eerily familiar.
Social media descended into a dark and cruel place policed by “fact-checkers” and social justice warriors. Those who dared to question the official narrative were labeled “grandma killers” and in some cases disowned by family and friends. Doctors and scientists who bravely stood up against the lies were demonized and their careers were ruined.
The message was clear. Expressing alternative viewpoints was selfish and irresponsible, endangering not only your life but the lives of the “collective whole.” State-sanctioned “experts” knew what was best for you. Leave the thinking to them.
By late June 2020, I had managed to get out of Egypt under challenging circumstances (a whole other story) and back to Los Angeles. I started researching and writing about what was going on.
When Fauci admitted with all the arrogance of a self-identifying demigod that he had lied to the public about masks, complaining in the same breath how “antiscience” the doubters are who “don’t believe authority,” I thought surely people would object.

Related Posts:

All Christians are called to similarly engage with the fallen world into which God has placed us. That is how Christianity transforms culture: one interaction at a time. That influence is really what effective followership is about, and since leadership is influence, effective followership is simply leadership by another name. This means that as Christians, we are called to be effective followers both of Christ and of the secular authorities God has placed over us.

In previous posts about cultural issues in general and transgender pronouns in particular, I have addressed ways in which Christians can conscientiously object to policies that would cause them to sin.  This will undoubtedly lead to conflicts in the workplace between Christians objecting to these policies and their leaders who are charged with enforcing them, which brings up a leadership topic that is not often discussed but definitely important: followership.  Every leader is a follower, but not all followers are leaders, so it is just as important (if not more important) to know how to be a good follower as a good leader.
Followership
So what is a good follower?  We often associate good followership with blind obedience or unquestioning agreement, but these are actually not traits of effective followers.  Instead, Robert Kelley said that effective followers “think for themselves and carry out their duties and assignments with energy and assertiveness. Because they are risk takers, self-starters, and independent problem solvers, they get consistently high ratings from peers and many superiors….Effective followers are well-balanced and responsible adults who can succeed without strong leadership”.[1]  He goes on to describe the qualities of effective followers: self-management, commitment to the organization and to purposes outside of themselves, ever-increasing competence, effective focus of effort, courage, honesty, and credibility.[2]  For Christians, this aligns with commands for servants to respect their leaders while working heartily as ultimately working for God (Ephesians 6:5-8).  Its proactive nature and sense of greater underlying purpose also fit well with my definition of submission based on Philippians 2:3-4 from my leadership paper: “choosing to live sacrificially by putting the needs of others and their ultimate good ahead of ourselves motivated by a healthy fear of God and following the example of Christ”. This means that good followers develop a reputation of trustworthiness, diligence, and competence such that when they disagree with their leaders, those leaders are willing not only to listen to them but even take certain risks in order to accommodate them.  Therefore, Christian workers should endeavor to build just such a reputation before conscientiously objecting to policies.
With this reputation, a good follower can also strongly yet respectfully disagree with their leaders.  This needs to happen behind closed doors before a decision is made.  The follower makes the case to the leader why a different course of action would be better and the two can debate it.  Since these discussions can get passionate, the military term to describe them is “cussing and discussing”.  This term does not necessitate the use of foul language—which the Christian is forbidden from using (Ephesians 4:29)—but speaks to how a leader and follower can passionately disagree about what is best for the organization and debate the topic in a heated manner while still maintaining respect for each other.  At the end, the leader makes the decision then the two exit the room on the same page.  If the leader ends up still deciding to follow the course of action the follower opposed, a good follower will own that decision and work hard to make it successful.  Regardless of the outcome, the private nature of the discussion means that the two can disagree and resolve that disagreement without undermining the reputation of either in the eyes of others.   However, this only applies when the leader’s decision does not cause the Christian follower to do something unethical.  If a prospective leadership decision would cause a Christian to sin, the Christian follower must find a way to avoid sin while still obeying the leader.  It is to this challenge we now turn.
Daniel as an Effective Follower
A wonderful example of this is found throughout the life of the prophet Daniel.  Taken from Jerusalem as a teenager, he was forced to serve the kings of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires.  This he and his friends did with such distinction that they became trusted advisers and thus some of the most influential men in the world at the time.  Throughout this time, they also had to confront the most powerful men in the world at the time.  His friends had to confront Nebuchadnezzar’s self-absorbed idolatry by refusing to worship his statue (chapter 3).  Daniel then had to tell Nebuchadnezzar that he would be humiliated by God as a punishment for his pride and self-confidence (chapter 4).  He also had to declare impending doom to Belshazzar by interpreting the writing on the wall (chapter 5) before refusing to commit idolatry by praying to Darius (chapter 6).  In all of this, he had such a reputation for impeccable character that his enemies literally had to invent an unethical law in an attempt to bring him down.  This makes him perhaps the best merely human example of being above reproach that we see in Scripture.  All Christians should seek to emulate his example such that if our enemies want to dig up dirt on us, they will need to provide that dirt themselves.
Daniel and his friends developed this reputation from the beginning of their time in Babylon, giving us an excellent example of how to conscientiously object well with their refusal to eat the king’s food.  With all of the remarkable stories and prophecies recorded in Daniel, the story of the “Daniel diet” in Daniel 1:8-16 appears unremarkable, but this amazing event would set the tone for his entire seventy years of service while teaching us how to maintain obedience to God while serving our secular bosses well.  From Daniel 1:3-7, we learn that Daniel and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among the Jewish youths taken from Jerusalem to Babylon to serve in the royal court.  This began with three years of indoctrination in the Babylonian language, literature, culture, practices, and religion to turn them from Jews to Babylonians ready for service.  Part of this process was changing their names from names that reflected their devotion to the God of Israel to names that honored the false gods of Babylon: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.[3]  It also entailed a change from the diet required in the Law to eating food forbidden by the Law.  It was to this that Daniel objected, since obedience to the authorities over him in eating the food provided would have meant disobeying God.  So Daniel went to the chief of the eunuchs who was over him and asked not to eat the food and drink the wine provided but to keep a diet of vegetables and water that would obey the Law.  After Daniel and his friends successfully tested this diet for ten days, they were allowed to continue it indefinitely.  Thus, they successfully objected to a policy that would have forced them to sin without any negative impact on their careers.  We can take several lessons from this.
Lesson 1: Develop a Reputation for Trustworthiness and Excellence
Successful conscientious objection is greatly aided by a good reputation.  Daniel clearly established a reputation for both character and excellence early, which bought him an audience with the chief of the eunuchs.  There is no telling how many boys were part of this program, but it was likely enough that someone of less reputation would have been ignored or punished.  No doubt some level of attrition was expected in this program, meaning that without that reputation Daniel could have easily been removed.  It was at least partially due to his good reputation that the chief of the eunuchs was willing not only to listen to him but also to allow his alternate diet.  Daniel and his friends had clearly established a good reputation as both honorable and competent young men such that their removal would have been detrimental to the program, meaning the chief of the eunuchs had a vested interest in listening to them and even accommodating them.  When we conscientiously object, we should have established a reputation such that our leaders are willing to do what they can to accommodate us and even fight for us to their superiors if necessary.  Without such a reputation, it will be much easier for our leaders to either ignore us or fire us for our objections since they wouldn’t have a vested interest in keeping us.
Lesson 2: Choose Your Battles
Just as the boy who cried wolf was not taken seriously when the actual wolf arrived, so conscientiously objecting Christians will not be taken seriously if they develop a reputation of objecting to nearly everything.  It is easy to focus on what Daniel objected to while forgetting what he did not object to.  First and foremost, his name was changed from one honoring God to one honoring pagan gods, which he could have objected to on the basis of the probation of idolatry, but he did not.  Instead, it appears he found a workaround by using both his given and new names, as he is referred to several times in the book by both names together (Daniel 2:26, 4:8, 4:19, 5:12, 10:1).  He was thus able to use the new name while still ensuring it was clear that he retained his identity as a worshipper of the One True God.
Read More
Related Posts: