The “Railroad Commission of Texas” conjures up visions of oil and gas and power politics and perhaps the question, What does “railroad” have to do with petroleum? The Railroad Commission (RCT) also brings to mind modern America between 1930 and the 1970s, when the Texas agency controlled from 35 to 45 percent of the oil and gas produced in the United States. These images come from cultural myths of the Lone Star State, from Americans' fascination with conspiracies, and, most telling, from the lack of historical analyses of the commission, its staff, and its regulatory strategies. The prevailing views of the commission are unfortunate ones, for they not only neglect the agency's regulation of railroads, natural-gas utilities, and buses and trucks but also skew the understanding of how the state commission came to regulate petroleum in the first place, how it devised policies for doing so, and how it legitimized itself and defended that legitimacy under the weight of the East Texas crisis between 1930 and 1935.

During the middle years of the Great Depression, urban taxpayers across the land became targets of a massive advertising campaign. This fact alone does not offer the historian much cause for surprise. Advertising, massive or otherwise, always has been common fare for American consumers. What made this particular campaign different from most others was its peculiar agenda: convincing Americans to pay taxes. The central players were the National Pay-Your-Taxes Campaign (NPYTC) and the Citizens' Councils for Constructive Economy (CCCE). Both began in 1933 and embodied the interests of a diverse coalition of good-government reformers, academics, bureaucrats, and investment bankers. Almost all the founding members had one thing in common: They depended heavily on the consumption of tax money.

“How shall we be governed in an atomic war? Who will make the decisions for defense and survival, and what compulsions will support their peremptory execution? What will be the measure of our cherished liberties?” Clinton L. Rossiter, the distinguished authority on the Constitution, asked these questions at the height of the cold war, a time when relations with the Soviet Union had become very troubled and, at home, red-baiting political campaigns, intolerance, fear, and repression had destroyed much of the liberalism of the New Deal.

Thinking big about the development of social policies in the United States has become fashionable. Until recently, occasional comprehensive histories of social provision in America focused on single periods of reform ferment, such as the Progressive Era, or the New Deal, or the Great Society. Then, James T. Patterson's 1981 book America's Struggle Against Poverty, 1900–1980, and Michael B. Katz's 1986 book In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America, provided overviews of American attitudes toward poverty and attempts to do something about it from the nineteenth century to the present. These authors were clearly perplexed by the devolution of the antipoverty efforts of the War on Poverty and the Great Society into the political stalemates of the late 1970s and the conservative backlashes of the 1980s. Their books seem to be trying to use rich descriptive overviews of the past to gain some perspective on where American “welfare reforms” might go in the future.