The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties
| Company type | Publication |
|---|---|
| Industry | Book publishing |
| Founded | 2020 |
| Founder | Christopher Caldwell |
| Products | Non-fiction book |
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties is a 2020 publication authored by Christopher Caldwell, affiliated with the conservative Claremont Institute think tank. The book explores transformations in American society and politics starting from the 1960s and examines their influence on present-day life.
Overview
Caldwell offers a critique of extreme individualism, free-market fundamentalism, and unrestricted globalization, connecting these developments to the decline of social conventions and civic institutions over recent decades. He contends that both major political parties, left and right, played roles in enabling these shifts, which have adversely affected much of America's heartland. Caldwell singles out Ronald Reagan for criticism, accusing him of forsaking a coherent ideological movement in favor of reforms driven by business interests alongside inconsistent immigration policies. He argues that while Reagan achieved local successes, these came at the expense of escalating national debt.
The book attracted notice for its examination of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Caldwell regards as the starting point for ongoing social engineering efforts that have significantly compromised liberty and societal cohesion. He suggests that reforms from the 1960s established a competing "second" constitution at odds with the original framework, fueling intense disputes over which legal order should dominate. According to Caldwell, affirmative action and political correctness constitute foundational elements of this alternate constitutional order, reshaping American legal and cultural norms.
Caldwell describes civil rights legislation as "the most sacred totem in American politics," viewing it as the prevailing grand narrative that has withstood postmodern critiques. He asserts that "color-conscious civil rights" logically evolved from earlier "color-blind" policies, leading to disparate impact rulings aimed at diminishing perceived advantages held by white Americans. The private sector emerged as a significant enforcer of civil rights compliance, often driven by practical concerns regarding litigation exposure.
A key point Caldwell stresses is that removing freedom of association from constitutional safeguards fundamentally transformed American society. He interprets restrictions on male-only clubs and mandates for integration as evidence that pluralistic social arrangements have been weakened. In his discussion of "entitlement," he critiques both the Baby boomers and the Greatest Generation for their contributions to shaping this era.
Reception
The Wall Street Journal included the book among its Best Political Books of 2020. The central thesis is summarized as identifying two competing constitutional frameworks within America: one prioritizing individual equality under the law, and another addressing past injustices through mechanisms such as affirmative action, racial preferences, and judicial intervention in social and economic spheres.
A conservative commentator observes that broadening "rights discourse" beyond traditional social institutions can produce complex consequences, noting that American society has never adhered strictly to Lockean principles regarding rights. Caldwell’s perspectives have influenced conservative legal advocates; for instance, lawsuits claiming Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants and initiatives challenging college degree requirements for employment through disparate-impact claims echo earlier civil rights legal precedents like Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971).
In an article for The Washington Post, Benjamin C. Waterhouse, associate professor at the University of North Carolina, critiques Caldwell’s argument as "ahistorical," contending that America’s Constitution was not static between 1789 and 1964 and that civil rights reforms are unfairly blamed for constitutional changes. He also disputes Caldwell’s depiction of white grievance politics.
Brookings Institution fellow Jonathan Rauch, writing in The New York Times, characterizes the narrative as "provocative and pessimistic," criticizing its selective moral accounting and lack of constructive solutions to cultural conflicts. Rauch challenges the idea that the Civil Rights Act marks a singular constitutional turning point, highlighting America’s history of multiple transformative moments including Jacksonian populism, abolitionism, Progressive Era reforms, and New Deal policies.