Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America

It's a very good history, but I was still a bit disappointed -- Jenkins stayed on the surface of the grimy realities of the 70's, showing us the cultural phenomena and how that phenomena served to create public reaction, but failing to ask to what extent the political revolution of the 70's served to deliberately and callously exploit that public reaction. Any statesman (or aspiring statesman) is aware of the responsibility to educate the public and to ignore its less enlightened notions. The political hack, on the other hand, panders to the public and pretends to do its bidding (passing outrageous legislation, waving the flag, and often doing the bidding of certain moneyed interests). Jenkins gets the facts straight -- yes, the U.S. was in a crisis (Johnson and Nixon, both approximately equal parts statesman and hack, left a very mixed legacy). Yes, Carter was idealistic and, under the circumstances, politically inept. Yes, a variety of manic causes, from imaginary rape statistics to 'the breakdown of traditional values' hit the headlines; Jenkins recounts both the real fears and the hyperbolic reactions. (Contemporary panderers in the media and political office seem to have discovered the trivial issue of obesity; it's the same kind of phenomena Jenkins recounts.) And Jenkins explains how the rhetoric of toughness seemed so desirable under the circumstances. All excellent -- then Jenkins refuses to pass judgment. He does not suggest the possibility of alternative political reactions. The phenomena just 'is' (or was). I suppose I should not complain -- I like reading a work of history rather than a rant. However, I find myself asking if Jenkins is that much of a cultural determinist, and concluding that he may well be. It appears to me Jenkins considers Carter, Reagan, and everything the 70's served to create as inevitable. Again, great summary of the decade, but seems a rather frozen response to what I would see as still 'live' issues.

Actually this book seems to me as more of a cultural than a political study - - (viewing politics as part of and a reaction to cultural trends) - - hence in describing the transition from the "radically liberal" sixties to the "reactionary conservative" 80's, Jenkins draws not only from the political events of the era, but also pop culture from movies to TV coverage... The overall arguement being is that the transition was sort of a national hangover. Things seemed out of control - - with the economy in the dumps, and a perception of society breaking down, a wave of domestic and international terror and America feeling isolated on the national stage and on the verge of losing the Cold War. - - The book seems to argue both ways the realities of the national crisises, and at the same time media exploitation of issue made to make people scared as well as identify with a culture of "macho" and "shoot 'em up" vs. the cheery idealistic anti-hero. From this perspective we see how Reagan in the eyes of many offering sobering and decisive hope - - whether or not you feel he was the great uniter and saviour of the country or the guy who took from the poor and gave to the rich. All in all, the image of the 70's as being a "big hang-over from the 60's" has long been a commonly held belief to explain the transition... this is the first book to offer a detailed study of the era beyond mere "oil crisis/inflation/hostages" - - compared to most the images we have of the 70's - - either in our own memories or by watching VH1, this is the first book to really go into detail. As for what I got out of it -- two words really - - DEJA VU... which in some ways is reassuring (times of trouble may always feel like the end of the world) and other ways scary. Regardless of where you stand on the coin politically, this book will definitely prove interesting, especially if you are old enough to remember some of the events and are now ready to look at them in a (of course debatable!) historical perspective.

Decade of Nightmare chronicles the transformation on 60's liberalism to 80's conservatism. Beginning roughly with the Watergate scandal and continuing through the election of Reagan and into the 80's, Jenkins's sweeps broadly over many of the period's memorable and now forgotten events. The failure of Desert One, Soledad Brother, George Wallace, The Bourne Identity, Anita Bryant, the Wonderland Murders, Granada, Starhawk, NAMBLA, the Scottsboro Boys, and The Illuminatus Trilogy are a mere few of what is touched on. In Jenkins's view other accounts of this time period have not been broad enough focusing on either the political or social histories but not mixing the two, not showing, for example the influence of both conservative politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan and porn star Linda Lovelace had on the growth of conservatism. The public, he says, perceived sexual liberation as leading to porn and snuff films; LSD as leading to the horrors of angel dust; and spiritual experimentation leading to brain washing cults. Far from being the Smiley Face decade, portrayed in films like Dazed and Confused and TV show's like That 70's Show, Jenkins portrays the 70's as a time of stress where the Cold War resurfaced and serial killers were everywhere. This was a decade where Ronald Reagan went from being perceived as an extremist to winning the Presidency. Jenkins provides a context in which to view the major events of the era by reminding us of the forgotten events. For example, the patriotism associated with the US Hockey Team victory against Russia is shown in context with the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, best selling apocalyptic novels, rising inflation, and the unchecked growth of leftist guerillas in Latin America. He also explains how liberals became their own worst enemies by, for example, condemning the Israeli's for their raid into Entebbe, Uganda to rescue a hundred Jewish hostages. The book is a fast and easy read and refreshingly non-partisan. For a subject as loaded as this one, it would be easy to demonize one side or the other, the liberal or conservatives, but Jenkins avoids this trap and doesn't editorialize - with a few possible exceptions that Reagan conservatives may find unappealing. Sometimes it is too easy for Jenkins to draw parallels between the 70's and today although he never blatantly makes such comparison. Considering the subject matter the book could be called breezy since I found myself Googling even Jenkins's barely touches on to find a more detailed account. Overall this is an exceptional book and highly recommended to anyone interested the recent history or understanding the origins of today's politics.

I just don't understand the negative first review here. In contrast, I thought this book was a sophisticated piece of writing with a lot to say about a period I remember well. I learned a lot from it. It was particularly good on the continuity between the Carter and Reagan administrations, which really surprised me, but the argument did convince me.