Customer Reviews

The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s (Penguin History of American Life)

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

 

 

This is an excellent summary of the sixties. It has all the hope and the large vision of the many who meant so well and dreamed so big. It reminds us of how optimistic we were back then. And it makes you feel the pain of how it all came crashing down so quickly and with so many lasting reprocussions for the future of American politics. It depicts the many out-sized characters fairly and is particularly on target with LBJ. It is generous without holding back blame. The authors have a large story to tell and they certainly have to scrimp on many matters that could have used more coverage, but that is a small price to pay for getting so much right in under 400 pages!

Although I lived through much of what MacKenzie and Weisbrot cover in this book, I needed the background and analysis they provide to fully appreciate the historical impact of these events. Their meticulous research backs up their cogent argument about the true reasons for the recent rise and fall of American liberalism, and forced me to correct several misconceptions I held about Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, Muskie, Nixon and others. This title offered me a chance to look back on the upheaval of the 1960s, and early 1970s, from a new, deeper perspective.

This fairly short book tries to summarize the origins and manifestations of all the key progressive movements in America during the 1960s. These include the women's rights movement, war on poverty, civil rights, environmentalism, and the growth of the federal welfare state. The book covers many of the key leaders of this era, such as JFK, RFK, LBJ, Adlai Stevenson, Betty Friedan, Nixon, MLK Jr. and Rachel Carson. The book also includes many of the lesser known, but still important figures of this decade, figures such as Bayard Rustin of the civil rights movement, John Kenneth Galbraith on the Council of Economic Advisors during JFK's presidency, and Earl Warren of the US Supreme Court. The book examines the progress of liberalism from multiple angles, including studies from academic circles, changes in grassroots politics, major court cases, etc... However, given the breadth of this book, it pays scant attention to the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK Junior. A closer look at their deaths would reveal the initial counters to liberalism. The book's authors also make some incorrect statements. One example is when they explore the suburbanization of America, and how this was partially driven by the reduction in rail use and increase in freeway construction. The authors specifically say they found no grand plan for this to occur; unfortunately this is wrong. Yes, there was a plan, and it was led by General Motors and oil companies. This conspiracy is first mentioned in David Halberstam's classic work, "The Fifties", and is more fully explored in Edwin Black's "Internal Combustion". All told, a good, but incomplete book with occasional errors.

I have not read a whole lot about the 60s other than what I have studied in the classroom of a small town community college. Despite my handicap, this book makes very clear and understandable perhaps the greatest era of American policy reform. It tells with captivating narration America's ability to perpetuate and increase economic wealth and political and cultural influence in one of the most infamous times in international history. From the fragile postwar world to the legislation that brought a growing America exactly what it asked for, this book covers it in unique perspective.

The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s
Forty plus years later it is possible (and helpful) to think of the 1960s as genuine "history." One can sort out what events and policies had impacts, judge them, and frame interpretations. This book does that. If you were born prior to about 1955 it will likely refresh your memory.

The authors believe that the changes of the 1960s could not have occurred without the activists, but that it was the struggles within institutions (Congress, the Supreme Court, etc.) that ultimately mattered. "Government transformed American life in the 1960s, and politicians led the change," they write. "What distinguishes the 1960s is the mysterious and momentous convergence of a public ready for change and a government poised to act." They make a strong case for how impressive the legislative achievements were in the early Johnson presidency, how the constellations had aligned to make much possible then that was not possible before and otherwise would not have been so until much later, if at all.

If you are looking for lessons helpful in our present predicament you need not reach all the way back to the Depression or the Lincoln presidency; you can find some here. Mackenzie and Weisbrot conclude that the tide against the liberal wave had begun to turn by 1966. The course of the Vietnam War and the cost of the Great Society programs led to growing doubts about the ability of the federal government to fulfill its promises. "[B]y the end of the 1960s the liberal hour was over," they say. Windows of opportunity for big political transformations - toward either the left or the right - are seldom open long.

The authors have done a creditable job in presenting the political initiatives effected by the liberal majority in Congress, the President (Johnson) and the Warren Court in the heyday of liberal control from 1963 through 1966. Unfortunately, there is liberal spin throughout the book such as when the authors describe Kennedy's legislative program as "hardly exceptional" when a better term would have been "dismal" or "greatly disappointing." There are also some errors of fact such as saying that Kennedy (due to his friendship and support of Joseph McCarthy) was the last senator to condemn McCarthy when he actually absented himself from the censure vote.

There is also the problem of the authors' listing three great eras in American politics when liberal agendas were able to advance "the cause of mankind." Gee, how about including Lincoln and the Radical Republicans who pushed through probably the most far-reaching liberal agenda since the creation of the US and the adoption of the Constitution (which was also a great liberal breakthrough.) Oh, excuse me, neither of those two were done by the Democratic Party. There is also the problem that originally "liberal" meant the government was stand-offish in its treatment of the populace and was severely limited in its actions. Nowadays "liberal" stands for increasing the size of the Federal Government and its programs at the people's expense. Federal employees are now even privileged individuals -- they do not pay into Social Security, and are even more protected by law than ordinary citizens. What happened to the principle that "all men are created equal?" Oh, Federal employees are just more equal than others.

The authors also follow the pervasive liberal propaganda line that all "progressive" changes that enlarge the Federal Government are good. Conservatives are treated as bad or downright evil except for those who see the light and aid in the promulgation of liberal bills like Everett Dirksen. Although few would refute the righteousness of the Civil Rights Act, there were many others that have greatly expanded the Federal Government to the injury of the American people. Unfortunately, the authors see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when the issues are contemporary liberal doctrine.

All that being said, there is much to learn from this book. The authors correctly marginalize the vocal radicals of the 60s as being all noise and having little effect on bettering America. Nixon comes in for some kudos, as well he might for supporting and maintaining Johnson's liberal policies. Kennedy comes off as ineffective, which he certainly was (except in myth), and the authors spend a great deal of words attempting to make him into a liberal which he certainly wasn't when he was elected.

The reader is advised to remember that government by definition is a restriction of liberty and freedom, and although Americans still claim this land is the "land of the free", the ever-burgeoning Federal Government belies that contention. With every additional federal bureaucrat and every additional federal regulation, liberty and freedom become more limited. The authors correctly contrast the office of President from Washington to Hoover with that of FDR and his successors. The former had limited powers and was forced to rely on Congress for political initiatives, while the latter truly governed in an imperial style and set agendas for Congress and the courts. One of the Warren court's rulings expanded the Bill Of Rights to apply to state laws, even though the constitution specifically applies only to the Federal Government. Henceforth, state laws have been consistently subverted and over-ridden by Federal laws, mandates and executive orders -- something the Founding Fathers never intended. By the way, the authors to their credit discuss these changes, but always from the liberal side arguing that these changes were good and desired by the majority of the US population. Such is the power of the pervasive propaganda efforts in American schools and Universities since the advent of the New Deal -- some of them may indeed have been supported by the majority of Americans.

Americans now pay an average of about 70% of their income in taxes: state and Federal income, sales, property, excise, social security and medicare (or self-employment), hidden labor and corporate taxes on purchased articles, gasoline, FCC, unemployment, workers comp, required insurances, inheritance, government fees, licenses, etc., etc. Politicians love to state that American taxes are low, but they are only speaking of Federal Income taxes. It is no wonder that Americans fail to trust what their politicians tell them. Such is the blessing of liberalism.

Missing in this book is the effect of the pill which had a tremendous impact in liberating women from the fear of pregnancy. The new-found sexual freedom by women was particularly important when the pool of available partners was yanked away from them by sending the best of the bachelors to Vietnam. The result was, of course, the high number of females that went into the anti-war movement and the pressure on the remaining males to join the movement to make themselves available to the females. One should always remember that wars require that the male population be supported in doing their duty by their females, and Vietnam was the first American war where females deserted their menfolk in large numbers.

Another event that was treated lightly was Kennedy's artificial creation of a "missile gap" crisis to effect some of his policies. To make liberal progress a crisis is always needed; such as the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Civil War, World War I & the rise to power of radical agitators who were recent immigrants, the Great Depression and World War II, the missile gap and the non-violent civil rights marches organized by Dr. King. By now this must sound familiar -- Obama has his crisis, and instead of tackling the economy he is using the economic crisis to push through major liberal programs even if they harm the economy (Roosevelt did the same.)

So all in all, this is a valuable read, but one must always keep in mind the bias of the authors. To the authors, change is ALWAYS good, although history clearly teaches us that some changes cause catastrophies. At this point the authors are piling on -- the Progressive Era broke the ground, FDR made major gains, Johnson did even better, and now it remains only for new liberal administrations to take us all the way to Socialism when only minor tweaks will be necessary from time to time. Supposedly, all this is for our own good.

As the reader can see, this is an excellent book for discussion from both sides.

This is not the best-written history of the period -- the authors aren't particularly prose stylists and they have a bad habit of getting caught up in obscure digressions -- but it does a solid job of communicating just how much was done in the 1960s, especially around page 112.

The book is OK, but isn't necessarially engaging. In other words, the book is a sober view at an era which was anything but. I was hoping for tidbits of valuable anectodotes, but the book is dry. The book brings clarity to political issues that revolved during the 60's, but it's style doesn't promote discussion, IMO. I was on guard the whole read because I'd imagine the authors are sympathetic to Democrats. But that issue did not really manifest. There are several books which try to capture the 60's in a nutshell. This book does not do that. It presents a mild objective political climate in an era surrounded by subjectivity. The book does not consider the 1970's as an extended conclusion of the 60's. The book was written as if the next decade didn't matter, or had consequence. Perhaps it was the authors intent, maybe good, maybe bad.

I think the book is deceptive about how the Democrats made such great changes in the 1960's. Throughout my life as an African American registered as a Democrat, I was taught that the Democrats was the party that did the most to help the poor and minorities, but I later learned the truth. The truth that only 69% of the Democratic party voted for the civil rights movement and 82% of Republican party voted for it and how it was mostly Democratic govenors who tried to block school integration. It was shocking for me to discover after always seeing the Democrats on TV telling people the complete opposite that the Republican party was racist and only helped the rich and I believed it until recently.