Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America

Product Information

Within 24 hours the White House got 100,000 telegrams, calls and letters, 100 to 1 for Calley’s release. P556 N ixonland is a historical narrative worth savoring—but one worth ar­guing with as well. Perlstein sets out to challenge what he terms “certain hegemonic narratives” of the ’60s. But, perhaps inevitably, he tends to be tougher on right-wing shibboleths—the notion that all of the era’s violence was left-wing; the idea that the media snatched away victory in Vietnam—than on liberal ones. Nixonland offers a vastly more nuanced account of how the New Deal coalition came apart than the predictable left-liberal story of noble Democrats undone by ruthless, race-baiting Republicans. (I’m looking at you, Paul Krugman.) But while Perlstein criticizes the liberal establishment for its self-satisfaction and naïveté—for believing that “if only Nixon’s people could truly see reason … their prejudices would melt away, their true interests would be recognized”—he still leaves the impression that when it came to public policy, mid-century liberalism almost always did have reason on its side.

Indeed, few politicians mastered the art of positive polarization so well as the man whose majority Richard Nixon set out to undo. Much of Nixon’s divisive rhetoric owes an obvious debt to FDR—the Roosevelt who pitted the “forgotten man” against the “economic royalists”; who pledged “to restore America to its own people”; who scapegoated businessmen and Wall Street as relentlessly as Richard Nixon scapegoated intellectuals and media mandarins (if we remember Nixon as a vastly more polarizing figure than FDR, it’s perhaps because his targets were more likely to end up writing history books); and who anticipated Spiro Agnew in his broadsides against an un-American elite: “They are unani­mous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.” Lennon appears to be radically oriented however he does not give the impression he is a true revolutionist since he is constantly under the influence of narcotics. P714 They have to be worn to be understood… They give the ankles a freedom as if to invite dancing right on the street… p542

SparkNotes—the stress-free way to a better GPA

In President Nixon: Alone In The White House, Richard Reeves illuminates a presidency that was doomed from the start. Utilising new interviews and recently declassified source material, he explores how Nixon’s office was one of the most corrupt and suspicion-driven offices in US history. Perlstein was born in 1969, the first year of the Nixon presidency. He writes, however, like he was in the middle of it. His narrative is lively, ironic, and ultimately, depressing. The country, in the years since, has not progressed but regressed. Nixon, in retrospect, looks like a wise man. Despite his "enemies list" he seems a civil libertarian compared to what we have now. Surely he is responsible for the beginnings of what American politics have descended into, but other, more skilled practitioners have dug the hole far deeper than Milhouse could ever have dreamed.

Nixon was both a conspirator and obsessed that others were conspiring against him. His dark psyche and self pity hobbled his political career that peaked with his unsuccessful run against JFK and was followed by a humiliating loss running for governor in California in 1962. It was then, however, that his projected persona was altered. In public he remained awkward but he began to use self-deprecating humor that contributed to the impression that he was a regular guy out to upset the rule of the liberal elite. He took on young media advisors including Roger Ailes. The division of the citizenry was exploited and has only intensified with time, leaving us all living in "Nixonland." Perlstein sees some patterns and has his own story on what the major takeaways should be. There is something I should be taking away about how Nixon is a flashpoint or symbol for how everything changed. I didn’t always follow the author’s logic for how we should connect the dots into his central narrative. However, it never failed to be interesting, so I did enjoy the ride.This argument is one of Perlstein’s weakest—and it’s undercut, time and again, by his own skill as a historian and a writer. The chaotic tapestry he summons up—“hard hats” slugging hippies on the steps of Federal Hall on Wall Street, radical priests hatching bomb plots in the steam tunnels under Washington, D.C., riots consuming city after city, and national leaders going down under assassins’ bullets—is fascinating precisely because it feels so alien to our present political climate. Indeed, the age of Bush, supposedly unrivaled in its rancor, seems like a peaceable kingdom when contrasted with the madhouse in which Richard Nixon rose to power. We have a culture war; they had a war. One of the prominent spokesmen for Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a “handsome, charismatic 27 year old” called John Kerry – yes, THAT John Kerry. I had no idea! Perlstein's thesis is that Richard Nixon manipulated the political and social events between 1965 and 1972 in a way that shaped the political divisions of the present day. As quoted by a reviewer in The Nation, the titular "Nixonland" is where "two separate and irreconcilable sets of apocalyptic fears coexist in the minds of two separate and irreconcilable groups of Americans." [1] The author frames the divisions of the 1960s as between the "Franklins" and the "Orthogonians", names taken from two social clubs at Nixon's alma mater of Whittier College; the Franklins were the privileged elite, and the Orthogonians the social strivers. The author casts Nixon as the "King of the Orthogonians", who would play upon the growing resentments of "Orthogonians" nationwide (Nixon's " silent majority") to electoral success. Besides ensuring his re-election, however, Nixon's political and social maneuvering also created a deep rift in American society that persisted into the 1970s and on through the end of the century, polarizing the United States. There were a couple things that stood out to me. Things that, maybe in retrospect aren’t that surprising, or maybe I actually already knew, but stood out with a little more clarity with the 5000 foot tour. Will, George F. (2008-05-11). "Bring Us Apart". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2015-11-05.

Perlstein masterfully explores how a nation split at the seams gave way to a wide array of colourful politicians, and how one disgraced former vice president was able to successfully foster a message of unity. For understanding the brilliance and resilience of the man at his height, Nixonland is one of the best Richard Nixon books up for grabs. President Nixon: Alone In The White House – Richard Reeves In Before the Storm, Perlstein positioned Goldwater’s doomed White House bid as a starting point of a crusade. Though he lost badly, his grassroots support – in terms of small-dollar donations – had been strong. Between 1965 and 1972 America experienced a second civil war. Out of its ashes, the political world we know today was born. Richard Nixon acceding to the presidency pledging a new dawn of national unity--and governing more divisively than any before him.Perlstein’s own “engagement with Trump”, he says, “came at a time, in 2015, when I was incredibly burned out from writing about Republican conservatism because it seemed so darn predictable. Then something happened: history is a cunning thing to completely transform the story. I think we always have to be alive and open to that.” ‘Do you take the good with the bad?

was the very terms of our national self-image: a notion that there are two kinds of Americans. On the one side, the “Silent Majority” … the middle-class, middle American, suburban, exurban and rural coalition … On the other side are the “liberals,” the “cosmopolitans,” the “intellectuals,” the “professionals” … Both populations—to speak in ideal types—are equally, essentially, tragically American. And both have learned to consider the other not quite American at all. This was a hard book for me to get through. I had to take breaks and read two other books while getting through this one. It was a bit slow going, and also depressing.Two contending sets of rumors circulated: that cleanup crews found “nothing but bras and panties – you never saw so many”. And that two marchers had been dragged into the building and summarily executed. P 216