“And so, in a government ruled by the impoverished majority, almost everything is permitted. But as this pursuit of populism spirals out of control, there is no discipline, and the masses become disorderly. When populism is taken to an extreme, it becomes anarchy. In time, the wealthy and the strong begin to consolidate power, as the impoverished majority is too divided and distracted to resist. Thus, the rule of the impoverished majority collapses into tyranny or oligarchy, where power rests with the few.”
— Adapted from Plato’s Republic, Book VIII (562b-d), to reflect modern times.
The Great Society, a sweeping set of programs and reforms initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, sought to eliminate poverty and racial injustice by expanding government intervention in healthcare, education, and welfare. The vision was noble, aiming to create a more just and equal society. However, when examined through the lens of Aristotle’s Polity and Plato’s critique of populism (emotional appeals to the masses), it becomes clear that the very effort to build this Great Society may have contributed to the erosion of the middle class, undermining the balance essential for a stable and just society. Over time, many of these well-intentioned policies have revealed unintended consequences. Instead of fostering a thriving middle class and reducing inequality, the Great Society reinforced corporate dominance, disrupted family structures, and led to the emergence of populism in response to growing disparities. Ultimately, this pursuit created a system where dependency on government programs replaced self-reliance and upward mobility.
The Role of the Middle Class in Aristotle’s Polity
“The best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant.” (Politics, Book IV, 1295b).
Aristotle emphasized the importance of a strong middle class as the stabilizing force in any society. In his ideal Polity, extremes of wealth and poverty lead to instability, and the middle class, being neither excessively rich nor poor, acts as a moderating force that upholds justice and social cohesion. The United States, for much of its history, was built on the strength of its middle class, which drove economic growth and democratic participation.
However, the Great Society, though designed to uplift the poor, inadvertently weakened this crucial middle class. As government expanded its role in the economy and society, it created new dependencies and disrupted the balance that Aristotle believed was essential for a stable and just society.
The Origins of the Great Society
Johnson’s personal background played a significant role in shaping his desire to tackle poverty. Growing up in rural Texas during the Great Depression, he saw firsthand the struggles of poor families and how a lack of opportunity could limit people’s lives. His political career as a senator and president deepened his conviction that government had a role to play in improving people’s lives.
The official introduction of the Great Society came in two speeches Johnson gave in 1964: one at Ohio University and the more famous one at the University of Michigan. In these speeches, Johnson laid out his vision for a society that would eliminate poverty, improve education, protect the environment, and promote equality.
While there were elements of research and policy planning that contributed to the development of the Great Society programs, there was not a thorough, comprehensive scientific study of the long-term implications of these policies before their implementation. Many of the Great Society initiatives were built on assumptions and ideals rather than empirical evidence or pilot studies. In some cases, the push for civil rights legislation and anti-poverty programs was more about moral imperatives and political momentum than about waiting for extensive scientific validation.
From Limited Government to Oligarchy
The United States was originally founded on the principle of limited government, where the state’s primary role was to act as a neutral arbiter in disputes and protect individual rights. The vision was one of a small state that did not interfere heavily in the lives of its citizens. However, with the rise of the Great Society, the government’s role expanded dramatically, particularly in the realms of healthcare, education, and welfare.
As the government grew, so did the power of corporations that were able to navigate and manipulate the regulatory frameworks created by these new programs. Instead of creating a system that uplifted everyone equally, the Great Society contributed to the rise of corporate dominance through several key mechanisms:
1. Regulatory Expansion and Corporate Influence
The expansion of government regulation under the Great Society, while intended to address social ills, disproportionately benefited large corporations. New regulations, such as those governing healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid, created complex legal environments that favored businesses with the resources to navigate them. Small businesses, on the other hand, were left struggling to comply with the costly and bureaucratic requirements.
As Thomas Sowell explains in Basic Economics:
“Government regulations often become a tool of those regulated, imposing burdens on smaller competitors that do not have the same legal and financial resources to deal with those regulations” (Basic Economics, p. 418).
This allowed large corporations to dominate industries like healthcare and agriculture, where small enterprises couldn’t compete. By consolidating power through regulatory capture, corporations effectively reinforced an oligarchy, where a few large firms control much of the market.
2. Federal Spending and Corporate Contracts
The Great Society brought about massive increases in federal spending, particularly in sectors like defense, infrastructure, and healthcare. This infusion of government funds disproportionately benefited large corporations, which had the resources to win government contracts and expand their influence. Smaller businesses found it difficult to compete for these lucrative contracts, further widening the gap between large corporations and the rest of the economy.
For example, large defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and General Electric capitalized on government spending, entrenching their dominance in key industries. Over time, this reliance on government contracts allowed these firms to amass enormous economic power, reinforcing the corporate oligarchy that dominates today.
3. Welfare and Dependency: Weakening Small Enterprises
While the Great Society’s welfare programs were designed to reduce poverty by providing crucial support like food stamps and welfare payments, they also had unintended consequences that fostered long-term, even multi-generational dependency. These measures, while alleviating immediate hardship, often created a system where individuals, and sometimes entire families, became reliant on government assistance rather than pursuing economic self-reliance or entrepreneurial opportunities.
In many cases, welfare recipients found themselves hesitant to take better-paying jobs or pursue higher education for fear of losing the benefits that were supporting their basic needs. This disincentive structure locked individuals into a cycle of dependency, where the security of government aid outweighed the potential risks and challenges of upward mobility.
In low-income communities, particularly minority neighborhoods, this reliance on government support also displaced the entrepreneurial spirit that could have driven local economic growth. Over time, this dependency became multi-generational, with children growing up in families where reliance on welfare was the norm. Instead of promoting self-reliance, welfare often discouraged the pursuit of better opportunities, such as starting small businesses or investing in local enterprises.
This system inadvertently opened the door for large corporations, especially in retail and fast food, to dominate these areas. With fewer local entrepreneurs, these corporations filled the gap, further consolidating control over the economy of these communities and weakening the potential for small businesses to take root and thrive.
4. Judicial Favoritism and Corporate Legal Power
Another key factor in the rise of corporate dominance was the judicial system’s favoritism toward large corporations. As corporations gained more power and resources, they were able to influence the legal system through lobbying and high-powered legal teams. This created an environment where small businesses and ordinary citizens stood little chance against corporate giants in legal disputes.
As Sowell notes, regulatory capture and legal manipulation are common tactics used by large firms to protect their interests:
“Government intervention in the economy often favors the most powerful, who have the resources to influence regulation and litigation to their advantage” (Basic Economics, p. 456).
This legal imbalance further eroded the middle class’s ability to compete with large corporations, reinforcing a system where the rich and powerful dominate.
The Breakdown of Families and the Welfare State
One of the most damaging consequences of the Great Society was the way its welfare policies disrupted family structures, particularly in African American communities. By providing government support directly to women, the welfare system incentivized single-parent households and reduced the role of fathers in family life. This has had long-lasting negative effects on the social and economic well-being of these communities.
As Thomas Sowell explains in Wealth, Poverty, and Politics:
“The welfare state has made it economically feasible for many low-income women to raise children without the fathers being present, which has contributed to the disintegration of the family, especially among low-income minorities” (Wealth, Poverty, and Politics, p. 278).
The breakdown of family structures, driven by welfare dependency, has led to higher rates of poverty, crime, and unemployment in these communities. The absence of fathers and stable family units has exacerbated the cycle of poverty, further contributing to the weakening of the middle class.
Affirmative Action and the Undermining of Excellence
The Great Society’s focus on affirmative action and identity-based policies, though aimed at promoting equality, also led to the undermining of meritocracy. Instead of promoting excellence and opportunity for all, these policies often prioritized race and identity over merit and ability, creating resentment and division in society.
As Sowell discusses in Discrimination and Disparities:
“A quest for ‘cosmic justice’—attempting to rectify all the wrongs of history—can only lead to new injustices, as policies designed to correct disparities between groups inevitably benefit some at the expense of others” (Discrimination and Disparities, p. 156).
By favoring certain groups over others, the policies created new forms of inequality and hindered the development of a society based on excellence and merit. This imbalance further weakened the middle class, as opportunities were allocated based on identity rather than ability.
The Rise of Populism
The disparity and injustice created by the policies of the Great Society have left deep socio-philosophical and economic rifts within American society. These divisions have given rise to populism, as citizens across the political spectrum react to the growing disconnect between their everyday realities and the promises of the political establishment. Populism—a movement that claims to speak for the common people against an elite ruling class—has flourished in response to the increasing concentration of corporate power, widening inequality, and a sense of alienation from the political process.
While Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society was itself a populist idea, designed to address widespread poverty and inequality, it lacked scientific backing and a thorough evaluation of its long-term consequences. The policies, driven by idealism and an emotional appeal to uplift the disadvantaged rather than evidence, set the stage for the erosion of the middle class and the rise of corporate oligarchy. Yet, what followed the Great Society may have been even worse: a series of populist programs introduced by subsequent presidents, similarly lacking in scientific rigor or careful study of potential consequences, further exacerbated the problems.
In the decades following Johnson, presidents from both political parties continued the trend of introducing populist policies without considering their broader social, economic, or scientific implications. Here are some key examples of such programs:
- Richard Nixon’s Wage and Price Controls (1971): Nixon’s attempt to combat inflation by imposing wage and price controls was a classic populist move that aimed to appeal to middle- and working-class voters suffering from rising prices. The controls distorted markets, leading to shortages and economic inefficiency, without addressing the root causes of inflation which were the underlying fiscal policies that were driving the problem.
- George W. Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (2003): Bush’s expansion of Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D) was another example of a populist policy designed to appeal to senior citizens. While it provided much-needed relief for some, the program was rushed through without a full understanding of its long-term fiscal impact. It added significant costs to an already overburdened Medicare system, further straining the federal budget. The program’s lack of proper financing mechanisms and its reliance on future debt created unsustainable pressures on public finances.
- Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (2010): The Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, was hailed as a transformative populist policy designed to provide universal healthcare access. While it expanded coverage for millions, it was also riddled with unintended consequences. Many of the assumptions underpinning the ACA’s rollout, particularly regarding cost savings, were optimistic and untested. The policy significantly expanded federal control over healthcare but led to rising premiums, limited choice of providers, and a growing sense of frustration among both healthcare providers and consumers.
- Donald Trump’s Trade Tariffs (2018): President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on imported goods, particularly from China, was a populist attempt to appeal to American workers by claiming to protect domestic industries. However, the tariffs were imposed without adequate economic analysis of their potential repercussions. The result was increased costs for American consumers, disruption of global supply chains, and retaliatory tariffs that hurt American exporters. While the policy was pitched as a way to boost American manufacturing, it led to higher prices for everyday goods and failed to revitalize the industries it was meant to protect.
Inherent Flaws of Our Political Model
The rise of populism in modern American politics can be traced back to the disparities and injustices exacerbated by policies such as the Great Society. Each subsequent president, following in Johnson’s footsteps, has introduced their own populist agenda aimed at appealing to a specific demographic or social group, often without thoroughly considering the long-term consequences. Whether through tax cuts, welfare expansion, or economic interventions, these ill-conceived policies have contributed to the fragmentation of American society, deepening the divide between different socioeconomic groups.
Our political model, which centers on the debate between two competing candidates who often promote quick-fix solutions to win short-term approval, is doomed to fail. These debates prioritize soundbites and emotionally charged promises, rather than thoughtful and measured policy development. As a result, short-term populist programs are introduced, gaining temporary approval from targeted constituencies, but inevitably lead to deeper economic and social problems over time.
To escape this cycle, we must recognize the inherent flaws of this model. Real, lasting solutions can only emerge through thorough examination from all possible angles, where policies are scrutinized and refined before implementation. This can be achieved only through a dialectic approach among a Council of 500, as proposed in the political model of New Democracy. In this framework, debates are not merely about winning votes but about arriving at the best possible policies through reasoned discourse and rigorous testing. Only by abandoning the flawed system of quick fixes and short-term populism can we hope to craft policies that genuinely serve the public good.
Conclusion: The Myth of the Great Society
While the Great Society was conceived to create a more just and equitable society, its legacy has been one of dependency, corporate dominance, and the erosion of the middle class. The expansion of government regulation and welfare programs, along with policies favoring identity over merit, led to unintended consequences that reinforced oligarchy rather than reducing inequality.
As Thomas Sowell argues, the solution lies in promoting merit, personal responsibility, and limited government—principles that allow the free market and individual excellence to thrive. The Great Society’s pursuit, though idealistic, failed to account for the complexities of human behavior and economic systems, leaving the middle class—the foundation of Aristotle’s Polity—weaker and more divided.
The trend of populist policymaking initiated by the Great Society persists today. Despite good intentions, these programs often lacked scientific backing, rigorous testing, and long-term planning, leading to deeper inequality, a weakened middle class, and further corporate dominance.
The rise of populism is unsurprising, as disillusionment with a failing system drives people toward leaders who offer quick fixes rather than sustainable solutions. This cycle of populism and poorly conceived policies has only widened societal divides, increasing polarization, mistrust, and economic instability.
To break this cycle, we must return to evidence-based policymaking, such as that proposed in New Democracy, where the potential consequences of any program are thoroughly examined before implementation. Only through interdisciplinary analysis can we avoid the mistakes of the past and restore opportunity, justice, and stability to all segments of society—especially the middle class, which remains the backbone of any just and prosperous society.
By returning to the principles of balance, fairness, and merit, we can restore the strength of the middle class and build a society where opportunity is based on excellence and justice, rather than on government intervention or identity politics.