New PBS Doc Embraces Big Gov’t, Criticizes Individual Freedom
by S.T. KarnickGovernment broadcaster PBS is running a new, five-part series on a subject naturally interesting in our time: American Experience: The 1930s. Episodes are available for online viewing here.
The program is just what one would expect from PBS: earnest, well-researched, skillfully presented, and eager to lick the boots of government while criticizing individual freedom for everything wrong in the world.

There are two important lessons to be learned from the Great Depression, in my view:
- The government causes business cycles and downturns through its erratic, manipulative policies intended to benefit powerful voting blocs at the expense of those less able to fight back. The market works when left alone, and government interference should be limited to redressing actual harms done by one party to another. This includes combating fraud, enforcing valid contracts, and setting clear but liberal guidelines for transactions made across political borders. And nothing more.
- The Great Depression brought on a cultural conservatism and moral regeneration of the American people. This is an aspect of the era which few people seem to understand. It was in the early ’30s, for example, that the movie industry was finally badgered into imposing a Production Code ensuring all widely distributed films would conform to a set of standard plot-lines, language restrictions, and limits on visual sensationalism (a move which undoubtedly had salubrious results but was probably unnecessary given the change of public taste in a more conservative direction; in addition, the movie studios engaged in it voluntarily, even if under the threat of state regulation; thus the Code was surely less drastic, damaging, arbitrary, and politically controlled than it would have been if imposed by government). During the 1930s the American people revolted against what they saw as the social and cultural excesses of the 1920s just as strongly as they did against what they saw as the economic excesses of the time. Earnestness and attention to the political, economic, and moral implications of human action were on the rise in all media. Breaking economic and political corruption was a major concern of the American culture.
The Great Depression was widely seen at the time as a punishment for the economic, social, and moral changes of the 1920s, when the nation had moved in a more classical-liberal direction affording greater economic, social, and personal freedom. The Roaring ’20s were seen in retrospect as a time of excessive license in all things (which they indeed were in some cases), and the Depression was viewed as an understandable payment that had to be made–the hangover after the party.
Thus the nation decided to swear off the booze of individual liberty altogether. As a cure, the people turned to government control of the economy and tighter moral strictures against individual freedom. If this sounds like today’s regnant political agenda, that’s because the two are indeed identical in means, motive, and opportunity. And they are both criminal in their stupidity.
I believe that both the moral reaction and economic impositions of the Depression era were overwrought and unnecessary, but the moral reaction was the more justifiable of the two because it largely avoided using government force for its implementation. As a result of its relatively voluntary, organic nature, the moral response to the Roaring ’20s managed to do some good, as noted above, while refraining from doing much harm.
Of the economic puritanism of the time, the very opposite was true. That is the way of government action.
Given PBS’s track record as a die-hard advocate of a statist, progressive agenda, it should surprise no one that the American Experience series refuses to incorporate liberal notions such as these, choosing instead to smother the truth in a miasma of irrelevant moralization.

Right at the beginning of episode 1, “The Crash of 1929,” the narrator refers to “the promise and the illusion of the 1920s,” setting the moralistic tone of the episode. Immediately thereafter, the noted statist economist the late John Kenneth Galbraith is shown saying, “Let us not think for a moment the illusion, the aberration of the 1920s is unique. It is intimately a part of the American character.”
In other words, people will go mad if not constrained by a gigantic, all-powerful benevolent government. We are undoubtedly supposed to be grateful for the warning.
Immediately thereafter, two commentators criticize the lovely Irving Berlin song “Blue Skies” as emblematic of the 1920s “illusion” that freedom was a good thing. The machinations of stock market manipulators in the decade are limned in some detail, and the commentators explicitly condemn the lack of government regulation.
What they do not note is that fraud of the sort described in this part of the program is illegal now and was illegal then. Thus while the perpetrators of such actions were morally responsible for their wrongs, from a social perspective the real culprit behind such market manipulation was in fact the government, in failing to perform its basic function of preventing fraud, enforcing valid contracts, and otherwise preventing people from harming one another.
Indeed, a commentator in the program explicitly states that such manipulation was legal at the time, which is quite wrong and would be deceptive even if true. Yes, it was the case that there were no specific laws explicitly criminalizing a variety of particular manipulative actions in the stock market, but those acts were fraud and could have–and should have–been prosecuted under existing laws. In addition, the failure to have laws preventing such fraud would be a failure of government criminal law, not of economic policy.
Economic regulation, however, is the agenda here, and every possible means is used to argue for it. The episode briefly criticizes New York Mayor Jimmy Walker for his fiscal imprudence, but the moment is conveyed as a critique of 1920s excessive exuberance and liberality, not as a matter of government corruption and a failure of government to do its duties.
Similarly, the role of the Fed in the 1920s bubble (which it fed by debauching the currency) and in the subsequent Depression (which it created and prolonged by tightening the currency far too much and excessively interfering in the markets, thus preventing the needed corrections from occurring) is alluded to but presented in moralistic terms, as another example of excessive liberality followed by a painful but necessary corrective action.
Individual investors are likewise presented in moralistic terms, depicted as greedily and foolishly chasing after “the one lucky break,” as one person puts it. One is given no understanding of how the investors’ actions could in fact have seemed at the time to be rational, not speculative. The reality is that, then as now, an individual must look at the possible returns and risks involved in investing one’s money and also in not doing so. If the government reduces apparent risk to zero–as the Fed did during the 1920s and 2000s–what on earth does one think investors will do but continue to invest in a wide variety of ventures based on increasingly risky foundations?
This is what happens in all bubbles, and it is what happened in the most recent one, but American Experience refuses to acknowledge this critical fact. Thus here too a failure of government is elided and its effects blamed on the allegedly free choices of individuals in an allegedly under-regulated market.
Tellingly, as the program describes the stock market crash of 1929 and the events that led up to it, nothing about Fed policy or the money supply is mentioned. Yet the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has convincingly argued that the manipulation of the money supply caused both the bubble and the bust. That particular truth, however, does not contribute to and in fact contradicts the program’s agenda for government power and against individual liberty. Thus it, too, is redacted from the story.
Near the end of the episode, Galbraith blames it all explicitly on the investors–the “suckers” as he crudely and callously calls them–and says that such crashes happen every twenty or thirty years because that’s how long it takes for the “suckers” to forget that their earlier greed and foolhardiness led to disaster. The alternative explanation–and the true one–is not given any attention: that every twenty or thirty years the government’s renewed manipulation of the economy as a means of buying votes results in disaster.
The program concludes with an argument that what the stock market crash taught Americans was a great lesson in humility. Certainly that was the lesson that the American people took from it. The real lesson, however, is that governments’ attempts to manipulate the economy always bring catastrophic consequences in time.
Of course it’s true that many people did many bad things both in the stock market and in other areas of human endeavor in the 1920s. But that’s always the case, human beings being what we are. What was different about the 1920s and ’30s was the choices government made, and the consequences were world-changing.
The real moral failure to be found in American Experience: The 1930s is in many people’s continual refusal to recognize that freedom of choice is a good, and coercion an evil, regardless of who is doing which.




Subscribe via RSS
44 Comments
once again no surprise here…
The Powers That Be are heavily invested in a return to Statism. They want, very much, to finish that which FDR started. Obama is a 21st century version of Roosevelt; albeit far more lightweight reflecting the times. The cult of personality, the salvation the state- and ONLY the state- can offer.
The Left's political organs- NEA, PBS, and others- will be nonstop on this. Question is: Will anybody watch?
Does anybody care?
PBS has gotten orders from obama to start the full progrom of indoctrination of the American people for the full power grab to come
obama is seeing the Real Americans are waking to his corruption and lies, so he is ramping it up to the prologue of the full power trip with brownshirts to follow
I say, to obama – America sees you for the radical America hater that you are and we reject you !!!!!!!!!
DEFUND PBS !
I won't be watching this revisionist show and neither should anyone else, who has more than 3 working braain cells.
How about a multi-part series based on Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man?
That book sets the record straight on how the "New Deal" was really the Raw Deal.
Poverty = Humility = Faith = Prosperity = Wealth
Wealth = Pride = Arrogance = Downfall = Poverty
Lather. Rinse. Repeat. The formula seems to accurately describe both economic and moral frameworks, and on both personal and national levels.
In other words: liberals seem to be poor students of history.
The Fed, The Fed, The Fed. It's all because of the Fed, people.
Do a bit of research and you'll come to the same conclusion. The Fed is what feeds the Leviathan called the State.
PBS deserves the same level of public funding that the NEA does: Zero.
I'm with you. They've mismanaged every dollar they've gotten to this point. They're so mismanaged that they have to beg for money all year long – on top of taxes that are stolen from me for this joke of a network. It's not a necessary function of government and I believe we could live without it. Except those who drive Volvo's and Subaru's. Cut funding to NPR too!
History, as well as truth, is knowable apart from PBS. Here's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6F492A866126E96A&search_query=the+great+depression+1929">a succinct documentary of the The Great Depression. A little less than an hour long, in 6 installments for easy downloads. It is fascinating and eerily too familiar. . . buying on margin, bubble market, first-time investors, etc.
We are getting closer folks. Be strong and do not let THEM intimidate us. The people cannot be defeated unless we let the government walk over us.
If you have gold or jewelry, hold on to it. the time is coming rapidly when you will need whatever you have. Also, start now building a survival pantry.
The telling thing about these documentaries is that they completely ignore the recession of 1920, which was actually more severe than the 1929 crash. The reason everyone ignores it is because it was also ignored by the government. It started while Wilson was still president, and he was suffering the after-effects of a stroke, so he took no action. Then he was succeeded by Harding, who decided that the economy wasn't the business of the government, but the business of business. He let the market correct itself, and the end result was the recession lasted less than a year, followed by a sustained boom.
Thanks to Hoover and Roosevelt's manipulations, the less severe recession of 1929 led to the greatest depression in our history. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something wrong.
Let's not forget that Roosevelt ran against what Hoover did, then out-Hoovered Hoover, getting the government more and more involved in things it had no business in, from the arts to retirement to banking. This is exactly what Obama did running against Bush and now he has out-Bushed Bush in spades (oh, can I use that word here?).
The same cycle repeats itself over and over again in the Old testament…
Yet the children of Israel never learned either…..
If I were a PBS director of documentaries I think I'd be worried an Oba Mao fatwa would be issued for producing films which capture truth not paper-mached Greek-column fiction.
Once a great and promising Republic that shined a beacon of hope across the world, Americans appear to suffer from a Stockholm Syndrome-like apathy, a pitiful scene of a dog licking the hand of a cruel master, unable or unwilling to break free of the bonds of a soft tyranny that, ignored, will only harden and subjugate them even more. After the heady days of FDR's New Deal and travelling circus act, it's easy to see how politicians of the Obama stripe can manipulate the masses with flowery rhetoric and and a slippery tongue. It also appears that not only do they like being lied to but invite it by not contesting falsities simply because they can't see them and believing whatever they're told by whoever promises them the most. I guess you could call it moronism but intellectual laziness would be more accurate. Will they ever learn or are they destined to suffer the fate of Europe and other great civilizations into indentured servitude? I case you're wondering, I am an American.
Well, I do admit to loving MASTERPIECE THEATRE , but not all of the stuff shown. But lets call a spade a spade…………………PBS buys those shows and they stopped buying DOCTOR WHO and never did buy TORCHWOOD.
Yes, cut the funding for NPR as well !
Amen dcase! It is up to us. The left will count on dumping so much garbage on us that we will cave. It has been non-stop drama since O has been in the WH. Divide and Conquer. I don't think so.
They are blinded by light. Truth to them is debatable. To us it is clearly one thing…God The Father.
I apologize to any "Normal" people who drive Volvo's and Subaru's. By normal I mean un-liberal.
NEA was just granted MILLIONS of dollars over and above last year. It is obsene. Despite the stink with Buffy and Yosi and illegal conversations with the WH , they just plow ahead. They gotta go!
PBS: "Progressive" B S
NPR: National "Progressive" Radicals
stay alert, and be vigilant. It is YOUR country…
Hoover was aprogressive and tyhought the government could and should do something. FDR took it to a new level of government intervention. FDR was perhaps the worst president of the US ever. The supreme court ruled that a farmer could not grow wheat on his own land for use by his own family for bread and not for sale to others. Price controls put people out of business. Wage controls and miniumum wages made unemployment skyrocket. FDR did nothing to stop lynchings in the south to keep southern democrats votes. The horror ended with FDR's death. Truman's light touch helped the recovery of the economy.
Good grief. I was just telling someone that the 1930s is the left's favorite decade. PBS has done it to death has has every other left wing outfit, as do our students' textbooks.
Britain is a leftist basket case, and the BBC can take large share of the credit for helping it get there. To paraphrase one Brit libertarian, it should be closed down and the ground sewn with salt.
It's a sure bet that any "Public" or taxpayer funded TV will eventually become a force for more and bigger government, which is why it should be disbanded in the US. The left already has most of the media on their side, they don't need taxpayer assistance for one more outlet.
What do you mean "new PBS"??? They've always been like that. If there is even a slim chance that PBS can showcase the virtues of Socialism and downgrade the American way of life in a show, they'll do it.
Except for Antiques Roadshow once in a while (because I sell vintage/antique stuff), and NOVA a couple of times over the years, I never have watched anything else on PBS in my entire life. Geez, when my kids were little they found Sesame street dull. Mr. Rogers was such a mIlquetoast I did not feel he was a strong & positive male role model for my kids. Does anymore than a couple of thousand people per day actually watch PBS?
I wonder what the total amount of money NPR has stashed in annuities, bequeathments, gifts
in their rainy day funds. They received a huge gift from Mrs Kroc, what almost a billion? It seems to me they could function very nicely without the piddling amount, in comparison, from our taxes.
If they can't function so be it, I won't miss you Garrison Keillor and all you other blood suckers.
I have no idea how much they have stashed away, but I bet it's a lot of money.
There is absolutely no valid reason why our tax dollars are funneled into PBS and NPR; none !
If they can't make it on their own, they are not "too big to fail" ( oxymoronic term ) nor even relevant, they should be allowed to die.
[...] New PBS Documentary Embraces Big Gov’t, Criticizes Individual Freedom [...]
There are so many things wrong with this article it is laughable. It starts with the first phrase "government broadcaster PBS". Last I checked PBS and NPR receive a significant portion of their funding from private sources( via donations), but why let facts get in the way at the start, the rest of the article doesn't. The 20's and now are very similar, where business did what ever it wished (totally unregulated) and the masses clean up the mess created by the few, the depression. The revisionism of the extreme right, represented here by the author and the usual suspects posting, doesn't change the facts. I am sure the attacks will continue though as it is all the extreme right knows how to do. Now you can start spewing your adhominem attacks against me and reason. Ha Ha
Let us not forget that one huge contributing factor to the "immoral excess" of the 1920's was Prohibition – the Government's attempt to keep the people chemically pure against their will by outlawing a personal choice that most believed they had a right to make for themselves. This Constitutional amendment was promoted by by a minority of highly vocal bluenoses and do-gooders with the connivance of Congress, and the result was widespread loss of respect for law and government.
-or maybe this result was a good thing in the long run?
How many working brain cells do you have 4, ROFLMAO at you, and this poorly thought out article. I guess 4 brain cells is enough to hate with though carry on and thanks for my daily laugh.
Duh!
PBS (pure bull shit) gets much of its funding via the government confiscation that's euphemistically called "taxation".
so you're saying you would wholeheartedly support the complete defunding of PBS & NPR? let them sink or swim in the media marketplace?
because what i'm hearing/reading is yet another lefty who on the one hand dismisses the public contribution to these entities as an insignificant pittance, but on the other, screams bloody murder at any/every attempt to even rein in taxpayer support…
As I mentioned in another recent discussion here, PBS actually produced a program on Joshua Muravchik's book Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism when the Republicans controlled the pursestrings but they seemed to do their best to hide it and the only way I was able to see it was to buy the DVD.
That picture of FDR makes him look like Burgess Meredith as the Penguin from the old Batman TV series. I am certain that is way off topic, but I felt compelled to mention it.
Which word? Obama? Yes you can but . . ..
In 1920 the alcoholic beverage industry went underground taking a very large slice of formerly legal economic activity with it to the black market. This assault on 'Joe Sixpack' ensured his blind eye turned to gang activity and corruption in government was virtually assured. That corruption infested Wall Street in order to launder huge chunks of money doesn't require a PhD to grok.
The excesses of the twenties are entirely understandable under these circumstances (the later motion picture code can be understood as a sop to the moralists after Prohibition was repealed).
Dealing with the crash of '29 and the ensuing depression while this huge underground economy and it's corruption were operating was impossible (Capone freely operated soup kitchens). As FDR was the beneficiary of the return of this formerly hidden capital his misuse of the same could be his most damning epitaph.
"New PBS doc embraces Big Gov't, Criticizes Individual Freedom."
Wow, what a shocker. And here, all the time, I was under the impression that the PBS crowd were libertarians.
This just in: Scientists Agree: Water is Wet!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Katy, Infidels Are Cool, Le Combat, Melissa L. Sutton, copelandcasati and others. copelandcasati said: Oh never mind, too chaotic here, so I will say, yes there are points to consider. http://bit.ly/3WQaqk [...]
I pity you, that projection complex you have, is one of the worst I've ever seen.
It's a wonder that you are capable to type a message and post it, with 1/2 a brain cell; dear.
WIth all due respect, while I am not as big a fan of FDR as most of the Left is, I must protest the idea that he was the "worst president of the US ever." Yes, he had his gross flaws, and yes, he ultimately did start us down this road towards statism (or at least truly kicked it off), and yes, his naive trust of Stalin did prove disastrous.
But he also did much good, in particular for accepting the truth about Germany and Japan far before most of the country did, and for trying to take measures accordingly, and for leading with competence if not genius.
He deserves much condemnation, but let us not deny the man the praise he deserves. After all, we are not Liberals.
As for the Worst President of the US ever, I am still decided in regards to Carter, Obama (though to be perfectly fair, he still has more time to either rise up or sink down), and (on my more cynical days) Ike.
That be said, I agree with the rest.
You must be logged in to post a comment.