Making a New Deal Book Review

What was the overall argument of the book?
How well did the author use evidence and logic to support this argument?

In Making a New Deal, Lizabeth Cohen describes the transformation of Chicago workers from the early 1919 to the mid-1930s. She aims to show the significance of how industrial workers became “effective as national political participants in the mid-1930s, after having sustained defeats in 1919 and having refrained from unionism and national politics during the 1920s.”1 Her argument is built on the idea that a "successful...strike in the future would require a work force more capable of coordinating on a national level and more unified ethnically and racially."2 To effectively show this metamorphosis, Cohen focuses on the influence of Chicago communities, neighborhood businesses, and welfare capitalism. Cohen is clear and systematic in her evidence of how each point contributed to the Chicago workers’ change over time. She begins by setting the scene for workers in 1919. By that time, workers had carried out countless failed strikes in the hopes of altering the industrial workplace. The main reason for these failures was that workers were unable to effectively unionize at the time due to a vast percentage of the workforce being foreign born.3 Cohen details the various ethnic communities of Chicago and describes the alliances within each neighborhood. The sense of community created in each neighborhood acted as a support system for immigrants, but distanced the different ethnic groups from one another. As Cohen says, "Isolated in local neighborhoods and fragmented by ethnicity and race, workers proved incapable of mounting the unified action necessary for success."3
Additionally, members who identified with a specific ethnic group also showed loyalty to businesses owned by a member of that community.4 Cohen details business loyalty to show the change over time as workers from all communities moved towards shopping at larger chain stores. The adjustment is largely due to the fact that the chain stores carried goods at a lower price, though it also showed that Chicago workers as a whole were becoming less stringent on the importance of supporting their respective ethnic community. The shift from buying goods only from sellers of one’s own ethnic group marked a step closer to breaking down ethnic barriers amongst workers. Cohen proves how ethnic barriers between communities were also broken down by welfare capitalism. Big businesses that worried about their workers striking implemented programs to benefit their employees, such as wage incentives or insurance, in hopes that it would pacify the workers enough to keep them from rebelling. Some of these programs included social events, which ironically ended up cultivating interethnic friendships between workers. Cohen argues that by extinguishing these barriers, big businesses actually helped foster alliances between workers that would lead to more powerful unions. In her words, “Thanks to welfare capitalists, ethnic provincialism was breaking down at the workplace, as it was in the real world.”5 Through her clear arguments and great integrated examples, Cohen successfully shows how Chicago workers moved past their ethnic boundaries to make a more unified whole. Activities such as shopping and social events at work fostered relationships and support groups among workers where one only had to be a worker to be a member. A perfect example of this is with the CIO, which “built on the new common ground with organizing strategies designed to unite workers even further.”6 This new type of kinship would help workers band together to create successful unions that would finally have a significant effect on national politics.
How does this book challenge/compliment other books we have read in class?
It was helpful to have the Great Depression and World War II context presentations surrounding this book because they gave further insight into conditions in America in the 20s and 30s, as well as foreshadowed where America was headed. I found the Great Depression context presentation to be especially helpful because it focused on America as a whole, as opposed to just Chicago. Even though Cohen uses Chicago as a model for the entire nation, it is still important for the reader to recognize that the different parts of the country were experiencing the 1920s and 30s in other ways besides just what this book relates. Additionally, it was interesting reading this book after Johnson’s book A Radical Middle Class because of the two distinct writing styles.7 Even though Cohen’s writing is easier to understand, she doesn’t seem to allow the reader to form his or her own argument. Personally, this made me question her argument somewhat because she was purposefully hiding information that would counter her argument. This is compared to Johnson’s book, where his writing is perceived as more of a discussion. Above all, it made me realize how important the writing style is when reporting and learning about historical events.

How did this book impact your understanding of history?
Making a New Deal really opened up my thinking when it comes to how and why a group of people and ideas change over time. It is easy to point out characteristics and beliefs of groups in history, but it can be difficult to determine how those beliefs came to form. Besides simply learning about Chicago workers in the 1920s and 30s, I gained a better understanding of all the factors that can morph a group of people over time. It makes me wonder how my principles are different from individuals’ 30 years ago, and what they will become in another 20 years.

Bibliography 1. Cohen, Lizabeth. Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 5.

2. Ibid., 43.

3. Ibid., 13.

4. Ibid., 109.

5. Ibid., 211.

6. Ibid., 313.

7. Johnston, Robert D. The Radical Middle Class: Populist Democracy and the Question of Capitalism in Progressive Era Portland, Oregon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.