The Failure of LBJ's Great Society and What It Means for the 21st Century 

Thomas Sowell says there is no need to explain poverty. It is a natural state we are all born into. What we need to focus on is wealth and where it comes from. No one talks about it. It's all about poverty.

The adjective for LBJ was "racist." The motivation was to entrap those in poverty, not help them.

Poverty was in decline prior to LBJ b/c poor folks were moving to places that had higher-paying jobs. The Great Migration is a perfect example of that. After LBJ, we had teen moms having 10 kids and all of that nonsense. Soon gangs of violent criminal became the norm in many cities.

LBJ's great society was one of the early starts of the craziness we see today.

I was in by early 20's when LBJ was president, having been born in 1944, so I lived through that disaster. In my opinion LBJ was the worst President in US history! He ran against Goldwater as a piece candidate, and after he won he immediately became a war hawk. He turned a small Communist insurrection into a blood bath. He accelerated America's descent into Socialism and Bankruptcy. He helped destroy the Black family in America. I may not be an "expert" on LBJ, but I was there, and I still have an intact memory. Today my wife and I are over 65, so according to Federal Law, we are under Medicare, and I don't like it. When I tried to set up an appointment with an excellent Pulmonary Doctor for my wife, I was told he was not on the approved list of our Medicare Administrator, and when I offered to pay out of my own pocket, they told me it was against Federal Law for a doctor to accept a direct payment from a person who was eligible for Medicare. Thank you LBJ!

"We'll have these CENSORED voting Democrat for 200 years." ~ Lyndon Baines Johnson

They should have known that something called Great Society would be a miserable disaster.

Government money from taxes chasing health care, education, etc has drastically increased the cost of all of them

"We'll have these [N-words] eating out of the palm of our hand for the next two hundred years." - LBJ

The immigration changes in 1965 have harmed this country and made it difficult to make necessary changes

I learned very little about the Great Society in grade school and college. History was my favorite subject and I minored in it. I wonder why.

Not only was the Great Society a failure in terms of outcome, but I would also say it is the primary catalyst for our social problems enabling mothers the raise their kids single and then doing very little at educating the children.

"America today has replaced indentured servants with the Working Poor. There comes a point where people need to understand that government subsidies for those working poor are not benefits for the poor, they are another grant for the rich so they can have cheap labor!" Agreed !!!

It wasn't all "Good Intentions" some in the ruling class wanted a Permanent dependant underclass. and created the insatiable Monsterous Federal Government that wants to rule every aspect of our lives.

The Great Society paved the road to Hell.

The editing on this channel is always top notch

13:35 Sweden had its "Million-Programme" at the same time. In a state of then about 8 million, a million new housings were built 1965-1974. The money came from socialization of pensions … These are now our problematic suburbs.

They are still using the same argument they use in all aspects of our government, education is one example.

The guest's statement that no one knew how expensive Medicare/Medicaid was going to become,... is absolutely false!! Everyone knew,... and no one cared! So long as *_WE_* look good, who really cares about those who follow us who have to clean up the mess. Look at how most no one cares a bit about exploding government debt and liability today. *Progressive Assertions:* 1) Scarcity is *NOT* natural. Scarcity *_ONLY_* happens because of greed. Production isn't necessary; only sharing. At any time in the past, present, or future, universal prosperity is always possible, except for the greed of a few. 2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism , as advocated by folks such as Noam Chomsky, is the way to go. No one needs prices to know what is worthwhile to do. Reason, and good will, are adequate to plan production. Labor is not a commodity. 3) Sovereignty should be based upon Good Intentions and not free moral agency. Corollary: Rule by Philosopher Kings!! 4) No one should ever have to suffer regardless of fault. 5) *_From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs_* (regardless of cost to everyone),... is still the best way to organize society,... but people are too greedy and selfish to make it work. It would be better for society to live as social insects, than as human beings. 6) Why be satisfied with trade-offs when solutions suggest themselves so obviously! 7) Wealth is consumption, not production. We have our cake, not because we bake it, but because we eat it. 8) Results flow from will, and will alone. If good results are not forthcoming, it is *ONLY* due to either a lack of good will or the presence of an opposing evil will. It is *NEVER* construed that results are lacking due to a lack of knowledge. Knowledge, science, technology, skills, prices, etc., are just incidental details. 9) Lifeboat ethics reign always. All these suppositions follow very naturally from the *_FACT_* that people today are essentially the same as we were a hundred thousand years ago when *EVERYONE* lived in nomadic, and essentially egalitarian, tribes. Most people's ethical, moral, and economic intuitions are still the same as our ancient ancestors, so is it any real surprise that so many people feel alienated in today's world where, under modern markets, the relationship between cause and effect is so abstract. For many caring, empathetic, people, trusting in Capitalism and self interest and the invisible hand of the market place makes just as much sense as walking off a ten story building,... and expecting the outcome to be okay. Just like a computer, the market can not be argued with, or pleaded with, or persuaded to be different. To people who rely on their ability and skill to influence people, the cold logic of computers/markets is, of course, experienced as profoundly alienating. If reality offers little to them, then so much the worse for reality then! This is how keirsey.com/temperament/idealist-overview/ progressives think versus the way keirsey.com/temperament/rational-overview/ libertarians think. For more, check out www.cato.org/events/socialism-human-nature . Basically the ideology of the Regressive Left (thank you Dave Rubin!) comes down to, literally, that wishing should make it so,... and if you even question the efficacy of such beliefs,... you're evil, you've bad intentions, you only say that wishing alone can not make it so because you must not really want it to be true. They are insane. But they speak to something that is very deep in the human soul than tends to be experienced more as the world becomes ever more prosperous and free. For more, read Nathaniel Branden's essay, *_Alienation_* in _Capitalism, the unknown ideal._ The punch line is that those who want to experience liberty covet the ability and responsibility to think for ourselves,... yet, mostly being herd animals, the vast majority of humanity atavistically craves a time when a mere instinct for survival, automatic and understood, was sufficient to survive and prosper. It isn't today. It can't be. But the Regressive Left would quite literally prefer the extinction of our species, rather than acknowledge as true the Pareto Principle as it applies to people; that roughly when any number of people are involved in most any activity, the square root of that number of people are providing half the value (out of 10,000, 100 create half the value, and then 10 create half the value again, or a quarter of the value of the original 10,000; How could there not be billionaires then?). We are not blank slates,... we are not all equal to each other, or even to ourselves on different days. We differ in will, merit, and ability. And we most likely always will. But, as I noted above, much of the Regressive Left would prefer humanity lived as social insects do,... so as there would be nothing to envy at all. *_Americans are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom._* ~ Alexis de Tocqueville *_The capitalist process shapes things and souls for socialism._* ~ Joseph A. Schumpeter *_Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it._* ~ George Bernard Shaw *_[The average man] is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty,... and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies._* ~ H.L. Mencken *_Wonderful theory, wrong species._* (On Marxism, which he considered more suited to ants than to humans) ~ Edward Osborne Wilson *_Any cook should be able to run the country._* ~ Vladimir Ilich Lenin *_A free man is as jealous of his responsibilities as he is of his liberties._* ~ Cyril James

As a kid, I always wondered why the radio people kept talking about "our Sgt. Shriver." LBJ gave us the Great Society, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Vietnam War, and the USS Liberty incident. Swell record...

The man with JFK's blood on his hands

Never accept free stuff from strangers or politicians. It always ends badly.

"Feeding the horses to feed the sparrows." Now there's a saying I haven't heard in ages, but it's entirely accurate tbh. Whenever I hear young people today, opining that we must go socialist, that that'll fix things, I just despair. How can you look at the failure of the boondoggle of government social programs and think more of the same would fix things?

"I'll have those N-----s voting Democrat for the next 100 years" -Lyndon Banes Johnson He was right. It breaks my heart.

10 Communists dislike this.

How are you supposed to kill poverty when your only source of income is stealing from other people, punishing the productive which hampers their drive to produce, taking their wealth via the threat of force , or borrowing fiat currency into existence creating inflation and interest on that newly-created currency that steals wealth from the future?

This guy was a disgusting human, hateful and dishonest.

That "poverty" exists is a reason for the Left to exist in an ethically vacant marketing sense. The fact that "poverty" today includes TV's, smart phones, cars, air conditioning and other luxuries that 60 years ago would have been unimaginable shows that the goal-post of poverty keeps moving..

This video started with a Bloomberg ad promoting an even more thorough government healthcare takeover.

Ask the government to fix a pothole, and you end up with a mud puddle.

Finally something sensible posted on this channel. Thumbs up!

Such an insightful and interesting guest. I wasn’t aware of her or her work until now, but am definitely going to pick up a copy of this book because it really seems to tell the story of how we got to such a bloated bureaucratic nightmare government, and how maybe things can change if we educate enough people about the failures of the past. I really loved the part about Tom Hayden, who was Jane Fonda’s husband at the time and explains everything we need to know about Hanoi Jane and her self serving activism that she is still performing on a weekly basis. Her brand of activism is as old as she is and a vainglorious attempt by an elderly woman to be relevant. That type of activism, which is most types of it, requires no personal hardship, is a virtue signal, and is a new form of aristocracy that is a capricious pecking order. I really hate these immoral prats pontificating to us mere ignorant plebs.

Hayek in Reagan's cabinet as chief economics advisor; still my beating heart

If those in poverty do not earn for themselves, then they are still in poverty, no matter how much they are given.

So funny she mentions education in the end, I was just adding her book to my amazon list for high school homeschooling. Tons of great info in this interview, I will have to check out her other books as well. The name of the foundation she chairs says it all for me!!

LBJ finished off the constitution, a process began by FDR. We now live under two constitutions, one of which destroyed the other as our present conditions demonstrate. The 1787 constitution has been replaced by the one created in 1964

The Great Society,and it’s predecessor,the New Frontier, functioned exactly as designed. None of this is accidental.

Awesome interview Nick and thank you, Amity, for your work.

The Forgotten Man was an incredible book. I’ve probably bought 4 or 5 copies as gifts. I did not know about this book. Now I do, and I will need to buy it. Thanks.

Over simplified? Government is not in the business of solving problems. Conflict of interest. They administrate. More the better. Bigger budgets. Solution(s) equals their obsolescence. Good will(supposed?) leads to greed.

I had the pleasure to read this book six months before it even came out. Her biography of Coolidge was great too.

World class, the interview was great, first time meeting Amity, I just know she'll be one of my favorite historians.

Deep respect for this intelligent woman!

LBJ's "Great Society" plans and the Hart-Cellar Act have been disastrous for the United States.

Excellent interview, gonna buy a copy. Liked, shared.

It wasn't a failure. It accomplished what it was designed to do, create a multi generational pool of votes that will pay dividends for decades, if not longer. Well played.

Completely shocked this didn’t pan out as intended...larger government just means more costs and bureaucracy without much effectiveness . We have been lost from the original intentions of our fore fathers in keeping government small and more of a republic than centralized. And...it’s only getting larger and worsening.

wow. great interview and very impressive lady.

What luck, being at the transition from one era to another.

Arguably one of the best interviews Gillespie has ever done.

And no one held accountable

Pauline Hill was Atlantic City;s Moynihan. She was responsibe for destroying many historic city neighborhoods to build massive housing projects, a process that drove most of the city;s middle class away, leaving AC a poverty stricken and corrupt failure.

LBJ: CLASSIC CASE OF REACH EXCEEDING GRASP..

The road to hell is paved with Democrats’ good intentions.

And at this time us Brits had Harold Wilson who took charge of the Labour Party when the leader suddenly feel ill on a trip to Russia.

That was very interesting I am going to look into getting that book I want to see if I can find it on Amazon because that's how I do all my shopping nowadays

Well, the US governments didn’t shelter the homeless.

RCA = Rugs, Chickens and Automobiles.

Attempting to get from good to great took a large percentage from independence to victimhood.

Whatever we declare war on we get more of...poverty ..drugs...obesity...maybe we should declare war on sobriety, thinness, etc?

Now just imagine what deal a Bernie Sander presidency would bring to this nation. 🙄 Would definitely set us back a century.

Good interviewing and good historian. I lived through those days and fought in Johnson’s war (at their command). Johnson had to have his guns and butter (it was a favorite debate in economics class) and drove the country into high inflation rates. The Democrats turned against the patriotic anti-communist wing of the party and went wholesale for social reforms starting in 1968. Nixon was torpedoed because he had pledged to defend South Vietnam if the communists broke their peace pledge. Reagan only temporarily halted the socialists.

Government was meant to 'remove barriers' for economic mobility, not attempt to manage them. Pursuing wealth is an internal motivation that requires nothing from government but 'getting out of the way.' The resurgence of political 'control' always seems to resurface.

I think it's time to change it, no new welfare recipients, as for current ones let them know no more increases, that should encourage them to stop having children they can't afford

Amity S. is a great great American. Thank you for the interview.

There would not be massive debt without the Great Society(22 trillion) The debt is equal to the increase in federal spending. A tax on " hope" and opportunity is a good description of the results of the GS. The student loan problem is related also.

More people need to read the book "Road to Serfdom."

IMO, one of the best analogies for what it takes to make a society productive is the story Stone Soup. This country has more than enough resources for everybody to throw a little bit of something into the survival pot. But instead we live in an every man for himself world. So if you really want to know why such "Great Society" schemes are an abject failure, maybe start with the root cause.

I agree, I'm "Stuck on S.S.I" I feel Disgusted!

The Greater Society is a big reason why the blk community went down 💯💯💯💯

Great interview. Thank you.

That beat at the start of this video was brutally annoying. Cant hear my self think, let alone hear what is being said

I guess Shlaes isn't a Yang supporter!

Great interview. ✔️

Good conversation Glad I listened

Over 2,000 years ago Jesus said the poor would always be with us, no matter how much money we gave them. This was as true then as it is now. You can not tax and spend the poor out of poverty.

Real question from a non america, all of conservatives keep saying that your national debt is too high spending is too high etc. But every time you get republicans in all three level of goverment (2003-2007 and 2017-2019) they don’t reduce federal spending and just keep letting your debt get higher. How big of a conservative majority would you guys actually need to reduce the federal goverment?

The social issues that “The Great Society” sought to tackle are, in many respects, still being fought today. So it is no surprise that historical perspectives of the raft of legislation that was passed between ‘64-68 are still frequently colored by the partisan battles of the present and recent pass. Most of Dr. Schlaes critiques on this legislative program are spot on, but it also glosses over the positive effects those laws DID have. Considering that the Far Left has rejected that ANY progress has made in the past 244 years (let alone the last 60), perhaps it is an inopportune time to remind viewers of a more conservative bent that before “The Great Society” Southern Black Americans were barred from receiving a quality public education, enjoying the equal use of public properties & services, contracting with most private businesses for their goods and services, and most shamelessly, expressing their constitutional right to vote. Although I’m not in favor of the “nanny state,” many of the consumer protections passed are ones we take for granted today: before the great society there were no warning labels on cigarettes, and anyone could buy them. Of the many burdensome regulatory laws that were passed, the Truth in Lending Act was not one of them, for it required lenders the not-so-burdensome task of clearly explaining the terms their loans to their customers. As far as poverty rates are concerned, they dropped from 22-25% in the early 60’s to 11-12% in the early 70’s. Rates have never climbed above 16% in the years since. I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that “The Great Society” deserves all or even most of the credit for this, but it does deserve some credit. Also, there is Medicare. It might not be around by the time I qualify, but I sure hope it will be. I think the sentiment was best expressed by an angry Republican voter, who in 1994 warned Democratic Sen. John Breaux, “keep your g*** d***n government hands of my Medicare.” “The Great Society” did not cure poverty any more than the “New Deal” got America out of the Great Depression, but it’s hard to argue that it did not alleviate poverty. The “New Deal” may even have prolonged the Depression, but it brought with it rural electrification: a vital service likely would have been ignored by Investor Owned Utilities for decades. Neither did “The Great Society” end racial inequality, but it extended for the first time substantive protections of the Constitution Rights of Southern Black Americans. I think much of America has accepted that big Federal bureaucracies are not the most efficient or sufficient way to address civil needs. When the free market is incentivized or left alone they fare typically better than Planned Centralized Economies, but for those market sectors whose structures or practices inhibit competition, targeted well-written government laws STILL work. Just like the “New Deal,” or the “Square Deal” after that, “The Great Society” was deeply flawed. It would just be inaccurate and disingenuous to claim was a complete failure.

I remember going" What?"about 1965 even though I was 11 years old at the time. Someone asked if giving more money when someone on welfare had another child would encourage them to have more children. " No, thats not the case because they are smart enough to know the extra money would not fully cover the new child."

Leftists: Read it and sober up.

Hey reason, you could also talk about FDR's New Deal if you haven't by any chance.

I got to see President Johnson in 65' make a speech at our local park. Googled the speech 50yrs later. Took me back to my childhood. Thanks to Grandma, been politically aware since 3yrs old.. We have a home movie of this, no sound, & alot of Secret Service protection in the crowd. I'll look it up again soon this election year.. some topics here in the speech.

Lol what is going down in the background so many sirens

Blueprint how to go from a Republic to the Soviet Union.

Worst President after Lincoln.

Stop pretending they didn't know what they were doing at the top. It's a form of control. They understood perfectly.

LBJs Great Society couldn't have done much for the homeless because they didn't exist in '64. That would take another 25 years of progressive policies.

How is this a "failure?" The agencies get trillions, and the people keep begging for more of the same. Sounds like everybody is happy.

🤮🤮

This has been a great interview. As an entrepreneur who had great success and then lost everything by mishandling a bureaucratic assault it is past time those of us who can to provide leadership to downsize gov and restore freedom.

I have got to object about her characterization of the Pruitt Igoe housing project. It's a fashionable excuse to blame the architecture but International style tower blocks do not cause gangs to proliferate. If that were the case then Hong Kong and Tokyo would be over run with criminal gangs. The Chinese have be living in high density urban environments including multi level apartments for centuries. There was a massive gulf between the people who designed and the people who lived in the housing projects. Refusing to mention the race and culture of the people who lived in Pruitt Igoe is lying by omission Try putting the phrase "these people' together with "nobody cared for it and everybody trashed it".

Proud to be an American, not a democrat!

5 trillion later, poverty rates are still high. Maybe we should stop overspending on useless shit like that

Thank you: I learned a lot in those 30 minutes

No one held accountable. No one in government is ever held accountable. Time to rebel

So small programs became monsters. Imagine if they start with a monstrous program?

God! I just spoke about this today! Good I found this video.

I liked her book on Coolidge too.

And let's not forget that he had JFK murdered.