Customer Reviews

American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For many political buffs, Teddy White's "Making of the President" series of books is the standard by which all other books written about presidential campaigns are judged. And while I would agree that White's series is superb, I believe that "An American Melodrama" is even better - that it is, in fact, the best book about an American presidential camapaign that I've ever read. The book, which covers the presidential campaign of 1968 - one of the most dramatic, emotional, and tragic elections of the twentieth century - was written by 3 British journalists, who then combined their writings into a single book. Although this technique often doesn't work, in "An American Melodrama" it does so brilliantly, and in fact you'd never know that it was written by three people instead of just one if they didn't tell you in the prologue. The authors cover all of that year's stunning events - Eugene McCarthy knocking President Johnson out of the race, Martin Luther King's murder, Bobby Kennedy's murder, the bloody riots between the antiwar hippies and the Chicago police at the Democratic Convention, the racist third-party candidacy of Alabama's George Wallace, and the down-to-the-wire fall campaign between Democrat Hubert Humphrey and Republican Richard Nixon. What makes this book so outstanding is the author's realism and refusal to be overly respectful or impressed with American politicians, while not descending into the cynicism and harshness of today's political reporting. One of the flaws of Teddy White's books is that he can be overly respectful, even worshipful (especially with the Kennedy brothers) of the political leaders he wrote about. In an "American Melodrama" we get to see Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Humphrey on the Democratic side as they really are - warts and all - without being too cynical or harsh. And on the Republican side the authors give the best analysis of Richard Nixon that I've ever read in any campaign biography - they neither idealize Nixon or are overly harsh. The author's insights of the leading politicians in this book - what makes them tick? - have been proven to be right on-target by subsequent events. This book did generate some controversy in the chapter on Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June 1968. The authors, while definitely showing sorrow and sympathizing with the family, also refused to accept the self-pitying, "America has gone to h***" attitude that many intellectuals and journalists adopted in the wake of Kennedy's murder. They pointed out that, statistically speaking, the late 1960's were much less violent than earlier decades, and that blaming all of American society and culture because of the acts of a single madman (Sirhan Sirhan, RFK's assassin) was absurd. Although some Americans were offended that a team of British reporters would criticize the American liberal establishment in such a manner, events in the years since have largely proven them to be correct. To sum up, this book's insights into the major politicians of the sixties, combined with the genuine drama and tragedy of the 1968 campaign, makes this book a great read. Highly recommended!

"Melodrama" is simply the best account ever written about an American presidential campaign. The level of insight, the quality of writing, the sweep of coverage are all without peer. Theodore White's works are better-known, but this is the gold standard. Wise, humorous and mournful by turns, this book by three Brits has set the bar so high for campaign coverage that no journalists have matched in the nearly-40 years since it was published. Should be studied by anyone attempting to chronicle or understand how to report on, or think about, politics.

Most US elections are at least moderately interesting. The current one certainly has a number of twists that will intrigue the more than casual observer. On some elections, the course of history is crucially determined. Probably the last one of those was 1932 but you could make the case for several since then. I'm not sure that 1968 qualifies as such an election. After all, it seemed like we redid it in 1972. However, it was probably the most passionate election and the most tragic election year in many decades. I have read quite a number of accounts of the election of 1968 and most of them are long forgotten. However, the one that stands out above all the rest for me is clearly "An American Melodrama". Perhaps it is because so many of the books I read were by those in or close to the action as well as affiliated with one side or the other (or the still other). "An American Melodrama" was written by a trio of British journalists who seemed better able to step back a from the emotional involvement for a better overall perspective of what happened. Their sober, insightful look at the whole process is the version that should be the textbook for future researchers into the subject. You don't have to be a researcher, however, to be able to enjoy this book. If you actively lived through those years or if you just happened to have heard of a few of the main events, the retelling of this emotional time in US history is fascinating.

The fundamental appeal of this book - as is frequently touted by its own authors - is its objectivity. Chester, Hodgson, and Page are all British, it is often stated, so how could they possibly be anything other than impartial?
This assertion does not hold up once one actually endeavors to read this book. My suspicion is that the authors acutely sympathized with the plight of the Democratic Party in 1968, and consequently invested great emotional energy in deifying those men they supported and vilifying the ones they abhorred. Thus Robert F. Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, Allard Lowenstein, and George McGovern are all depicted in terms that can only be described as adoring; Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, are portrayed as callow, vile, corrupt, and hypocritical. Even George Wallace received a fairer showing than those two men. Although the British reporters clearly disagree with his ideas and tactics, the distance which they feel between Wallace's movement and their personal belief systems allows them to provide some interesting insights into his candidacy - insights that would have been impossible, its worth noting, had they adopted the same approach toward him that they used with Humphrey. The three reporters are at their best when discussing the Republican party, a political organization for which they clearly felt very little bias, either positive or negative; consequently the successful campaign of Richard Nixon, as well as the unsuccessful efforts of Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, and Ronald Reagan, are all impartially and effectively covered.
They are undeniably skilled in acquiring massive quantities of information and synthesizing all of it into a coherent, detailed, and engaging narrative; for this they deserve three stars. The problem is that they make the same mistake made by the other prominent author who attempted to chronicle the 1968 election at that time - Theodore H. White. While both books are well-written and detailed, each author (or gruop of authors) blatantly skewers their text in accordance with their personal beliefs. The fact that these bright and respectable men were unable to put enough distance between themselves and their writing to fairly cover this election is perhaps the best testament to how high emotions ran during that campaign. It was indeed an American melodrama.