Customer Reviews

Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The 1960's were an unparalleled time of social advancement for the United States. The cause of equal rights and civil rights, environmental protection and consumer protection saw significant advancement. It was also a tumultuous decade which saw our nation divided by the politics (and sometimes shocking violence) of change; all of which was amplified, exacerbated, and viewed through the lens of the Vietnam War. Von Bothmer's book gives a cogent analysis of how the political right has successfully marginalized the many liberal triumphs of the sixties and focused our nation's attention solely on the resentments generated by the decade and the failure of the Vietnam War (the blame for which they have placed squarely at the feet of liberal America). The sixties are now used by the political right as shorthand for all that is "wrong" with America. Liberalism became equated with hippies and all the excesses that hippies represented in popular culture. Every Republican Presidential campaign since Reagan has been running against the sixties and every Democratic President since has been punching those hippies.

Von Bothmer's heavy reliance on interviews and quotes from the many players in this uniquely American drama not only makes for lively reading, but gives power and authority to his analysis. A must read for anyone who wishes to understand how the sixties continues to affect American politics almost forty years later.

The most significant characteristic of a good book is its ability to make the reader think. Judging by the amount of thinking that Framing The Sixties has encouraged me to do, it must be one heck of a good book. As I grew up in the sixties, I remember feelings that were both good and bad. My family started the decade with a TV that delivered black and white images of JFK inspiring us to public service and a trip to the moon. We ended the decade with color images of the Vietnam war and LSD-touting hippies. For us, the war was bad, but so were the hippies. Going to the moon was good, the fear of Russia beating us was not. Our household sympathized with the civil rights movement but extremist groups and images of the Watts Riots made us fearful. Today, I see the sixties as all good--it was a period that made us who we are.

As von Bothmer reveals, politicians have continually resurrected feelings about the sixties to associate themselves with "good" events while encumbering their opponents with all things "bad". He also shows how partisan accounts of this period diverge from the facts. This book is timely, as the facts of history and science are under increasing attacks. It will make a great gift for my friends and relatives.

Some of today's younger set often tell us, survivors of the Sixties, "You had ideals, you had goals you wanted to see accomplished, you wanted to change things that were unfair and you made your voices heard ! Now, we worry about finding decent schools, jobs and housing, the next pair of designer sunglasses, and making sure we don't get to know our neighbors too well."

Just as one can write remarkably well about the Roman Empire not having lived through it, Professor von Bothmer has written remarkably well about an era he has studied and dissected. He proves that the decade is still very much alive in today's political world and he really explains how and why.

His objective point of view is powerful in that he doesn't try to influence the reader. He states facts and quotes in a highly readable form. While this reviewer will abstain from giving out personal opinions of those turbulent years, I recommend this book to anyone who wants to remember some of the details or understand the influence many of the events had on those who are today's grown-ups.

"The Sixties" have been used as cultural shorthand for so long that it is hard to believe this study has not been done before, but perhaps we have been waiting for Bernard von Bothmer to write it. In his first book, the fearless von Bothmer conducted over 120 interviews with academics (Noam Chomsky, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Howard Zinn), political figures (James Baker, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart), journalists (Ben Bradlee, David Halberstam, Helen Thomas, Bob Woodward), and others (Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Hayden, Phyllis Schlafly) to build this study of how perceptions of the "bad sixties" and the "good sixties" have been used since 1980. _Framing the Sixties_ discusses the varying definitions of what constitutes "the Sixties," then offers three chapters on Reagan, two on George H. W. Bush, two on Clinton, one on George W. Bush, and one on the 2004 campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry, before concluding with a discussion of how the power of "the Sixties" may be beginning to fade now that the Baby Boomers are making way for leaders from a post-1960s generation. It is surprisingly witty, not from any agenda on von Bothmer's part, but more often by letting the people he interviewed speak for themselves. von Bothmer's work is thoroughly researched, yet clear enough that it could be enjoyed by a general reader with some interest in politics or for use in advanced undergraduate classes.

Framing the Sixties is an interesting and well researched book about a fascinating time in American History. Von Bothmer explains how the 1960s, like the Civil Ware era, will forever define our Country and how the political landscape of the 60s has shaped current politics and presidential elections. "Indeed both liberals and conservatives agreed that the 1960s gave rise to the two factions that now compete politically" writes von Bothmer. He explains how the ideologies of the 1960s divided many Americans, and how in some ways they have never reunited. Ones learns in this book how the 1960s gave birth to the current Liberal and Conservative movement and why the impact of that decade will not go away.

"So long as politicians who came of age in the 1960s see high office -- and perhaps longer-- the tensions of the era will retain their power", writes historian Bernard von Bothmer. I am not running for office, but I graduated from college in 1969, and those tensions stunted, shaped and inspired my generation. This book which describes how those same tensions are being re-packaged, spun and used today is the book I have been waiting for. Douglas Brinkley got it exactly right in his blurb: "von Bothmer analyzes the spin factor irresponsibly promulgated by both the right and left". I could not wait to get my hands on it, and it has been an utterly fascinating read.

I teach eleventh grade U.S. History and think this book is terrific. It accomplishes several tasks simultaneously that are key for my classroom. First it is a great review of why and how the 60s matter. Second, it is an absolutely superb political history of the U.S. Since the sixties. This means I can convey to my students in a very easy to understand manner not only the content of political history, but also the most important lesson of high school history, particularly when discussing U.S. History, that memory and history are malleable, and those with the power to shape the writing and the discussion of history, control history, and thus can control political discourse. I loved reading this book and look forward to using it my class.

I don't know if Framing the Sixties is the first book to explore this subject, but I am sure it won't be the last. Framing the Sixties is a flowing and insightful account of how the decade of the nineteen-sixties has been used over and over again for political gain by presidential candidates of both parties. Professor von Bothmer has highlighted the recurring attempts of US politicians to selectively redefine this iconic time as a means of engaging their respective constituencies. For someone born in 1967, this practice of repeatedly carving up the decade for political gain is an eye opener.
This is not a history text book. The author's writing style is more novelistic than academic. A chronological approach to the subject matter allows him to compare and contrast the effectiveness for each subsequent president and his opponent. At the same time, von Bothmer's vast pool of high quality primary references gives his book an authenticity that begs a second read (note to self, read it again).

Generalizing from the specific and all-good vs. all-bad interpretations work poorly in almost any area of life... but they can really make a mess when used to manipulate the half-conscious masses. That's pretty much the sum of Bothmar's thesis.

And his thesis is worth examining. Because it looks to those of us who have manipulated public opinion for the sake of political support like he's caught on to how it's been done since the Old Testament God of the Israelites was smiting the (all-bad) Egyptians and Phillistines on behalf of the (all-good) you know who. (Oh, Lordy; don't crucify =me= for my heathen =blasphemy=!)

I'd have liked =FTS= even more if the author had dug deeper into the media-mediated conditioning of mass mentality to accept all manner of logical fallacies that can then be used to manipulate them to vote for or against this or that (as well as buy whetever they're advertising). Western religion has had its moments (say 30-33 AD) of spiritual enlightenment, of course, but for the most part, it's been pretty dogmatic and authoritarian.

Franklin, Jefferson, Rousseau, Focault, Mill, Locke and those guys from the 1700s took a shot at showing the rest of us how our minds have been taught to see only two completely diverse (and polarized) possibilities without perceiving the shades of gray between them... but if we didn't put pictures of the first two guys on our greenbacks, few would know who they were, let alone what they were trying to show us.

JFK speechwriters Arthur Schlesinger and Ted Sorenson elevated either-or thinking to artistic heights. LBJ speechwriters Rich Goodwin and Horace Busby knew how to trick the masses into going for his boss's faux emotionalism. Bill Safire and Ben Stein (lately a TV pitchman) bamboozled us with Dick Nixon's save-the-republic bullpuckey. Phyllis Schlaffly and Peggy Noonan wrapped Ronnie Raygun in the flag and armor of the white knight who'd tear down big government =and= culture-wrecking ultra-liberalism, as well as the Berlin Wall.

Noonan, Chris Buckley and Tony Snow (of Fox News and Junior Bush mouthpiece fame) gave us "read my lips" and other effective -- if meaningless -- sound bites. Michael Waldman may have been Slick Willie's writer of record, but it was Clinton himself who dazzled us with carefully selected facts and figures and the crafty illusions to Camelot he kept just off stage. Dave Frum went back to Schlaffly's and Noonan's ultra-patriotism for George Junior. And Jon Favreau has been the Big (if ultimately suspect) Idea man for Barrack "Made it to the Promised Land" Obama since he began his meteoric ascension in 2005.

Ask yourself, "How many people do I know who can see through the BS of their party's candidates?" Then ask yourself, "How many people do I know who seem to buy their party's spin regardless of who's twisting the facts?"

Think about this: Real democracy depends upon an informed electorate. Read =FTS= and decided whethere we have one or not.

A common consensus on the 1960s will surely one day appear. What the upheavals in government, race, culture and politics meant for America will tend to become clearer. But, we`re not there yet. The soul of that decade is still being fiercely battled for--and is likely to be for another generation or so until boomers leave the stage and fade into history. In the meantime politics at the national level will continue to be defined by whether you think the 60s enriched the country, or heralded the beginning of its demise.

Framing The Sixties is a dead-on analysis of how the battle for the 60s' legacy has played out at the presidential level. Every Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan has run either for against the 1960s in one form or another. Historian von Bothmer does a masterful job of tracing the ascendancy of today's Conservative movement to the events of the 60s.

Perhaps more importantly, he offers a trove of new primary source material from most of the key participants---speechwriters, campaign managers, aids, policy makers---behind-the-scenes perspectives and revelations never seen before. You almost get the feeling that many of these people--from Bill Bradley to Robert Bork--couldn't wait for a forum to "finally set the record straight."

This book is a natural for political junkies and historians. You'll also find it a fascinating study in how well-meaning (most of the time) people can see the same events from such different perspectives. One of the most cogent pieces of writing on how history solidifies that I've ever read.