Shermer recounts the story of Barry Goldwater and his generation of business conservatives in Phoenix, Arizona. These were individuals who relied fundamentally on federal infrastructure investments from the New Deal, while rejecting its high taxation and commitment to labor rights, in order to transform a region once entirely dependent on agriculture and extractive industries into a booming, sprawling industrial hub. Favored policies included regressive taxation and "right-to-work" laws in order to promote a more favorable "business climate" for corporations seeking easier profits than they could get in the highly unionized East and Midwest. I learned from this book that the most infamous postwar labor law, Taft-Hartley, was actually passed largely in order to preserve the business advantages of "Sunbelt" Southwestern states like Arizona by allowing states to pass "right-to-work" laws.
This is a history that deserves a lot more attention, since these individuals have been rightly fingered as the precursors of post-1979 neoliberal politics. Unfortunately, Shermer's narrow focus doesn't do it much justice. She seems mainly preoccupied with reciting the minutiae of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's meetings and propaganda, rather than more deeply exploring the specific corporate practices of investors in Phoenix (such as General Electric, Motorola, Sperry Rand, etc.), the development patterns of the city (i.e. sprawl), or even the ideology of Phoenix's "booster" class (though there are a few brief, intriguing interludes, such as her discussion of banker Walter Bimson's love of financial deregulation and his idea that it democratizes credit; or of Goldwater's paternalistic approach to his own department store business). The book becomes extremely repetitive and thin; Shermer's constant repetition of the phrases "Chamber men", "rainmakers", "grasstops", and "boosters" becomes irritating. A better title for this book might have been "Sunbelt boosterism", though of course this would not allow it to sell as many copies.
As additional quibbles, Shermer also plays it fast and loose with theoretical terms: she calls her subjects "neoliberal" even though they did not self-identify as such and did not articulate a fully formed neoliberal ideology; and she insists that pre-New Deal Arizona was a "colonial" region due to its dependence on raw materials production -- despite the total absence of legal institutions designed to exploit the region as a whole and retard its development and free competition. (Racial segregation applied to Black and Latino residents was certainly of a colonial nature but that is an entirely different issue). Ultimately this book looks like an attempt by an academic to Say Something about an issue that was trendy at the time, even though she doesn't have much to say. I had hoped it would say more about the connection between its subject and neoliberalism since it is relatively recent, but books like this are proof that newer is not always better.