Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer (review)

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt declared that the ideal of "freedom from want" represented one of four "essential human freedoms." In this strong book, Kathleen Donohue shows that while liberals had long supported the other goals of freedom from fear and freedom of speech and religion, the concept of freedom from want was relatively novel. Indeed, the idea only attained credibility after a complicated debate during which "late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century American intellectuals . . . transformed the economic, social, and political meanings associated with consumer and consumption" (p. 276).

Classical economics of the early 1800s treated "production not as a means but an end and consumption not as the ultimate purpose of production but, instead, a threat to it" (p. 2). Puritanical admiration for hard work and scorn for indulgence reinforced the condemnation of consumption as a waste of valuable capital. "Thinkers who would challenge the prevailing producerist wisdom were a disparate lot," Donohue declares, but all "were troubled by the paradox of poverty amid plenty. All . . . assumed that any solution to that paradox would require rethinking the consumer's place within the political economy" (p. 5).

Donohue analyzes major figures in turn, skillfully showing the interrelationship and evolution of their ideas. For instance, she details how Edward Bellamy's assertions that producers had no claim to monopolize society's inherited intellectual capital helped challenge assumptions that people's right to consume depended on their place in production. Shifting discussion of consumption away from moralistic denunciations of luxury, economist Simon Patten suggested that efficient goods use could help end poverty. His "cultural lag" theory linked poverty to outdated deficit economy thinking; under a surplus economy, emphasis on problems of production could shift to considerations of consumption.

Donohue argues that by the 1910s, "economists were giving the same attention to consumption that they had once reserved for production," while the next generation began exploring political implications (p. 115). Shorter hours, higher pay, and improved working conditions allowed Walter Lippmann and Walter Weyl to refocus attention on the middle class. John Dewey made the notion of defining the public as a common consumer interest group "seem completely reasonable and, even more important, quintessentially American" (p. 196). Donohue maintains that such analysis "pushed consumerist thinkers in political directions they did not want to go" (p. 208). Even the harshest critics of capitalism found liberalism more hospitable than radicalism to consumer-oriented thinking. They realized "it was not Karl Marx but Adam Smith who had placed the consumer at the center of his political economy" (p. 162).

After discussing Stuart Chase, Robert Lynd, and other 1920s commentators on consumerism, Donohue characterizes Franklin Roosevelt's administration as the first to treat consumption as a vital economic function and acknowledge consumers as a significant interest group. She deftly traces different analysts' perspectives on consumption; for instance, in regard to Edward Filene and William Trufant Foster's "trickle-up" theories, Donohue suggests that consumerist ideas "pushed proponents of varied political views toward a common political groundóa 'vital center.' At the same time that consumerist ideas were having a moderating influence on left liberals, they were having a progressive influence on corporate liberals. The result was that left and corporate liberals who embraced consumerist ideas ultimately shared much more common ground than did their nonconsumerist counterparts" (p. 220).

Donohue contrasts the political and economic approach to consumption inside two New Deal agencies, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). Although the NRA's Blue Eagle campaign mobilized thousands of people, Donohue argues that the agency's conflict-oriented structure ultimately undermined consumer-Left liberals' position. Consumers had no organized representation, leaving their mostly female volunteer board at a disadvantage against unions and business advocates. NRA head Hugh Johnson also used gender as a rhetorical weapon, marginalizing consumers by representing them as women: "His feminized consumer was a consumer...