Comments on: Nixonland: One, Two, or Many Americas?

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:19:48 +0000

Political followed by economic extremism has been much of the cause of most revolutionary movements throughout the world – and it remains the distinct challenge of most nations to find an approach that rewards innovation but deters the imbalance of extremism that is likely to disrupt the status quo so destructively that it causes backlash and cultural dissonance.

Much of history can be winnowed down to a process of the graphic fluctuations of these political and economic revolts which tend to leave wide disparities between that which is hoped to be achieved and what is actually accomplished.

It might be useful to see a graphic timeline of how well or poorly fit this dynamic works as political and economic reality – from the time of recorded history to today – if anyone was capable of being up to that challenge.

What might be found is that the Nixon days were a very much small, but significant disruption in American history as compared to other periods of social or political progress.

By: hysperia

hysperia — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:24:08 +0000

Yes, 1968. Bad at numbers. I guess the whole comment is out of order then. Oh well …

By: Nell

Nell — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:17:50 +0000

Dang; didn’t close tag.

By: Nell

Nell — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:17:15 +0000

@hysperia: 1968, not 1972

By: Legacy of the ’60s « mirabile dictu

Legacy of the ’60s « mirabile dictu — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:00:47 +0000

[...] [more here] [...]

By: hysperia

hysperia — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:20:46 +0000

Hah, 1972, not 1072!

By: hysperia

hysperia — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:20:14 +0000

I’d just like to add that, when we look at that Nixon win in 1072, we just can’t forget the process of that election. Out of the starting gate, you have Eugene McCarthy with an organization of people who have been working for him for several years. Just as they’re rolling out the campaign, RFK announces his candidacy and LBJ backs out. The RFK candidacy split the Democrats rather badly, as might be expected. There was at least as much bitterness and resentment about RFK’s sense of “entitlement” as there has been recently among Dems with respect to Hillary Clinton. With RFK’s death came further chaos among the Democrats. I don’t know how much that had to do with Nixon’s win, but I can’t help but think these events are implicated in some way. Add to that the fact that many very influential Dems and lots of Dem voters were in heavy mourning, not just for RFK the man but also, accurately or not, for a whole progressive movement that seemed to be doomed to lose its leaders to assassination. I remember feeling that all was lost. I don’t think that was true, then or now, but the pall was palpable.

By: hysperia

hysperia — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:11:59 +0000

This is a great post because it fits my memory and analysis of the ’60s and aftermath. lol

By: jrosen

jrosen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:03:46 +0000

I believe Carl Oglesby is in Massachusetts.

I am admiring Perlstein’s book but find it hard going. I lived through the period rather seriously engaged (although always both marveling at and being appalled by the “New Left” including some earlier Right-leaning friends that I helped to radicalize) and am being reminded of many details that I had mercifully forgotten.

Lately I’ve been saying that Bush makes me nostalgic for Nixon, but the book has made me reconsider that. As a Red-diaper baby I was well aware of the way Nixon red-baited his way up the power structure I had always had a low opinion of his character, but it was not low enough, I fear.

I worked in the McCarthy NY State headquarters for several months, starting after Tet, and have a vivid memory of the young (my age) Harold Ickes Jr. brooding alone in his office. I also remember hoisting beers with the boys in the back room of the Lion’s Head Tavern in the Village, a hotbed of pro-and anti RFK passions (Irish civil wars are rough affairs).

A job change moved me to my home-town Detroit just in time for the Chicago Convention. I watched every minute of the TV coverage, and despite the fact that I consumed a full fifth of whiskey every night I still remember Abe Ribicoff being told to f**k himself by Richard Daley on camera, the mass protest singing of the Battle Hymn in memoriam RFK, the chants of “The whole world is watching” and the post-mortem by four newsmen that was like a funeral ceremony. That was the low point.

Until Kent State. How did we get through it, if we did?

By: gmoke

gmoke — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:58:05 +0000

Where is Carl Oglesby when you need him? This [Republican elite split] sounds like his Yankees versus Cowboy idea. Guess who won?

By: Garrett

Garrett — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:25:19 +0000

Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson present a different view of the evolution of American politics in “Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy”. If I have their argument straight, they believe that the real action has not been in the views of ordinary American but in the views of Republican party elites and the leaders of the party base which was aided and abetted by institutional changes, rising economic inequality, new forms of political organization, and the development of all kinds of clever strategies for implementing an off-center agenda.