Customer Reviews

Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America

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

 

 

Decade of Nightmare chronicles the transformation on 60's liberalism to 80's conservatism. Beginning roughly with the Watergate scandal and continuing through the election of Reagan and into the 80's, Jenkins's sweeps broadly over many of the period's memorable and now forgotten events. The failure of Desert One, Soledad Brother, George Wallace, The Bourne Identity, Anita Bryant, the Wonderland Murders, Granada, Starhawk, NAMBLA, the Scottsboro Boys, and The Illuminatus Trilogy are a mere few of what is touched on. In Jenkins's view other accounts of this time period have not been broad enough focusing on either the political or social histories but not mixing the two, not showing, for example the influence of both conservative politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan and porn star Linda Lovelace had on the growth of conservatism. The public, he says, perceived sexual liberation as leading to porn and snuff films; LSD as leading to the horrors of angel dust; and spiritual experimentation leading to brain washing cults. Far from being the Smiley Face decade, portrayed in films like Dazed and Confused and TV show's like That 70's Show, Jenkins portrays the 70's as a time of stress where the Cold War resurfaced and serial killers were everywhere. This was a decade where Ronald Reagan went from being perceived as an extremist to winning the Presidency. Jenkins provides a context in which to view the major events of the era by reminding us of the forgotten events. For example, the patriotism associated with the US Hockey Team victory against Russia is shown in context with the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, best selling apocalyptic novels, rising inflation, and the unchecked growth of leftist guerillas in Latin America. He also explains how liberals became their own worst enemies by, for example, condemning the Israeli's for their raid into Entebbe, Uganda to rescue a hundred Jewish hostages. The book is a fast and easy read and refreshingly non-partisan. For a subject as loaded as this one, it would be easy to demonize one side or the other, the liberal or conservatives, but Jenkins avoids this trap and doesn't editorialize - with a few possible exceptions that Reagan conservatives may find unappealing. Sometimes it is too easy for Jenkins to draw parallels between the 70's and today although he never blatantly makes such comparison. Considering the subject matter the book could be called breezy since I found myself Googling even Jenkins's barely touches on to find a more detailed account. Overall this is an exceptional book and highly recommended to anyone interested the recent history or understanding the origins of today's politics.

Actually this book seems to me as more of a cultural than a political study - - (viewing politics as part of and a reaction to cultural trends) - - hence in describing the transition from the "radically liberal" sixties to the "reactionary conservative" 80's, Jenkins draws not only from the political events of the era, but also pop culture from movies to TV coverage... The overall arguement being is that the transition was sort of a national hangover. Things seemed out of control - - with the economy in the dumps, and a perception of society breaking down, a wave of domestic and international terror and America feeling isolated on the national stage and on the verge of losing the Cold War. - - The book seems to argue both ways the realities of the national crisises, and at the same time media exploitation of issue made to make people scared as well as identify with a culture of "macho" and "shoot 'em up" vs. the cheery idealistic anti-hero. From this perspective we see how Reagan in the eyes of many offering sobering and decisive hope - - whether or not you feel he was the great uniter and saviour of the country or the guy who took from the poor and gave to the rich.

All in all, the image of the 70's as being a "big hang-over from the 60's" has long been a commonly held belief to explain the transition... this is the first book to offer a detailed study of the era beyond mere "oil crisis/inflation/hostages" - - compared to most the images we have of the 70's - - either in our own memories or by watching VH1, this is the first book to really go into detail.

As for what I got out of it -- two words really - - DEJA VU...
which in some ways is reassuring (times of trouble may always feel like the end of the world) and other ways scary.

Regardless of where you stand on the coin politically, this book will definitely prove interesting, especially if you are old enough to remember some of the events and are now ready to look at them in a (of course debatable!) historical perspective.

It's a very good history, but I was still a bit disappointed -- Jenkins stayed on the surface of the grimy realities of the 70's, showing us the cultural phenomena and how that phenomena served to create public reaction, but failing to ask to what extent the political revolution of the 70's served to deliberately and callously exploit that public reaction. Any statesman (or aspiring statesman) is aware of the responsibility to educate the public and to ignore its less enlightened notions. The political hack, on the other hand, panders to the public and pretends to do its bidding (passing outrageous legislation, waving the flag, and often doing the bidding of certain moneyed interests).

Jenkins gets the facts straight -- yes, the U.S. was in a crisis (Johnson and Nixon, both approximately equal parts statesman and hack, left a very mixed legacy). Yes, Carter was idealistic and, under the circumstances, politically inept. Yes, a variety of manic causes, from imaginary rape statistics to 'the breakdown of traditional values' hit the headlines; Jenkins recounts both the real fears and the hyperbolic reactions. (Contemporary panderers in the media and political office seem to have discovered the trivial issue of obesity; it's the same kind of phenomena Jenkins recounts.) And Jenkins explains how the rhetoric of toughness seemed so desirable under the circumstances.

All excellent -- then Jenkins refuses to pass judgment. He does not suggest the possibility of alternative political reactions. The phenomena just 'is' (or was). I suppose I should not complain -- I like reading a work of history rather than a rant. However, I find myself asking if Jenkins is that much of a cultural determinist, and concluding that he may well be. It appears to me Jenkins considers Carter, Reagan, and everything the 70's served to create as inevitable.

Again, great summary of the decade, but seems a rather frozen response to what I would see as still 'live' issues.

I just don't understand the negative first review here. In contrast, I thought this book was a sophisticated piece of writing with a lot to say about a period I remember well. I learned a lot from it. It was particularly good on the continuity between the Carter and Reagan administrations, which really surprised me, but the argument did convince me.

I kept going back and forth on this book: was it taking a broad brush holistic approach that helped you see things that should have been obvious at the time (yes) or was it a superficial view that just took the headlines of the times and arranged them into themes (yes).

The themes and holism were great, but left me wanting more. It would have been helpful if the author had decided to follow the evolution of the events in more detail, rather than leave me asking questions like: was this due to a demographic shift due to boomer aging, was it a media circus similar to others in our past or was it the work of a few key individuals with a plan?

My final take is that I don't recommend this book, but if he wrote an 800 page book on the same material I would buy it (and read it).

Do Americans truly reject "a return to the starry-eyed nonjudgmental optimism of the 1960s" as Jenkins asserts in his conclusion, or was the 1960s a time of "Camelot" later destroyed by the politics of innuendo, fear and attack?

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower presided over peace, prosperity and progress; in the 1960s. Kennedy added vision, ambition and courage. It was Nixon who shattered this optimism in 1968, and the nation has yet to recover its spiritual soul. The underlying cause is the crushing American defeat in Vietnam, the second time the US suffered such a debacle. Americans lost the War of 1812; then, as now, the response was an inward retreat and a series of devastating wars against isolated and weak enemies. Americans began a systematic destruction of Native American nations and seized more than half of Mexico. After 1975 and the rooftop escape from Saigon, Americans watched US troops storm ashore in countries such as Grenada -- the triumph of the Reagan military build-up -- and watched, with total mystification, the collapse of the Soviet empire.

After 1815, the American sense of community based on citizen democracy was lost. Instead, the new focus became a hatred and destruction of outside terrorists, aka Native Americans. Such xenophobia offers a powerful sense of national unity and pride for some; but it doesn't solve internal conflicts. Since 1975, a similar xenophobia has magnified a handful of Islamic terrorists into an international threat. Americans financed IRA terrorists for decades; but are now shocked when facing similar politics of terror.

It took almost 50 years for the politics of defeat to blossom into the US Civil War; now, the Iraq debacle, inept domestic policies and a contempt for human rights are leading to equally sharp divisions.

The 1960s in America produced a revolution as dynamic as the 1920s in Russia. The legacy of 1815 eventually produced Jefferson Davis who almost destroyed democracy in America. In Russia, Stalin utterly crushed all social reform and innovation. Now, the final casualty of Vietnam may be Bush repressing social reform, justice and equality.

It didn't start with Carter, although Jenkins, "identifies 1975 to 1986 as the watershed years." Carter kept America at peace, during his presidency America never dropped a bomb, launched a missile strike, started a pre-emptive war or implemented a policy of torture. After 66 hostages were seized, he could have destroyed Iran; instead, he waited even though it cost him the presidency. All hostages came home alive and well. It's worth noting the first oil embargo was during the Nixon years, not during Carter's time.

The years of hate came later after Carter. His post-presidential efforts won him the Nobel Peace prize in 2002, an honor Bush is unlikely to ever receive.

Jenkins offers a rich feast of events from the past 40 years, but he's a thoroughly selective historian, brilliantly recalling history to prove his case past but not offering a clue about the future. He cites the rise of MADD in the 1970s, ignoring the crackdowns of the 1960s. For some, history is a study of the past to comprehend the promise, hopes and perils of the future; for Jenkins, it is a study of the present to understand the past.

It makes interesting reading, especially for those who think Eisenhower was the pinnacle of American politics. Like many Americans, Jenkins can't comprehend defeat; this lack of acumen has produced some of the greatest American triumphs, but can also produce decay. To understand modern America, consider the two decades from John Quincy Adams to Millard Fillmore and the accompanying rise of religious cults, certainties and charlatans.

Jenkins doesn't, but the 1820 - 60 period may offer the relevant example he's looking for in terms of mixing theology, history, polemics and the rise of cults.

It's a disappointing book, unenlightening and bitter. He could have done much better.