Jonathan Leaf wrongly asserts, "The initial campus unrest of the 1960s was connected to the free speech movement at the University of California at Berkeley. The `movement' kicked off in 1964..."(p.3) Truly, the initial campus unrest of the 1960s began four years BEFORE Berkeley's protests in February 1960 when lunch-counter sit-ins in North Carolina sparked a movement that blazed through the South. Was Leaf aware of the sit-in movement? By beginning his book with the 1964 Berkeley student eruptions, Leaf could link the student movement with the Berkeley protest leaders, some of whom, like Bettina Aptheker, were indeed Communists. (In her case she was the daughter of Herbert Aptheker, a prominent historian of Black people, an open Communist spokesman, and a member of that party's political committee.) In presenting Berkeley and the Communist and socialist leaders first, Leaf attempts to manipulate the readers by smearing the protestors of the 60s as Communists.
Unlike Leaf, let me begin at the beginning. In February 1960 the first lunch-counter sit-ins against segregated policies began by Black students in North Carolina. Were they Communists? Unlikely. Radicals, by the standards of the time and place, that they certainly were. This became evident as the movement filtered South. When students as Southern University, then the world's largest Black university, protested in that spring, they were arrested and expelled from the Black institution. In New Orleans a mass meeting of students gathered at Dillard University and many hoped to initiate a sit-in in what was then the largest city of the South (and it was then a "vanilla city"). But the university's chaplain, a dean, finally addressed the students. He "understood" their and their drive to do something. "But why imitate what others have already done? Why sit-in? Why be arrested?" He cleverly diffused the emotions of the students and channeled them into safer action. Rather than imitate the protests of others, students at Dillard would conduct a march around their own campus, where few beyond the Dillard would be aware of the protest. (Dillard was a Black religious college and quite conservative. For example, it forbade young men and women to hold hands after sunset; female students could not enter an automobile not driven by a relative; chapel was required with the young women wearing hats and gloves. These rules may not have been too different from those of other Black, and many white colleges.) In the context of the time, students who protested and risked arrest were quite radical.
Nevertheless, several students, Black and white, from Dillard, Xavier (Black), Tulane, Loyola, and a few others from the Consumers League that had picketed a local A & P for not hiring Blacks in the spring of 1960, coalesced in a chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality, or CORE. CORE had been established around 1940 in the North by pacifists from the Fellowship for Reconciliation. They sought to use non-violent methods to end segregation. Many of the early members were influenced by socialists.
As the new CORE chapter organized, national CORE was planning a training institute for the summer of 1960 in Miami. Fewer than 75 partook, but eight were from New Orleans. When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover heard of it, he asked a subordinate for information on "the Communist" conference in Miami. One of the speakers was Jackie Robinson, the baseball hero, who was then openly supporting Republican Richard Nixon for President. Another speaker/trainer was Rev. Martin Luther King, who at the time was quietly supporting John Kennedy for President. Also among the attendees was a couple that had attended the Would Youth Festival in Vienna, another who had attended the WYF in Moscow, and another associated with Highlander Folk School in Tennessee (a "progressive" of popular front institution that rejected anti-communism). We were there for three weeks, learning how to make picket signs, leaflets, negotiate, sit-in, and respond to insulting language and violence in a non-violent manner. I spoke informally to one participant, a young woman who had been to Moscow. She assured me that while there, if anyone had dared call her a "Dirty Jew," she would have had them arrested. It was the first time I had ever heard of what today might be called "hate speech" laws. Of course, they were Communist laws, and she told me, confidentially, that she was a member of the American Communist Party. She was the first open Communist I had ever met, and I was impressed.
While in Miami, CORE relied on another group for support. For example, when we integrated a beach, that group reserved the area adjacent to ours as a buffer zone to reduce possible problems with racists. The group also allowed us to hold a dance in their hall. It was there that I first danced the twist. The members of this group were mainly elderly, retired New Yorkers, and I chatted with some of them about the election of 1948, in which they seemed to have supported the Progressive candidate Henry Wallace. They were the Jewish Culture Clubs or Society, and very friendly to our cause.
(Some two years later while seated in the New Orleans Customs Building for induction into the US Army, I was handed a form to fill out. Most simply signed their names. But it was a list of "subversive" organizations, and I recognized the Jewish Culture organization. I knew photographs had been taken there of our dance, so I filled in some information. The officer was surprised. Then he realized that I had been found guilty of a felony. He told me to wait to be interviewed by an FBI agent, who was then busy interviewing a Black Muslim also facing induction. When my turn came, the FBI agent told me he would have to speak with the New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison about dropping the felony *sit-in) charges so I could be inducted. Meanwhile, I got a free, boxed, chicken dinner, but I did not go with the others to Fort Chaffee in Arkansas for boot camp.)
In August 1960 when the New Orleans group returned from the Miami CORE institute, rumors were rife that we would do something. Unofficial emissaries from Tulane University warned a few of us about university policy: if arrested, we would be suspended until proven innocent. Because we assumed that we would lose every legal battle in the lower courts until (or if) our case reached the U.S. Supreme Court,we had to assume that our academic careers would endure a two-year hiatus.
For me personally, things might be worse, for my only job was as a part-time employee of Tulane's library. So if arrested, I would be suspended from the university and probably fired from my job. And as I was living at home, and my parents were segregationists, I would have to move (even if they had supported my activities, I would have to move away from them for their own protection). Despite the difficulties each of us faced, we were determined to bring the sit-in movement to New Orleans, even when our universities were not supportive. And it was not only opposition from the liberal universities that we encountered. The local NAACP opposed sit-ins at that time. The NAACP had been outlawed for a time in Louisiana in the late 1950s because it refused to provide its membership list to the state government. The NAACP was continuing its tradition evident in the 1930s of trying to avoid protest while working through the courts.(See my article on the NAACP vs. the Communist Party on the Scottsboro case of the 1930s)
I was arrested with six others in the first sit-in in New Orleans in September 1960. A week later CORE conducted its second sit-in, with four participants, two of whom were Rudy Lombard and Lanny Goldfinch. Lombard, chair of NO CORE and one of those who had travelled to Miami, was a student of Xavier, and his name is on the case that reached the US Supreme Court in 1963. Goldfinch, despite popular misconception, was Baptist and he also attended the Unitarian Church. After being released, Goldfinch told reporters that we would continue to protest until segregation came to an end. He was then rearrested for criminal anarchy, and threatening to overthrow the government. He was released of $2,500 bail, an enormous sum at the time. But in a sense, the charge did make sense, for we were subversive to the Southern way of life. We were called traitors to the South, traitors to the race, traitors to the nation, Communists. Noteworthy, upon my arrest, only the two white men, myself and Bill Harrell were interviewed by a representative of the New Orleans Police Red Squad.
Not only were we radical, but we were causing change. Because of our action, Tulane University soon changed its policy regarding arrests. Ours were considered political crimes and were hereafter to be dealt with in a different manner. Neither Harrell nor myself were suspended or expelled. Furthermore, I kept my part-time job in the university library. I moved from home, but roomed with another CORE activist, Oliver St. Pe, who was Roman Catholic and a student at Loyola. It was unusual then for white Catholics to be involved in CORE. But once Tulane changed its rules, many more Tulanians joined CORE, so that whites might compose a majority of those in attendance. Tulane, while not supportive of our efforts, was not overtly hostile. But Archie Allen, a student at Dillard who had been to Miami and also was arrested in the first sit-in, had difficulty getting excuses from class to attend court sessions. The white university seemed more lenient than the Black one.
Leaf begins his book in Berkeley to identify the student movement with Communism. Yet, the student movement, which began in 1960, was radical and was influenced by Popular Front figures - that is those who if they were not themselves Communists, were quite willing to work together with those who were. For example, Leaf mentions Rosa Parks (p. 43) and her sit-down on a Montgomery bus, but he fails to mention that Parks had been trained in tactics of protest at Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, a popular-front institution. Indeed, Martin Luther King would partake in sessions at the School, and photos showed him sitting beside various members of the American Communist Party. Such pictures were widely distributed in the South by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to equate racial protest with Communism and treason. On picket lines, people would yell at us, "Go back to New York," or "Go Back to Moscow!"
CORE was not the only radical organization promoting the sit-in movement in 1960. A new organization was created, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, or Snick. I doubt if it was a coincidence that an earlier organization was also called Snick. The Southern Negro Youth Congress was a popular-front group organized in the early 1940s. Popular singer Paul Robeson attended some of its meetings and promoted it. But in the late 1940s, Democratic President Harry Truman had his Attorney General create a list of subversive organizations, and groups listed were targeted by the government. Most collapsed - the SNYC, the Civil Rights Congress, the Southern Conference on Human Welfare, along with many other "progressive" organizations. Truman also had W. E. B. Du Bois arrested as a foreign agent. Had the NAACP not fired Du Bois, I suspect that the NAACP also would have been placed on Truman's enemies list, and it too might have folded.
It is noteworthy too that in 1960 Harry Truman was still alive and commenting on events. He urged Blacks to stick with the NAACP and avoid protest. He denounced the sit-iners as agitators and declared, "If anybody came to my store and tried to stop business, I'd throw him out."(New York Times, 25 March 1960) He basically deemed the protesters dupes of the Communists. Later, he attacked Freedom Riders and others who traveled South to protest segregation as people who should remain home and who had not been spanked as children.(NYT 15 Nov. 1963) Truman also denounced King as a "rabble rouser."(NYT 14 April 1965) Yet Truman is hailed by many establishment liberals as a leader on civil rights in America!
Protestors ignored the "good advice" of men like Harry Truman. The FBI kept tabs on radicals and wire tapped telephones. One such target was Stanley Levison, a man suspected by the FBI of being a secret member of the Communist Party, and one so trusted by the Communist leadership, that he handled money for the party. In the process of tapping Levison's phone, the FBI became aware of his connection to Martin Luther King. Levison would become a major advisor to King. Historian David Garrow calls Levison, King's closest white advisor. Levison got King the contract for a book describing the Montgomery bus boycott, and Levison closely edited and polished the work. He wrote some speeches for King and prepared his taxes. Levison also advised Bayard Rustin in winter 56-57 about the founding documents of what would become the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In the 1970s, a member of the Political Committee of the American Communist Party, Herbert Aptheker, stated that while King had not considered himself a Marxist, he had deemed himself an Hegelian. Levison clearly advised King and influenced his writings and thought.
There was Communist influence in the civil rights movement, and this was true even decades prior to 1960. Leaf seems oblivious of this issue as he is to other fascinating aspects of the 1960s. Leaf makes much about Malcolm X, who as a young man, hustled, that is had sex with men for money. Yet, Leaf says nothing about Malcolm, representing the Nation of Islam, secretly negotiating with the Ku Klux Klan and other such groups in the South. Malcolm openly disparaged the civil rights movement, and labeled the massive protest in August 1963, the "Farce in Washington." And Leaf does not mention that the Nation of Islam invited a small number of whites to one of their huge events in Chicago - they invited uniformed members of the American Nazi Party.
Leaf writes that the 1963 March on Washington provided evidence that the movement already supported race preferences in hiring, because the title of the event was the March "for Jobs and Freedom." I reject this interpretation. It was then assumed that once overt discrimination against Blacks was eliminated, then Blacks would gain jobs and promotions at the same rate as whites and others. The March also aimed to pressure Congress to pass a civil rights bill. In the debate on that legislation, the bill's liberal sponsors made it clear that the proposed law would not require racial balancing, and racial quotas were explicitly forbidden by the law. Minnesota Dem. Sen. Hubert Humphrey declared that if there were anything in the proposed civil rights bill that would require hiring of a lesser qualified Negro above a white, then he would eat his hat. The civil rights bill was to require the hiring of the best qualified, not hiring people to achieve a racial balance. Quite simply, Leaf is wrong: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did NOT demand equal outcomes and racial preferences. The 1964 CRA made into law what King enunciated in his 1963 speech at the March on Washington - people were to be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skins. Had Sen. Humphrey or Rev. King called for racial preferences in the new law, the law would never have passed Congress. Sadly, it was Republican President Nixon who made affirmative action preferences into a national policy, first for Blacks, then women, Hispanics, Amerindians, and some Asians. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 required equal opportunity for all; how this law has been turned into its opposite is too long a story for this review.(See Hugh Graham's The Civil Rights Era and my "White Male Privilege" in J. of Libertarian Studies.)
King, even with his radical advisors like Levison, may or may not have believed in race preferences in 1963 when he delivered his March on Washington speech. However, the speech was a presentation against such racial preferences. Later, King openly embraced preferences and what became known as affirmative action, but that was not evident in his Dream speech. Indeed, that the speech expressed the opposite view so clearly, that years later, when it was used in television ads by those seeking repeal of affirmative action preferences in California, the King family objected to the use of the clips from King's Dream speech.
Leaf's chapter on feminism is superficial. Hugh Graham's Civil Rights Era reviewed a long-running conflict between a view often associated with the Democrats in the earlier decades of the 20th century, the view that women should be protected because they were not the equals of men. Thus, there should be laws to protect women, to limit the number of hours that women might work, to restrict them from jobs that were strenuous or dangerous, etc. Some Republican women, who may have been more affluent, were more likely to demand equal rights and opportunities. However, Leaf sees the dichotomy in feminism as more recent, a division between Betty Friedan's and Gloria Steinem's feminism. Strangely, he does not mention the Communist background of Friedan, or the alleged CIA connection of Steinem. Leaf clearly favors the Friedan approach of a woman who wants to be more than a housewife. He portrays Steinem as anti-male. But he fails to integrate the feminist challenges to tradition with the ever-wider usage of the pill, condoms, abortion, single-motherhood, etc. The Great Society, affirmative action, AFDC, and easier access to pills, abortion, and housing, etc., as a single mother belongs in this chapter. Indeed, Leaf does not mention how a Southern Congressman's addition of a clause to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would change the job prospects for women. Furthermore, Leaf is silent on what would become the major efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution in the 1970s. The groundwork for this was laid in the 60s, but you would not know it from reading Leaf.
Leaf's chapter on the Left intellectuals is also weak. Instead of focusing on sociology, criminology, and liberal views of race-relations, he attacks novelist Norman Mailer. Leaf presents lists of popular music and films to refute the common notions that the culture was quite radical. But he presents no lists of novelists. I suspect many authors out-sold Mailer. Leaf does discuss one important novel that would stimulate change throughout the nation. "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" had enormous influence (and I showed the film based upon the novel in my university classes in China in 2008. I defended Nurse Ratchett, while most of my students, thinking independently from their teacher, hated her.) However, the idea that crazy people are no different from the rest of us (along with the desire of politicians hoping to save money) led to the closing of mental institutions and placing the insane on the streets to make life unbearable for themselves and the poor and honest who often had to reside near such "troubled" ones.
I am a skeptic of Freudianism, but it was influential in the 60s. Leaf also criticizes Pavlov and Skinner, but, with their views of rewards and punishments influencing behavior, are they not more in accord with his own views? And do they not make sense?
In his chapter on Rock and Roll, Leaf writes: "rock music was revolutionary and transformative. But its effect was mostly destructive...evident in the intimate relationship...between rock music and drugs."(p. 81) Leaf then recites drug-tinged rock lyrics and drug-related deaths of many rock idols, including Elvis. However, I recall reading a newspaper, circa 1930 (I think it was the Pittsburgh Courier) containing a story about jazz-great Louis Armstrong. He had been arrested for smoking a poisonous weed, marijuana. The reporter was gratified to note that Armstrong apparently suffered no permanent damage. On a google site, I read that Armstrong smoked pot from the 1920s on. Peter, Paul, and Mary were not rockers, but many in the 1960s had a very un-childlike interpretation of the song, "Puff, the Magic Dragon." And though he did not sing the title theme from the movie, Frank Sinatra did star in "The Man with the Golden Arm," about an addict.
Leaf rightly emphasizes the popularity of "Sound of Music," "My Fair Lady," and crooners in the 1960s. But he fails to note that once rock emerged, it sounded the death knell of other forms of music. Gone were wonderful instrumentals like, "The Man with a Golden Arm." And in the 50s I often danced to "Night Train" and similar music. Sadly, that music disappeared as rock began to roll.
Leaf is repelled by the values of some of the lyrics of the rockers. I laughed when I read some of his specific criticisms. He is disgusted with some lyrics of the Rolling Stones (p.90) but their words are almost identical in content to one of the songs from The Three Penny Opera (first produced in 1928 Germany). Indeed, in the 1960s Bobby Darin revived another song from that opera, Mack the Knife, and the Doors revived the Alabama Song from another Brecht/Weill collaborative effort - again one originating in the Weimar era. Music of brutality and cynicism is neither new nor limited to rock.
Strangely, Leaf fails to comment on the change that occurred in dance. In the 1950s young men held their partner, a young woman, arm round her, and sometimes the two bodies were very close. In 1960 I first danced the twist. We did not hold each other. By the end of the decade, one could observe a dance floor and be unaware of who was dancing with whom. One could dance alone, or at the same time with one or more women or men. Dance became individual, communal, and possibly gay.
Leaf rightly exposes Earl Warren's role in the expulsion of Japanese from the West Coast during WWII. Leaf does not mention that in 1948, when liberal Republican Thomas Dewey ran for President, his vice-presidential running mate was California's Gov. Warren. Ironically, had Dewey defeated Truman, as most polls predicted, it is unlikely that Warren would have ever been appointed to the US Supreme Court. There might have been no Warren Court. While extremely critical of the Warren and later courts, Leaf should have mentioned the subterfuge that occurred in the 1950s, concerning the famous ruling by the Supreme Court outlawing segregated schooling. Justice Frankfurter would hear arguments on the case, and then tell one of the attorneys who favored change, what points should be stressed to convince the other justices. In effect Frankfurter was on the prosecution team while pretending to be a judge. The case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed. of the 1950s showed what a farce rulings by the Supreme Court could be, especially when Frankfurter's efforts were instrumental in overturning a precedent of nearly 60 years. This occurred in the 50s, but it set the tone for many of the Warren Court's rulings that also ignored precedent and law to establish by fiat what the majority of the tiny court whimmed. Leaf is good at explicating the expansion of the court's powers in the 60s, and how its rulings led to an enormous increase in violent crimes.
Leaf relies on Charles Murray and others to expose how the Great Society programs led the nation into a morass of violent crime, greater poverty, and the uncivil society.
I am quite skeptical of Leaf's view of the war in South East Asia. If the Communists did not have popular support, I find it incomprehensible that they could have fought so well against the South Vietnamese government and thousands of American troops and supplies. Leaf blames Communist Vietnam for the genocidal Pol Pot regime that came to power in neighboring Cambodia. However, it was Western (especially US) maneuverings that destabilized King Sihanouk's regime there and installed Gen. Lon Nol. Lon Nol was then overthrown by the Communist Pol Pot Khmer Rouge, which sought to create the new socialist man by killing off millions of their own people. Their regime was so brutal that Communist Vietnam invaded and overthrew the Pol Pot government. But Pol Pot had the support of Communist China and indirectly, support from the US (as a way to counter Vietnamese and Soviet influence in Indo-China).
Leaf's chapter on the counter-culture was a surprise, for to Leaf, the term referred to the development of Right-wing voices, from libertarians like Murray Rothbart and Ayn Rand to more conventional conservative forces associated with William Buckley's National Review and the Republican Party. He blames the media for the massive defeat of Goldwater in 1964. I do not think it that simple. I attended a Goldwater rally at Tulane University during the campaign, intending to boo the Republican nominee at the appropriate moment. The large audience was enthusiastic for Goldwater. However, his speech avoided issues like race and civil rights, while he droned on about the TFX airplane. Goldwater was boring. I had no opportunity to boo, but his thousands of fans had no opportunity to cheer. I suspect many left the rally less enthusiastic than when they arrived. By contrast, I heard on the radio a speech in favor of Goldwater that fall, and though I was a committed Leftist, I was moved - not enough to vote for Goldwater, but I did have to question some of my assumptions. The man who delivered that terrific speech was Ronald Reagan, whose impact would wax only after the 1960s.
Leaf makes many points in his history. Growing up in segregated New Orleans, and becoming active in CORE, I did not need to read this book to be aware that radicals were a minority. Radicals were a minority in the South, but we did have sympathizers elsewhere. Indeed, some of the early impetus for the Berkeley Free Speech Movement came from those who sought to collect funds for civil rights activities in the South.
In the 1960s many Americans began to question the government as they had not done so in the 1950s. Sheriffs clubbing non-violent demonstrators before television cameras forced even rather traditional people to question. Though Leaf dismisses Oliver Stone's "JFK," the Kennedy assassination caused another crisis in faith in government. For example, in October 1963 the LUAC (Louisiana Un-American Activities Committee) staged a raid on "Communists" in New Orleans. Teaching that day, I played some tennis after school and arrived home late. My mother greeted me saying she thought I was late because I too had been arrested in the rounded up. Even earlier, when I was a student at Tulane (considered a liberal institution in New Orleans), I knew that university telephone operators were instructed to listen in to the phone calls of suspected radicals. I had been interviewed by the NOPD's red squad when arrested in the CORE sit in, and interviewed by the FBI when about to be drafted.
Yet another native of New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald, who had defected to the USSR, who distributed pro-Castro leaflets, who debated on the NBC radio affiliate, seemed to be below the radar of most agencies monitoring "subversives." Why? What did LUAC have on Oswald? And why did Oswald, the Leftist, place on some of his flyers an address that would have resulted in responders sending their information to the office of Guy Banister? Banister was a church leader, anti-Communist, former FBI agent, and former acting chief of the NOPD? Why did some declare that they had seen Oswald at Banister's office? By the mid-60s Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment and other works were shredding many of the official pronouncements of the Warren Commission's Report. By the late 60s, some two-thirds of the American people did not believe the government's version that Oswald had acted alone in killing President Kennedy.
Leaf lashes against the LSD guru, Dr. Timothy Leary. I know little about the affect of drugs on users. However, did not the US Government perform experiments in the 1950s by releasing LSD into the New York subways? If it is dreadful to take drugs, is it not worse when the government drugs its citizens surreptitiously and without their knowledge?
I was in Europe during the Kent State shootings. Leaf absolves someone who had taken photos for the FBI, declaring that a government investigation had found that the photographer was not an agent. But can one believe the government in such matters? The CIA denied that Oswald was an agent, but John Newman's Oswald and the CIA indicates that the CIA had much more on Oswald that it revealed to investigating agencies.
I am not politically correct. I agree with Leaf that the 1960s were not all hippies, drugs, sex, rock, and revolution. But in the 60s trends suppressed by Truman's anti-Communist crusade, emerged, beginning with the student sit-in movement. The shock of the John Kennedy assassination at first quelled doubts, but they erupted strong with Lanes's book and the investigation of the assassination by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison. I attended some of the trial, and heard Dr. Pierre Finck, under oath, say the he was ordered not to probe a wound at the President's autopsy. The trial showed the Zapruder film of the killing, a film which had been removed from circulation. After Garrison's trial of Clay Shaw, people could view the film and make their own conclusions. Garrison also produced CORE and segregationist witnesses who linked Shaw with Oswald. Despite sabotage of his case, despite the deaths of other possible defendants, despite witnesses fleeing and governors refusing to extradite, despite the hostility of the mainstream media, despite losing the case, the Garrison case added information for researchers of the future. And then the killings of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and the rise in general homicides. The government faced skepticism on more and more fronts - its spokesmen hailed high enemy body counts in Vietnam, but the war continued and intensified. And on the home front, the government spent more on welfare and race issues, but the results were more violent crime and race riots.
The big issue of the 1960s was the loss in faith in the government. Official spokesmen presented the official line, but ever more Americans received them as the official lie. "The light at the end of the tunnel," "the lone-nut assassin" explanations for more and more killings, "the new (1965) immigration bill will not change the racial and ethnic make-up of the nation," "integrated schools will improve education," "no minority will be hired before a better qualified white," "the War on Poverty will bring peace and prosperity to urban centers," these official assurances were greeted with greater skepticism. Government hush-ups and cover-ups and lies changed America in the 60s, and the trend reached its culmination in the next decade with the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, after he had won one of the most overwhelming electoral victories in American history.
Pictured on the cover of Leaf's book are a hippie and a young man dressed conservatively for the office. The decade was neither as conservative as Leaf tries to portray it, nor as radical as some perceived it. It was both. Sometimes the hippie shaved for a job. It was not always a decade of either/or. It was a decade of both. Leaf provides and argument and many illustrations to bolster his view. As one of the short haired radicals of the era, I can only say that Leaf's book is an addition to the history, but one that should not be read alone.
Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
The Politically Incorrect... has been added to your Cart
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $19.46 | $10.95 |
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
- +
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 9, 2009
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on March 17, 2012
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on March 7, 2015
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 30, 2018
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 8, 2013
