July 6, 2010
BOOK REVIEW: 'Framing the Sixties': How the Right Turned the 1960s into 'Good' and 'Bad'
Reviewed By David M. Kinchen
"The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” -- William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun
Faulkner's famous quote -- which is often misquoted -- is a perfect fit for the treatment of the 1960s in Bernard von Bothmer's "Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush" (University of Massachusetts Press, 320 pages, $35.50), which shows in almost excruciating detail how conservatives and liberals cherry-picked the 1960s to suit their political ends.
Based on interviews with people of all political views, Bothmer analyzes how conservatives especially chose elements from the "Good Sixties" -- the period up to the assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 -- and the "Bad Sixties" -- the rest of the decade -- to attack their opponents.
As the author demonstrates, some of the events of the demonized part of the decade -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the passage of Medicare in 1965 -- are almost universally accepted by people of all political views.
Over the past quarter century, American liberals and conservatives alike have invoked memories of the 1960s to define their respective ideological positions and to influence voters. Liberals recall the positive associations of what might be called the "Good Sixties"--the Camelot years of JFK, the early civil rights movement, and the dreams of the Great Society--while conservatives conjure images of the "Bad Sixties"--a time of urban riots, antiwar protests, and countercultural revolt.
Bothmer examines this battle over the collective memory of the decade primarily through the prism of presidential politics, showing how four presidents--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush--each sought to advance his political agenda by consciously shaping public understanding of the meaning of the Sixties. He compares not only the way that each depicted the decade as a whole, but also their commentary on a set of specific topics: the presidency of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War.
In addition to analyzing the pronouncements of the presidents themselves, Bothmer draws on interviews he conducted in 2004 and 2005 with more than one hundred and twenty cabinet members, speechwriters, advisers, strategists, historians, journalists, and activists from across the political spectrum--from Julian Bond, Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Hayden and Michael Dukakis to James Baker, Robert Bork, Bob Woodward, David Horowitz, Peter Collier, Phyllis Schlafly and Richard Viguerie. There's a complete list of all of them, as well as notes and an index, making this an ideal book for a college or AP high school course.
With the exception of President Bill Clinton, the master politician of our age and almost the equal of the "The Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan, Republicans did a much better job of demonizing their Democratic opponents with their carefully selected "Bad Sixties" elements, Bothmer says. A good example is the 2004 Presidential race, where George W. Bush, who carefully avoided service in Vietnam, successfully demonized his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, a decorated combat veteran of that war. By focusing on Kerry's anti-war activities in the 1970s, Bush II convinced enough voters of Kerry's alleged lack of patriotism to win a second term.
If you want to skip the detailed chapters on each individual president or presidential candidate, you could page forward to Page 221, "Conclusion: The Persistent Power of the 1960s" where Bothmer provides a quick and easy summary of the book. But if you're the policy wonk and history buff that I am -- especially if you lived through the 1960s as an adult as I did -- you'll want to read the complete book. Bothmer is an academic -- he teaches American history at the University of San Francisco and at Dominican University of California -- but he avoids academese and presents his arguments in straightforward English.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
BOOK REVIEW: 'Framing the Sixties': How the Right Turned the 1960s into 'Good' and 'Bad'
Reviewed By David M. Kinchen
"The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” -- William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun
Faulkner's famous quote -- which is often misquoted -- is a perfect fit for the treatment of the 1960s in Bernard von Bothmer's "Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush" (University of Massachusetts Press, 320 pages, $35.50), which shows in almost excruciating detail how conservatives and liberals cherry-picked the 1960s to suit their political ends.
Based on interviews with people of all political views, Bothmer analyzes how conservatives especially chose elements from the "Good Sixties" -- the period up to the assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 -- and the "Bad Sixties" -- the rest of the decade -- to attack their opponents.
As the author demonstrates, some of the events of the demonized part of the decade -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the passage of Medicare in 1965 -- are almost universally accepted by people of all political views.
Over the past quarter century, American liberals and conservatives alike have invoked memories of the 1960s to define their respective ideological positions and to influence voters. Liberals recall the positive associations of what might be called the "Good Sixties"--the Camelot years of JFK, the early civil rights movement, and the dreams of the Great Society--while conservatives conjure images of the "Bad Sixties"--a time of urban riots, antiwar protests, and countercultural revolt.
Bothmer examines this battle over the collective memory of the decade primarily through the prism of presidential politics, showing how four presidents--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush--each sought to advance his political agenda by consciously shaping public understanding of the meaning of the Sixties. He compares not only the way that each depicted the decade as a whole, but also their commentary on a set of specific topics: the presidency of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War.
In addition to analyzing the pronouncements of the presidents themselves, Bothmer draws on interviews he conducted in 2004 and 2005 with more than one hundred and twenty cabinet members, speechwriters, advisers, strategists, historians, journalists, and activists from across the political spectrum--from Julian Bond, Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Hayden and Michael Dukakis to James Baker, Robert Bork, Bob Woodward, David Horowitz, Peter Collier, Phyllis Schlafly and Richard Viguerie. There's a complete list of all of them, as well as notes and an index, making this an ideal book for a college or AP high school course.
With the exception of President Bill Clinton, the master politician of our age and almost the equal of the "The Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan, Republicans did a much better job of demonizing their Democratic opponents with their carefully selected "Bad Sixties" elements, Bothmer says. A good example is the 2004 Presidential race, where George W. Bush, who carefully avoided service in Vietnam, successfully demonized his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, a decorated combat veteran of that war. By focusing on Kerry's anti-war activities in the 1970s, Bush II convinced enough voters of Kerry's alleged lack of patriotism to win a second term.
If you want to skip the detailed chapters on each individual president or presidential candidate, you could page forward to Page 221, "Conclusion: The Persistent Power of the 1960s" where Bothmer provides a quick and easy summary of the book. But if you're the policy wonk and history buff that I am -- especially if you lived through the 1960s as an adult as I did -- you'll want to read the complete book. Bothmer is an academic -- he teaches American history at the University of San Francisco and at Dominican University of California -- but he avoids academese and presents his arguments in straightforward English.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
