What do you think?
Rate this book
Mad as Hell: The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right
“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” The words of Howard Beale, the fictional anchorman in the 1970s hit film Network, struck a chord with a generation of Americans. From the disgrace of Watergate to the humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis, the American Dream seemed to be falling apart.
In this magisterial new history, Dominic Sandbrook re-creates the schizophrenic atmosphere of the 1970s, the world of Henry Kissinger and Edward Kennedy, Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell, Bruce Springsteen and Tom Landry. He takes us back to an age when feminists were on the march and the Communists seemed to be winning the Cold War, but also when a new kind of right-wing populism was transforming American politics from the ground up. Those years gave us organic food, disco music, gas lines, and gay rights—but they also gave us Proposition 13, the neoconservative movement, and the rise of Ronald Reagan.
From the killing fields of Vietnam to the mean streets of Manhattan, this is a richly compelling picture of the turbulent age in which our modern-day populist politics was born. For those who remember the days when you could buy a new Ford Mustang II but had to wait hours to fill the tank, this could hardly be a more vivid book. And for those born later, it is the perfect guide to a tortured landscape that shaped our present, from the financial boardroom to the suburban the extraordinary world of 1970s America.
In this magisterial new history, Dominic Sandbrook re-creates the schizophrenic atmosphere of the 1970s, the world of Henry Kissinger and Edward Kennedy, Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell, Bruce Springsteen and Tom Landry. He takes us back to an age when feminists were on the march and the Communists seemed to be winning the Cold War, but also when a new kind of right-wing populism was transforming American politics from the ground up. Those years gave us organic food, disco music, gas lines, and gay rights—but they also gave us Proposition 13, the neoconservative movement, and the rise of Ronald Reagan.
From the killing fields of Vietnam to the mean streets of Manhattan, this is a richly compelling picture of the turbulent age in which our modern-day populist politics was born. For those who remember the days when you could buy a new Ford Mustang II but had to wait hours to fill the tank, this could hardly be a more vivid book. And for those born later, it is the perfect guide to a tortured landscape that shaped our present, from the financial boardroom to the suburban the extraordinary world of 1970s America.
528 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
About the author
Dominic Sandbrook
32 books352 followersAn English historian, commentator and broadcaster and author of two highly acclaimed books on modern Britain: Never Had It So Good and White Heat. Their follow-up is State of Emergency.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
April 23, 2022
Written in 2011, this sets the stage for what we now know as the Donald Trump phenomenon in politics. I read a biography of Huey Long last year, so I must have a fascination for American populism. I do understand it, having been raised in fiercely conservative circles in my youth, where distrust of government, endless conspiracy musings and love of the grass roots hero was the norm. From the pulpit I was told America was sliding into a state of debauchery as predicted in the King James Bible. We were certain the apocalypse was imminent and frantically preparing our souls for the rapture, lest we be caught unawares.
This book was about this period in my life, the 1970s, in America. The author, a British professor of American history in the UK and a journalist, has assembled a fine book. Not much new scholarship, his tale is a chronicle of news stories from this period. I found it fascinating, having lived through this period from the age of ten to twenty, my coming of age, in small town rural Kansas. We didn’t talk politics much in my house, having no television, there was too much to do (what with farm chores, school and sports). I knew my family voted republican and even excused Nixon, so we were conservative for sure.
The title of this book is from the 1976 movie Network, which of course I didn’t see till over a decade later. This film was prescient in that it predicted with uncanny accuracy the appetite for anger, as manifest later in shock jock Howard Stern, Russ Limbaugh and, of course, Fox News. The theme of the book is the creation, manipulation and origination of the seething anger in the American psyche. Yes, it has been easily converted to cash by the entertainment industry, but where did it come from? This is the subject of the book, not an overly scholarly one either, most of the references are from headlines. But Sandbrook weaves it together and defends his thesis with lively, brisk prose and entertaining interludes. And it does explain how we got to Donald Trump in 2016, so the author must be given his due.
It's difficult for today’s generation to imagine how pessimistic America was in the 1970s (I myself didn’t fully appreciate till much later). It was a time of personal anxiety for me, registering for the draft in 1978, a mere 3 years after the war, boys of my generation expected to be drafted into another of the seemingly unending American wars abroad. I did sneak out to see The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now, two films that seemed so true they elicited awe and immense anxiety. But mostly the 1970s for me were work, sports and, eventually, girls that I idolized from afar (having grown up with 3 brothers in a rural setting).
It's believed by some that Jimmie Carter was one of the worst presidents. Though a good man, he is generally regarded as an incompetent leader. Sandbrook gives him a fair evaluation, the events of the day were not of his doing (rising inflation, hostages in Iran, loss American influence abroad). Job losses due to the increasingly global economy were causing massive disruptions and displacement, and the debacle of the exit from Vietnam made many doubt the competence of our military leaders and the executive function. The loss of jobs, especially in the urban north, led to higher crime. The accomplishments of the civil rights movement of the 1960s were overshadowed by “stagflation” and what was deemed by the author as a staggering over-reach, forced busing. With housing stock down, the price of homes in desirable areas increased to the point where property taxes forced people out of homes, leading to Proposition 2 in CA. With crime high in cities, and society increasingly more permissive on cultural issues, blamed on more vulgar and pornographic films and magazines, the rise of the “moral majority” was understandable. Business was beginning to grow in the sun/bible belt, thus this decade saw the emergence of a new breed of wealthy Christians, who capitalized on this “goodness”, few better than a smalltime preacher named Jerry Falwell, described as the greatest salesman on earth.
But the hostage situation, gasoline shortage, urban/city decay, increasing inflation and all the associated concerns were broadcast daily. People were not only MAD, they were fearful and hoped for a strong leader to lead them out of the chaos. Carter was seen as overly serious, a micro-manager unsuited as POTUS (he famously approved use of the tennis courts personally at Camp David), thus creating an appetite for a strong leader. Thus appeared the actor and sometime politician Ronald Reagan: Like Trump, people ignored his record (he was an antifeminist, democrat and Hollywood carouser) and swallowed his performance. He was easily elected in 1980. Up to this point, the divide of democrat and republican were not strictly by so-called liberal and conservative fealty, there were fair numbers of conservative democrats (like Carter) and liberal republicans. But Reagan, coming out strong with “government IS the problem” was so popular, it became the major plank of the GOP which we still see today. It is ironic to me that criticism of the very institution that enables one’s power is a motivating political tool – astonishing really, a magic trick. I suppose the masses can be easily swayed by hearing what they want to believe, the power of hope. Or it is just the normal struggle between personal freedom and collective responsibility.
Back to the book: it is a romp through the 1970s, reminding us of hot news issues of the day that are long forgotten (the return of the Panama canal to Panama was used as a weapon against liberalism). I enjoyed being reminded of all the cultural events during my coming up years, and especially the perspective of a few years. Sandbrook does a fine job how we got from there (Goldwater in the 1960s) to here (Trump, Biden) and how anger and fear and greed (“good” as proclaimed in the 80s by Gordon Gecko) are exploited and profited from. More importantly, how it influenced, and even more today with social media influences, the zeitgeist, of which all of us as individuals feel. This book is about media’s powerful influence in our daily lives.
This book was about this period in my life, the 1970s, in America. The author, a British professor of American history in the UK and a journalist, has assembled a fine book. Not much new scholarship, his tale is a chronicle of news stories from this period. I found it fascinating, having lived through this period from the age of ten to twenty, my coming of age, in small town rural Kansas. We didn’t talk politics much in my house, having no television, there was too much to do (what with farm chores, school and sports). I knew my family voted republican and even excused Nixon, so we were conservative for sure.
The title of this book is from the 1976 movie Network, which of course I didn’t see till over a decade later. This film was prescient in that it predicted with uncanny accuracy the appetite for anger, as manifest later in shock jock Howard Stern, Russ Limbaugh and, of course, Fox News. The theme of the book is the creation, manipulation and origination of the seething anger in the American psyche. Yes, it has been easily converted to cash by the entertainment industry, but where did it come from? This is the subject of the book, not an overly scholarly one either, most of the references are from headlines. But Sandbrook weaves it together and defends his thesis with lively, brisk prose and entertaining interludes. And it does explain how we got to Donald Trump in 2016, so the author must be given his due.
It's difficult for today’s generation to imagine how pessimistic America was in the 1970s (I myself didn’t fully appreciate till much later). It was a time of personal anxiety for me, registering for the draft in 1978, a mere 3 years after the war, boys of my generation expected to be drafted into another of the seemingly unending American wars abroad. I did sneak out to see The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now, two films that seemed so true they elicited awe and immense anxiety. But mostly the 1970s for me were work, sports and, eventually, girls that I idolized from afar (having grown up with 3 brothers in a rural setting).
It's believed by some that Jimmie Carter was one of the worst presidents. Though a good man, he is generally regarded as an incompetent leader. Sandbrook gives him a fair evaluation, the events of the day were not of his doing (rising inflation, hostages in Iran, loss American influence abroad). Job losses due to the increasingly global economy were causing massive disruptions and displacement, and the debacle of the exit from Vietnam made many doubt the competence of our military leaders and the executive function. The loss of jobs, especially in the urban north, led to higher crime. The accomplishments of the civil rights movement of the 1960s were overshadowed by “stagflation” and what was deemed by the author as a staggering over-reach, forced busing. With housing stock down, the price of homes in desirable areas increased to the point where property taxes forced people out of homes, leading to Proposition 2 in CA. With crime high in cities, and society increasingly more permissive on cultural issues, blamed on more vulgar and pornographic films and magazines, the rise of the “moral majority” was understandable. Business was beginning to grow in the sun/bible belt, thus this decade saw the emergence of a new breed of wealthy Christians, who capitalized on this “goodness”, few better than a smalltime preacher named Jerry Falwell, described as the greatest salesman on earth.
But the hostage situation, gasoline shortage, urban/city decay, increasing inflation and all the associated concerns were broadcast daily. People were not only MAD, they were fearful and hoped for a strong leader to lead them out of the chaos. Carter was seen as overly serious, a micro-manager unsuited as POTUS (he famously approved use of the tennis courts personally at Camp David), thus creating an appetite for a strong leader. Thus appeared the actor and sometime politician Ronald Reagan: Like Trump, people ignored his record (he was an antifeminist, democrat and Hollywood carouser) and swallowed his performance. He was easily elected in 1980. Up to this point, the divide of democrat and republican were not strictly by so-called liberal and conservative fealty, there were fair numbers of conservative democrats (like Carter) and liberal republicans. But Reagan, coming out strong with “government IS the problem” was so popular, it became the major plank of the GOP which we still see today. It is ironic to me that criticism of the very institution that enables one’s power is a motivating political tool – astonishing really, a magic trick. I suppose the masses can be easily swayed by hearing what they want to believe, the power of hope. Or it is just the normal struggle between personal freedom and collective responsibility.
Back to the book: it is a romp through the 1970s, reminding us of hot news issues of the day that are long forgotten (the return of the Panama canal to Panama was used as a weapon against liberalism). I enjoyed being reminded of all the cultural events during my coming up years, and especially the perspective of a few years. Sandbrook does a fine job how we got from there (Goldwater in the 1960s) to here (Trump, Biden) and how anger and fear and greed (“good” as proclaimed in the 80s by Gordon Gecko) are exploited and profited from. More importantly, how it influenced, and even more today with social media influences, the zeitgeist, of which all of us as individuals feel. This book is about media’s powerful influence in our daily lives.
November 9, 2019
Mad as Hell: The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right by Dominic SandbrookI've read a number of books that are well researched. But finding a book that translates good research into an interesting narrative is much harder to find. Dominic Sandbrook's Mad As Hell is a one of those rare gems.
Sandbrook's narrative is not simply a chronology of political and cultural events from the mid to late 1970s, it is also a look into the ideological evolution of the Everyman of this period. The narrative begins with this Everyman, who was born and raised in the prosperity of the 50s and 60s, is a high school graduate, who may have even attended college, now finding himself in the wake of one crisis after another. His country is losing the War in Vietnam and is being disgraced by the Watergate Scandal. The economy is in dire straights, and everything from an energy crisis to high unemployment to low-wages and inflation is confronting this Everyman and providing bleak economic prospects for as far as the eye can see. Furthermore he has seen political and corporate corruption become so engrained in the government system that there is basically no ethical way for him to improve his station in life. He has witnessed the breakdown of the nuclear family and other traditional institutions. He watches his TV, reads his newspaper and magazines and listens to his radio in search of a way out, but a gloomy, numbing pessimistic apathy dominates the national consciousness and is reflected in the movies he watches, the music he hears, and the desperation for escape found in the era's recreational activities and fads.
As the reader wanders through the 70s with this Everyman, Sandbrook advances the narrative and weaves both cultural and political episodes in an engaging manner. Here is one example (page 19-20) that details events from the day that Gerald Ford gave Richard Nixon a full presidential pardon:
" On Sunday, September 8, the nation's attention was focused on the small town of Twin Falls, Idaho, where the daredevil motorcyclist Evel Knievel, the bourbon-swilling, cane-twirling darling of the southern and western white working classes, was preparing to leap across the Snake River Canyon on his death-defying, patriotically painted Skycycle X-2. In the event, the Skycycle failed to even make it off the ramp properly, and as the chastened Knievel was whisked away in a limousine, the crowd turned ugly, smashing the television crew's equipment, gutting the concession stands, and setting cars on fire. With his flared white jumpsuit and patriotic trimmings, Knievel had been billed as an American hero. Now he stood exposed as one more failure, one more icon who had let down his admirers.
But the next day's headlines would belong not to Knievel but to another fallen star, another all-American hero who had turned out to have feet of clay. Even as the daredevil was preparing for his abortive jump, Gerald Ford was putting the finishing touches to an extraordinary decision... "
Sandrock displays strong craftsmanship painting scenes and describing characters in meaningful details that go to bring history to life. At times a book this detailed can become mired in the minutia of stale historical facts and dates and opinions, but for the most part Sandrock gives the reader an engaging story of the American Everyman in the late 1970s which leads us to a better understanding of how, in the end, that Everyman emerges from this doom and gloom to create Ronald Reagan's populist right.
http://generation-add.blogspot.com/20...
©2011 Rockism 101. All Rights Reserved
June 14, 2017
America in the 1970s. What a time to be alive.
Having grown up on 1970s movies and TV, I am by no means a stranger to this strange era, despite having been born a decade and a half after its end. But strange indeed this period was. There were riots over The Illiad and Crime and Punishment that saw school buses being shot at and schools blown up by crazed Christian fanatics; children were being bused from one side of the city to another just to make the numbers of black and white kids in the school look more appropriate to extremely color-conscious "progressives"; and America lost a ridiculous war.
Other than the biographical information on Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan, along with the details of some of the issues discussed in this book, nothing was new to me. Even the Textbook Wars I've long been familiar with. But reading them in this narrative, connected with outside events, as well as with the culture (which I am so familiar with on its own), events came alive. Some issues, however, were frequently alluded to - Chappaquiddick, Panama Canal, Camp David - but never given any description, which was upsetting - Chappaquiddick and the Panama Canal controversy being largely oblivescent to my millennial memory.
I imagine that this book had quite the bias. I say that because I really don't know enough about Carter to confirm that he had a good side, but Sandbrook leaves me with the feeling that Carter was the most evil, delusional, self-interested person to ever call himself a Democrat. Indeed, after reading the first of the chapters on Carter, I went to my parents and announced, "Trump is Carter! He isn't all that novel after all!" Now, thanks to this, I am going to have to scout out a more neutral view of this crazy fellow, see if he seems so crazy after all.
So, in the end, I am very glad to have read this book. I am almost tempted to read his thousand-page history of Britain in the 1960s or the other thousand-page history of Britain in the 1970s. Surely the history of the United States in the period from 1974 to 1980 deserves a thousand pages far more so than does a history of Britain, but the author is a Brit, so what can you expect?
Having grown up on 1970s movies and TV, I am by no means a stranger to this strange era, despite having been born a decade and a half after its end. But strange indeed this period was. There were riots over The Illiad and Crime and Punishment that saw school buses being shot at and schools blown up by crazed Christian fanatics; children were being bused from one side of the city to another just to make the numbers of black and white kids in the school look more appropriate to extremely color-conscious "progressives"; and America lost a ridiculous war.
Other than the biographical information on Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan, along with the details of some of the issues discussed in this book, nothing was new to me. Even the Textbook Wars I've long been familiar with. But reading them in this narrative, connected with outside events, as well as with the culture (which I am so familiar with on its own), events came alive. Some issues, however, were frequently alluded to - Chappaquiddick, Panama Canal, Camp David - but never given any description, which was upsetting - Chappaquiddick and the Panama Canal controversy being largely oblivescent to my millennial memory.
I imagine that this book had quite the bias. I say that because I really don't know enough about Carter to confirm that he had a good side, but Sandbrook leaves me with the feeling that Carter was the most evil, delusional, self-interested person to ever call himself a Democrat. Indeed, after reading the first of the chapters on Carter, I went to my parents and announced, "Trump is Carter! He isn't all that novel after all!" Now, thanks to this, I am going to have to scout out a more neutral view of this crazy fellow, see if he seems so crazy after all.
So, in the end, I am very glad to have read this book. I am almost tempted to read his thousand-page history of Britain in the 1960s or the other thousand-page history of Britain in the 1970s. Surely the history of the United States in the period from 1974 to 1980 deserves a thousand pages far more so than does a history of Britain, but the author is a Brit, so what can you expect?
January 6, 2021
Kurt Vonnegut believed things went bad for the US right after WWII, I put the beginning of bad things in the 1970s that is why I am fascinated by the decade something went wrong especially in the political economy of the US and I find myself doing forensics of the decade. It was the end of the social-democratic New Deal era and the rise of the new right and neoliberalism. I am constantly wondering where did we go wrong. Was it the failure of Keynesianism it wage-price spiral stagnation, was it Watergate and crises of Confidence was it resource limits like the Oil Shocks, was it an Archie Bunker backlash from civil rights or a backlash from women libbers, or perhaps goofy cults and the rise of the religious right in the flakey search for fulfillment of the era, was it a really bad leftover from Vietnam that instigated the wrong turn and the rightwing rot. I don't know but it is why I read a lot about the disco era.
January 30, 2023
A fun read about shifting political and social changes that took place in the 1970s.
June 12, 2011
Interesting and comprehensive review of the period 1974 to 1980, covering the angst of the post-Nixon '70s, the Carter years, the energy crisis, the rise of the religious right as a political force and the election of Ronald Reagan, with interesting side notes on Bruce Springsteen, school busing in Boston, a West Virginia revolt against sex education and the feminist revolution. For once, a very intelligent and well-researched book on American history and politics by a British author! Nice change of pace.
July 24, 2011
Apparently it takes a British historian of American politics to point out that populism was pushing the same buttons in the 1970s, using a similar playbook and preaching to classic conspiracy-seeking needs.
March 17, 2021
This book should have been much shorter, most of the book is taken up by the author desperately trying to garner sympathy for both President Nixon and President Ford, by mentioning their favorite foods, mentioning how their children cried after interviews, mentioning their favorite ice cream flavors, and quoting various interviews where each President promises that they are completely sinless and thoughtful and selfless and deserve no public backlash because it "makes dem weally sad". This is the author's first priority for reasons unspecified. These Presidents could have done great things for the US but I have no idea since I'm constantly getting emotionally manipulated by the author, it's pretty distracting.
The author also mentions the Populist right once in the introduction, and then doesn't define the term or why it important that this "Populist right" rose up. I'm guessing the author just forgot about it because it's never mentioned again, to be fair he may have covered the topic without ever mentioning the phrase again but that's really stupid. Also the author is super into making sure that people who dislike crime, dislike recession, and pay their taxes are all bastards who "just don't get it". If I know one thing about history, and I do, it's that history is never ever that simple. When people try to convince me that human life and the study of it requires no nuance, that's when I get a bit miffed.
The upside to this book, and the reason I'm not giving this book a one star is that like a lot of poorly written but "well-meaning" (whatever the hell that means) nonfiction, is that it's like a Wikipedia article. You can get certain buzzwords of events and statements that give you a good start to start fact-checking and doing some serious research.
The author also mentions the Populist right once in the introduction, and then doesn't define the term or why it important that this "Populist right" rose up. I'm guessing the author just forgot about it because it's never mentioned again, to be fair he may have covered the topic without ever mentioning the phrase again but that's really stupid. Also the author is super into making sure that people who dislike crime, dislike recession, and pay their taxes are all bastards who "just don't get it". If I know one thing about history, and I do, it's that history is never ever that simple. When people try to convince me that human life and the study of it requires no nuance, that's when I get a bit miffed.
The upside to this book, and the reason I'm not giving this book a one star is that like a lot of poorly written but "well-meaning" (whatever the hell that means) nonfiction, is that it's like a Wikipedia article. You can get certain buzzwords of events and statements that give you a good start to start fact-checking and doing some serious research.
March 13, 2011
The 1970s ranged from 1974 when Richard Nixon resigned the presidency to 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office. And what busy years they were.
The US experienced the unprecedented resignation of a president under threat of impeachment, his pardon by the new president, significant inflation combined with a high unemployment rate (stagflation, they called it), the 1973 oil embargo and resulting lines of cars at gas stations, the election of Jimmy Carter (which surprised everyone, including Jimmy Carter), the Iranian revolution, the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants (an act of war which Jimmy Carter seemed more or less to ignore), the Reagan-Carter election with the famed “I paid for this microphone” outburst by Reagan at the New Hampshire debate (a quote from a Spenser Tracy movie), and the glitter and gloss of the Reagan inauguration festivities.
Dominic Sandbrook, who wrote three (soon to be four) well-received histories of Britain from the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the end of Edward Heath’s administration in 1974, Never Had It So Good, White Heat, and State of Emergency, has done a stunning job of evaluating the 1970s in the US, revealing things we didn’t know at the time, debunking things we believed we did know, and picking out the significant events that broke new ground, got us out of old difficulties and into new ones, and led to the social and economic changes of the 1980s. As David Bryson says in an Amazon.com review of State of Emergency, ( http://www.amazon.com/State-Emergency... ) “Sandbrook deflates a lot of the hot air balloons that passed for political comment at the time.”
Born in 1974 in another country, Sandbrook has the outsider’s eye that makes for excellent and sometimes entertaining historical analysis. Here is his comment on what he calls the Roots phenomenon, the ethnic self-assertion in the wake of the TV series about Alex Haley’s search for his family roots in Africa:
“Of course the American people had never been ethnically or culturally homogeneous and the nation’s great cities had long rung with dozens of different tongues. But this was something new: the veneration of the individual at the expense of the collective, the little group at the expense of the wider body, rights at the expense of duties, past grievances at the expense of optimistic ambitions. Some observers celebrated a new climate of diversity befitting a postmodern age of multiple identities and individual rights. But it took a tired old liberal, the man whom Archie Bunker had rejected in favor of ‘Richard E Nixon,’ to see that what would be lost would be a sense of solidarity, common effort, and public good, and that the victims would be society’s weakest members. Only a sense of ‘mutual needs, mutual wants, common hopes, the same fears,’ Hubert Humphrey insisted, could banish the prejudices and inequalities that still haunted millions of Americans, black and white.
But nobody was listening.”
On the whole, Sandbrook’s analysis of these years is admirably objective, but he does have his favorites. His admiration for Gerald Ford is great, based on Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon for the sake of the nation, realizing it would probably cost him the election. He is very critical of Ed Koch under whom New York City was to become “a city of ruthless extremes, a city of the superrich and the hopeless poor, a city in which homeless beggars lived and died just yards from the high-rise windows of Wall Street and the gleaming excesses of Trump Tower. In Ed Koch’s New York, Hubert Humphrey’s common hopes would become a very distant memory indeed.”
Sandbrook reserves his most scathing disdain for Jimmy Carter:
“Perhaps the most appropriate verdict came a year after Carter’s defeat from a labor leader who ranked him alongside Calvin Coolidge. ‘I consider his abilities mediocre, his actions pusillanimous, and his Administration a calamity for America’s working people,’ he said. ‘Since an obelisk soaring 555 feeet into the air symbolizes the nation’s admiration and respect for George Washington, it would seem the only fitting memorial for Jimmy Carter would be a bottomless pit.”
2011 No 46 Coming soon: The Hare with Amber Eyes
The US experienced the unprecedented resignation of a president under threat of impeachment, his pardon by the new president, significant inflation combined with a high unemployment rate (stagflation, they called it), the 1973 oil embargo and resulting lines of cars at gas stations, the election of Jimmy Carter (which surprised everyone, including Jimmy Carter), the Iranian revolution, the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants (an act of war which Jimmy Carter seemed more or less to ignore), the Reagan-Carter election with the famed “I paid for this microphone” outburst by Reagan at the New Hampshire debate (a quote from a Spenser Tracy movie), and the glitter and gloss of the Reagan inauguration festivities.
Dominic Sandbrook, who wrote three (soon to be four) well-received histories of Britain from the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the end of Edward Heath’s administration in 1974, Never Had It So Good, White Heat, and State of Emergency, has done a stunning job of evaluating the 1970s in the US, revealing things we didn’t know at the time, debunking things we believed we did know, and picking out the significant events that broke new ground, got us out of old difficulties and into new ones, and led to the social and economic changes of the 1980s. As David Bryson says in an Amazon.com review of State of Emergency, ( http://www.amazon.com/State-Emergency... ) “Sandbrook deflates a lot of the hot air balloons that passed for political comment at the time.”
Born in 1974 in another country, Sandbrook has the outsider’s eye that makes for excellent and sometimes entertaining historical analysis. Here is his comment on what he calls the Roots phenomenon, the ethnic self-assertion in the wake of the TV series about Alex Haley’s search for his family roots in Africa:
“Of course the American people had never been ethnically or culturally homogeneous and the nation’s great cities had long rung with dozens of different tongues. But this was something new: the veneration of the individual at the expense of the collective, the little group at the expense of the wider body, rights at the expense of duties, past grievances at the expense of optimistic ambitions. Some observers celebrated a new climate of diversity befitting a postmodern age of multiple identities and individual rights. But it took a tired old liberal, the man whom Archie Bunker had rejected in favor of ‘Richard E Nixon,’ to see that what would be lost would be a sense of solidarity, common effort, and public good, and that the victims would be society’s weakest members. Only a sense of ‘mutual needs, mutual wants, common hopes, the same fears,’ Hubert Humphrey insisted, could banish the prejudices and inequalities that still haunted millions of Americans, black and white.
But nobody was listening.”
On the whole, Sandbrook’s analysis of these years is admirably objective, but he does have his favorites. His admiration for Gerald Ford is great, based on Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon for the sake of the nation, realizing it would probably cost him the election. He is very critical of Ed Koch under whom New York City was to become “a city of ruthless extremes, a city of the superrich and the hopeless poor, a city in which homeless beggars lived and died just yards from the high-rise windows of Wall Street and the gleaming excesses of Trump Tower. In Ed Koch’s New York, Hubert Humphrey’s common hopes would become a very distant memory indeed.”
Sandbrook reserves his most scathing disdain for Jimmy Carter:
“Perhaps the most appropriate verdict came a year after Carter’s defeat from a labor leader who ranked him alongside Calvin Coolidge. ‘I consider his abilities mediocre, his actions pusillanimous, and his Administration a calamity for America’s working people,’ he said. ‘Since an obelisk soaring 555 feeet into the air symbolizes the nation’s admiration and respect for George Washington, it would seem the only fitting memorial for Jimmy Carter would be a bottomless pit.”
2011 No 46 Coming soon: The Hare with Amber Eyes
August 18, 2014
The 1970s were a turbulent time for much of the world. The political crisis of the Middle East sent destabilising shocks around the world, causing everything from the suspension of democracy in India to the three day week in the UK. In America, Sandbrook contends, it provided the catalyst which sent liberalism into the political wilderness and replaced it with a more conservative, right-wing government. But the tide of history that swept Reagan into the White House was no unpredictable wave, rather it was the culmination of undercurrents which had been developing since the late 1960s.
In many ways, the situation in Mad as Hell will seem familiar to those who have read Sandbrook's two volumes on 1970s Britain. Reaction against the permissive society, the struggles of organised labour to keep their wages above inflation and of successive governments to attempt to maintain a balanced budget in the face of economic turmoil - all are present on both sides of the Atlantic. The difference appears to be one of emphasis, making the union issue more problematic in the UK, whilst religious conservatism, far from being confined to a few derided figures like Mary Whitehouse, was completely reshaping America. This means that whilst the economic tone of the subsequent governments was similar, the social tone was very different.
Sandbrook picks apart these various forces chapter by chapter, from the resistance to forced school integration to the nationalism which arose in response to the hostage crisis in Iran. The hapless and hopeless administrations of Ford and Carter are shown to be every bit as hapless, hopeless and self-interested as the old Saturday Night Live clips suggest.
One difference between Mad as Hell and Sandbrook's UK books is that the book is significantly thinner - about four hundred pages covering the same time period which tool well over a thousand in British history. This is partially due to the fact that the cultural threads are woven much thinner than in his other books - a few short interludes mark the rise of figures such as Springsteen, but there is little on the era's television and nothing on theatre or literature - and may also be down to Sandbrook's limitations as someone outside of American society. But this is not to detract from what is a very engaging read. There's also a little less neutrality: Sandbrook's own politics are generally quite hard to discern, but in this volume you get the impression here and there that he's fighting that old British instinct to treat the former colony as a wayward child. It's not too intrusive, however, and you're left with a mixed feeling that either Sandbrook needs to clone himself and write more detailed US histories in parallel with his British ones or focus on getting that first volume of the 1980s out.
In many ways, the situation in Mad as Hell will seem familiar to those who have read Sandbrook's two volumes on 1970s Britain. Reaction against the permissive society, the struggles of organised labour to keep their wages above inflation and of successive governments to attempt to maintain a balanced budget in the face of economic turmoil - all are present on both sides of the Atlantic. The difference appears to be one of emphasis, making the union issue more problematic in the UK, whilst religious conservatism, far from being confined to a few derided figures like Mary Whitehouse, was completely reshaping America. This means that whilst the economic tone of the subsequent governments was similar, the social tone was very different.
Sandbrook picks apart these various forces chapter by chapter, from the resistance to forced school integration to the nationalism which arose in response to the hostage crisis in Iran. The hapless and hopeless administrations of Ford and Carter are shown to be every bit as hapless, hopeless and self-interested as the old Saturday Night Live clips suggest.
One difference between Mad as Hell and Sandbrook's UK books is that the book is significantly thinner - about four hundred pages covering the same time period which tool well over a thousand in British history. This is partially due to the fact that the cultural threads are woven much thinner than in his other books - a few short interludes mark the rise of figures such as Springsteen, but there is little on the era's television and nothing on theatre or literature - and may also be down to Sandbrook's limitations as someone outside of American society. But this is not to detract from what is a very engaging read. There's also a little less neutrality: Sandbrook's own politics are generally quite hard to discern, but in this volume you get the impression here and there that he's fighting that old British instinct to treat the former colony as a wayward child. It's not too intrusive, however, and you're left with a mixed feeling that either Sandbrook needs to clone himself and write more detailed US histories in parallel with his British ones or focus on getting that first volume of the 1980s out.
November 12, 2019
A trip back to the cultural and political turmoil of the 1970’s does not sound like fun reading, but if you are interested in American history, and genuinely want to understand how we got to where we are, then MAD AS HELL: THE CRISIS OF THE 1970’S AND THE RISE OF RIGHT WING POPULISM (that’s a mouthful) by Dominic Sandbrook is a great place to start. Sandbrook is British, and he brings an outsider’s view to events and personalities that are by any measure, uniquely American. While the bulk of the book concerns the political arena, he does pause and highlight cultural trends – Charlie’s Angels, Bruce Springsteen, Disco music, the Dallas Cowboys – that were manifestations of how Americans reacted to changing and challenging times. Sandbrook adopts a ground level view of these tumultuous days, looking at them through the eyes of middle class Americans trying to make sense of epic political corruption in Washington, out of control inflation, declining economic growth, feminism, gay rights, military defeat in Vietnam, the rise of the Ayatollah, gasoline shortages, and a general sense that America was adrift, and in an irreversible decline.
The book begins on the day Richard Nixon resigns, and ends with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, and the seeming triumph of a new American conservatism, one determined to repudiate and reverse the course of the decade just passed. If the 60’s had belonged to anti war protesters and civil rights marchers called to action by an unjust war and a racist society, then the 70’s would belong to a very different kind of activist, those who stepped in front of liberals and progressives and said no to the Equal Rights Amendment, gay rights, and the high taxes that funded government waste and welfare. Sandbrook takes the reader back to long forgotten controversies like the West Virginia citizen’s revolt against “permissive” school text books, Bob Jones University losing its tax exempt status because of discrimination, working class Boston rioting in the streets over court ordered school busing, and how they galvanized so many into action. Nixon’s Silent Majority was silent no more, and the author makes a good case that these events came together into a national movement that in time would embrace opposition to both the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion, and would become a true political juggernaut despite never coming close to representing anything like a real majority in the country. At the same time, Sandbrook portrays a clueless liberalism, arrogant after banishing Nixon, increasingly elitist and enamored with identity politics, and losing its long affinity with the working class, who were being hammered by rising taxes, and vanishing jobs, not to mention resentful of hiring quotas for minorities. The book has some telling quotes from the likes of George McGovern, who dismiss the anti government rhetoric of the day, along with tax revolts, like California’s Proposition 13, as nothing more than racism. This was a long way from the stirring words of FDR and JFK, and working Americans took notice. Along the way we meet such names as Phyllis Schlafly, Jerry Falwell, Richard Viguerie, and Anita Bryant, and come to understand why their impact, though often overlooked and disdained by the larger media, was so meaningful. We also see how exploiting division became very good business for some.
What really impressed me about this book was the way Sandbrook was both fair, and very tough, on Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, the two Presidents who presided over a very rough patch of history. Both men are portrayed as decent and hard working, willing to do the right thing even at a political cost to themselves, but Sandbrook does not shy away from their faults, and their failures of leadership, which in the case of Carter, are many. If you are an admirer of the 39th President, this book will make you wince, for few men were their own worst enemy more than Jimmy Carter. Dour, self-righteous, thin skinned, disdainful of those he considered morally lacking, and seemingly unable to communicate in a manner that could gain public support, Jimmy Carter and his Presidency were destined for trouble from the get go. But Sandbrook shies away from portraying Ronald Reagan as America’s savior the way many of his acolytes do, showing the man to be a far more compromising and pliable politician than even he would acknowledge. Perhaps Reagan’s best asset was his sunny optimism in America and Americans; Sandbrook makes the case that this, not his conservative philosophy, is what carried him to a landslide victory in 1980 over an exhausted looking Carter, beset by the Iranian hostage crisis and stagflation. When voters went to the polls that year, they were casting ballots against not just the failures of the late 1970’s, but against the endless parade of crisis and upheaval, along with the failure of leadership in Washington, that had gripped the nation ever since Kennedy’s assassination seventeen years before.
What impresses me the most about MAD AS HELL is how much it resonates today. Though the book was written nearly a decade ago, and the events it chronicles occurred more than 40 years ago, its portrait of a divided America, especially its alienated middle and working class, tells us that much has not changed in the decades since, if anything, the problem has gotten worse. Stagflation and the Soviet Union are gone, but the divisions and anxiety remain. Early in the book, there is a poignant quote by the old liberal, Hubert Humphrey, bemoaning the divisions of another time, reminding America that only a sense of “mutual needs, mutual wants, common hopes, the same fears” could overcome those same gnawing divisions. Today, in a country where divisions along race, culture, class, and gender are gleefully asserted and exploited daily, we are further from those sentiments than ever.
Once the 70’s were over, America moved on in a hurry, seldom looking back, and seldom with a good word for those times. But history that we’d rather forget often has the best lessons, and Dominic Sandbrook’s MAD AS HELL is a great text book for those who want to learn.
The book begins on the day Richard Nixon resigns, and ends with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, and the seeming triumph of a new American conservatism, one determined to repudiate and reverse the course of the decade just passed. If the 60’s had belonged to anti war protesters and civil rights marchers called to action by an unjust war and a racist society, then the 70’s would belong to a very different kind of activist, those who stepped in front of liberals and progressives and said no to the Equal Rights Amendment, gay rights, and the high taxes that funded government waste and welfare. Sandbrook takes the reader back to long forgotten controversies like the West Virginia citizen’s revolt against “permissive” school text books, Bob Jones University losing its tax exempt status because of discrimination, working class Boston rioting in the streets over court ordered school busing, and how they galvanized so many into action. Nixon’s Silent Majority was silent no more, and the author makes a good case that these events came together into a national movement that in time would embrace opposition to both the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion, and would become a true political juggernaut despite never coming close to representing anything like a real majority in the country. At the same time, Sandbrook portrays a clueless liberalism, arrogant after banishing Nixon, increasingly elitist and enamored with identity politics, and losing its long affinity with the working class, who were being hammered by rising taxes, and vanishing jobs, not to mention resentful of hiring quotas for minorities. The book has some telling quotes from the likes of George McGovern, who dismiss the anti government rhetoric of the day, along with tax revolts, like California’s Proposition 13, as nothing more than racism. This was a long way from the stirring words of FDR and JFK, and working Americans took notice. Along the way we meet such names as Phyllis Schlafly, Jerry Falwell, Richard Viguerie, and Anita Bryant, and come to understand why their impact, though often overlooked and disdained by the larger media, was so meaningful. We also see how exploiting division became very good business for some.
What really impressed me about this book was the way Sandbrook was both fair, and very tough, on Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, the two Presidents who presided over a very rough patch of history. Both men are portrayed as decent and hard working, willing to do the right thing even at a political cost to themselves, but Sandbrook does not shy away from their faults, and their failures of leadership, which in the case of Carter, are many. If you are an admirer of the 39th President, this book will make you wince, for few men were their own worst enemy more than Jimmy Carter. Dour, self-righteous, thin skinned, disdainful of those he considered morally lacking, and seemingly unable to communicate in a manner that could gain public support, Jimmy Carter and his Presidency were destined for trouble from the get go. But Sandbrook shies away from portraying Ronald Reagan as America’s savior the way many of his acolytes do, showing the man to be a far more compromising and pliable politician than even he would acknowledge. Perhaps Reagan’s best asset was his sunny optimism in America and Americans; Sandbrook makes the case that this, not his conservative philosophy, is what carried him to a landslide victory in 1980 over an exhausted looking Carter, beset by the Iranian hostage crisis and stagflation. When voters went to the polls that year, they were casting ballots against not just the failures of the late 1970’s, but against the endless parade of crisis and upheaval, along with the failure of leadership in Washington, that had gripped the nation ever since Kennedy’s assassination seventeen years before.
What impresses me the most about MAD AS HELL is how much it resonates today. Though the book was written nearly a decade ago, and the events it chronicles occurred more than 40 years ago, its portrait of a divided America, especially its alienated middle and working class, tells us that much has not changed in the decades since, if anything, the problem has gotten worse. Stagflation and the Soviet Union are gone, but the divisions and anxiety remain. Early in the book, there is a poignant quote by the old liberal, Hubert Humphrey, bemoaning the divisions of another time, reminding America that only a sense of “mutual needs, mutual wants, common hopes, the same fears” could overcome those same gnawing divisions. Today, in a country where divisions along race, culture, class, and gender are gleefully asserted and exploited daily, we are further from those sentiments than ever.
Once the 70’s were over, America moved on in a hurry, seldom looking back, and seldom with a good word for those times. But history that we’d rather forget often has the best lessons, and Dominic Sandbrook’s MAD AS HELL is a great text book for those who want to learn.
September 16, 2011
A good roundup of a complex, eventful decade in America. Perhaps because the author is a Brit looking at a foreign country, he manages to handle controversial US political topics in a non-emotional, wasn't-that-interesting voice. It's an easy read that got me thinking back to events I lived through and their repercussions down to the present.
July 29, 2011
As I was hoping it would when I picked it up, this book explains so much about how we got where we are today politically. From Henry Kissinger to Anita Bryant, gas lines to the Iran hostage crisis, the 70s sealed our corporate cynicism. The writer is very good at weaving his research into a coherent narrative, which made the history go down smoothly.
July 26, 2011
Very comprehensive and well written, stayed interesting throughout. A great insight into a decade in turmoil
October 7, 2023
A good account of the Ford and Carter administrations, albeit without the richness of detail or analytic precision found in Rick Perlstein’s four volume series on the conservative movement’s history.
January 28, 2021
This is quite different in style and tone from Dominic Sandbrook's popular histories of modern Britain, but none the worse for that. For the British reader, its narration of US politics and society from Nixon's resignation to Reagan's inauguration covers some vaguely familiar territory, along with that which is less familiar. While I knew about and vividly recall the Ford and Carter presidencies, I learned a lot about popular culture and the growth of populist movements associated with the likes of Jerry Falwell and Howard Jarvis.
The writing style is accessible and the analysis shrewd. I think that this book has more academic depth than the British series and I therefore strongly recommend it.
The writing style is accessible and the analysis shrewd. I think that this book has more academic depth than the British series and I therefore strongly recommend it.
December 3, 2020
I have read all of Dominic Sandbrook's books about British history and this one about America in the 1970s is written in the same way, very readable and always introducing facts that I wasn't aware of. Its starts with Nixon's resignation and goes to Reagan being elected. In a lot of ways there are parallels with Britain in the 1970s and it reaches its natural end with Reagan and thatcher both being elected. What does come across is the very statesman like way that the presidents handed over power in sharp contrast to the current situation
March 24, 2024
Sandbrook is a terrific popular historian and this doesn't disappoint--any fans of his cultural histories of the UK (White Heat, Who Dares Wins etc) will enjoy this accounting of the US in the 1970s. This book is astonishingly relevant to the contemporary times in the sense that the issues we are struggling with--economic challenges, race relations, growing polarization etc--were all not just present, but significant and central challenges of that decade too. Sandbrook provides not just insight on a tough decade for America, but some useful perspective for the present.
May 29, 2021
Leave it to a Brit to write a concise look at America from Nixon's resignation, to the election of Ronald Reagan. That's what Dominic Sandbrook did with this book. One of the best books I've read about American from the period. This is a great look how America looked from the mid 70's to 1980, and how socially and politically the country shifted from decline to a rise in conservatism. Anybody interested in history should read this.
January 24, 2023
I found the title slightly misleading – the book concentrates more on the ’76 and ’80 presidential elections, and the main political and social events during the tenures of presidents Ford and Carter, including the rise of the populist right.
There is a lot to be covered, but DS is an honest, unbiased historian, and a gifted storyteller, and the reading of the book informed and captivated me.
The author has the ability to abridge the complex political and social events of the period, picking up key moments and revealing the multi-faced personas of the key participants and the sometimes-surprising results of their actions and interaction.
I was surprised with regard to the similarities between some politicians and how, after almost 50 years, history seems to repeat some of the 70’s trials.
Some examples:
- Gerald Ford/ Rishi Sunak parallel:
“Polls found that voters ranked the three major problems facing the country as the “high cost of living,” “corruption in government,” and the continuing energy crisis, a desperately unpromising combination. None of these was Ford’s fault, but he still had to deal with them.”
- Wallace/Farrage parallel:
“He was the first national figure to capitalize on the growing backlash against crime, permissiveness, and welfare; he was also the first to focus white working-class anger on Democrats, intellectuals, bureaucrats, and the federal government.”
- Reactions to the oil crise:
“As oil prices continued to rise, Carter contemplated the prospect of severe shortages. He appeared on television again. “Our nation’s energy problem is serious, and it’s getting worse.”
His solution horrified liberal Democrats: all price controls would be lifted by September 1981, giving the oil companies additional revenue for exploration and development.
At the same time, he asked Congress for a windfall tax of 50 percent on extra oil revenue, to be spent on mass transit, alternative energy sources, and relief for poor families.
The plan was “seriously flawed” and “a self-inflicted wound,” declared Ted Kennedy, accusing Carter of putting the oil companies above the ordinary consumers of the industrial states.”
- How the electorate reacts to honest policies:
“If Gerald Ford had not refused to pump prime the economy for electoral gain, then Carter might never have won the presidency in the first place. The irony was that now that he faced a similar dilemma, he made exactly the same choice, preferring unpopular long-term discipline to a crowd-pleasing bonanza.”
- The birth of The New Right (hopefully not the be repeated by a Farage/Liz T alliance)
“Compared with the spread of evangelicalism, the backlash against crime, or the rise of the neoconservatives, the tax revolt was a singularly unglamorous phenomenon.
Yet Proposition 13 was a landmark in post-war history, for few issues did more to promote the conservative cause.
Crucially, it tapped a rich vein of populist resentment—against elites and establishments, against doctors and teachers, against welfare spending and affirmative action—that was fast becoming the most dynamic force in American politics.”
There is a lot to be covered, but DS is an honest, unbiased historian, and a gifted storyteller, and the reading of the book informed and captivated me.
The author has the ability to abridge the complex political and social events of the period, picking up key moments and revealing the multi-faced personas of the key participants and the sometimes-surprising results of their actions and interaction.
I was surprised with regard to the similarities between some politicians and how, after almost 50 years, history seems to repeat some of the 70’s trials.
Some examples:
- Gerald Ford/ Rishi Sunak parallel:
“Polls found that voters ranked the three major problems facing the country as the “high cost of living,” “corruption in government,” and the continuing energy crisis, a desperately unpromising combination. None of these was Ford’s fault, but he still had to deal with them.”
- Wallace/Farrage parallel:
“He was the first national figure to capitalize on the growing backlash against crime, permissiveness, and welfare; he was also the first to focus white working-class anger on Democrats, intellectuals, bureaucrats, and the federal government.”
- Reactions to the oil crise:
“As oil prices continued to rise, Carter contemplated the prospect of severe shortages. He appeared on television again. “Our nation’s energy problem is serious, and it’s getting worse.”
His solution horrified liberal Democrats: all price controls would be lifted by September 1981, giving the oil companies additional revenue for exploration and development.
At the same time, he asked Congress for a windfall tax of 50 percent on extra oil revenue, to be spent on mass transit, alternative energy sources, and relief for poor families.
The plan was “seriously flawed” and “a self-inflicted wound,” declared Ted Kennedy, accusing Carter of putting the oil companies above the ordinary consumers of the industrial states.”
- How the electorate reacts to honest policies:
“If Gerald Ford had not refused to pump prime the economy for electoral gain, then Carter might never have won the presidency in the first place. The irony was that now that he faced a similar dilemma, he made exactly the same choice, preferring unpopular long-term discipline to a crowd-pleasing bonanza.”
- The birth of The New Right (hopefully not the be repeated by a Farage/Liz T alliance)
“Compared with the spread of evangelicalism, the backlash against crime, or the rise of the neoconservatives, the tax revolt was a singularly unglamorous phenomenon.
Yet Proposition 13 was a landmark in post-war history, for few issues did more to promote the conservative cause.
Crucially, it tapped a rich vein of populist resentment—against elites and establishments, against doctors and teachers, against welfare spending and affirmative action—that was fast becoming the most dynamic force in American politics.”
August 19, 2019
An interesting history of the late 1970's. Very even handed. I sometimes felt frustrated reading it. But as a liberal person reading about the rise of a conservative movement that could be for the better. Thought the author was sometimes too dismissive of racial undertones in certain instances but overall a good book.
April 3, 2024
A very engaging and insightful look into American politics in the 1970s. Factual, witty, and well crafted. My only grievance is that the big ideas didn't quite pull together at the end of the book and I think it could have benefited from an epilogue or summary chapter.
June 16, 2020
A first rate book from one of my favourite historians. A vivid telling of the American political scene during the 1970s and the cultural changes that drove it.
October 19, 2023
Smooth brained
February 26, 2024
Can't believe I found reading about the Woman's movement in '70s America could be so fascinating. Also changed for ever my understanding of Jimmy Carter.
September 18, 2016
Dominic Sandbrook is a British historian who specialises in examining the recent past, and here he examines political and social aspects of the turbulent 1970s in the United States, with a theme of the rise of what he calls the populist right, including the growing influence of conservative religious groups. He writes in an easy style, with occasional acerbic comments that are the privilege, if you like, of the outsider – someone observing and commenting on another nation's culture.
In some respects, this period is about freedoms sought for by some, for instance by women that are opposed by others, including other women. There are various kinds of social unrest resulting from wars and other overseas crises, economic chaos including sharp rises in unemployment and the collapse of manufacturing, coupled with might be seen as inadequate leadership, with those nominally in charge not necessarily holding the support of the parties they represent and their administrations being startlingly incompetent at times, particularly that of Jimmy Carter. The latter was a surprise in many ways to this reader, in his 20s in this period and, as an outsider, inclined to support the Democratic Party, without knowing all that much about how it operated, who was in charge and why.
The main theme of the book is the discontent expressed by conservative groups, mostly but not all evangelical Christians of some kind or other, but usually from towns and cities a distance from feminists and others seeking changes to society that were a challenge to long-held beliefs. The change-makers were also better educated and less inclined to the jingoism of American exceptionalism. Issues also included what could be read in schools and seen elsewhere. Here the role of technology played a part, particularly television.
Sandbrook points out that not all religions were as one on these issues, at least at first. Abortion, for instance, was seen initially as a Catholic issue for evangelicals, who in any case weren't favourably disposed to Catholicism anyway. Paradoxically too, Jimmy Carter identified himself as a conservative and was publicly religious, something quite startling for me to view from afar as Australian politicians, no matter their religious prejudices (and there were many) didn't make the kinds of claims Carter did. Australians tend not to invoke God and country as a general principle.
The book is broadly chronological, although Sandbrook digresses every so often to say something about the future, which mostly works. Much of his material is also from key players talking or writing after the fact. I found it insightful and entertaining and learned a lot. It was an advantage to have memories of the key events and have impressions confirmed, challenged, and elaborated on.
One of the things that came to mind in reading this book were what seem to be clear similarities between what was debated in this period and what is being debated in the same country in 2016. Funnily enough, the conservative right on both occasions is being led by men who are not obviously religious in Reagan and Trump, but that this doesn't seem a problem for believers.
In some respects, this period is about freedoms sought for by some, for instance by women that are opposed by others, including other women. There are various kinds of social unrest resulting from wars and other overseas crises, economic chaos including sharp rises in unemployment and the collapse of manufacturing, coupled with might be seen as inadequate leadership, with those nominally in charge not necessarily holding the support of the parties they represent and their administrations being startlingly incompetent at times, particularly that of Jimmy Carter. The latter was a surprise in many ways to this reader, in his 20s in this period and, as an outsider, inclined to support the Democratic Party, without knowing all that much about how it operated, who was in charge and why.
The main theme of the book is the discontent expressed by conservative groups, mostly but not all evangelical Christians of some kind or other, but usually from towns and cities a distance from feminists and others seeking changes to society that were a challenge to long-held beliefs. The change-makers were also better educated and less inclined to the jingoism of American exceptionalism. Issues also included what could be read in schools and seen elsewhere. Here the role of technology played a part, particularly television.
Sandbrook points out that not all religions were as one on these issues, at least at first. Abortion, for instance, was seen initially as a Catholic issue for evangelicals, who in any case weren't favourably disposed to Catholicism anyway. Paradoxically too, Jimmy Carter identified himself as a conservative and was publicly religious, something quite startling for me to view from afar as Australian politicians, no matter their religious prejudices (and there were many) didn't make the kinds of claims Carter did. Australians tend not to invoke God and country as a general principle.
The book is broadly chronological, although Sandbrook digresses every so often to say something about the future, which mostly works. Much of his material is also from key players talking or writing after the fact. I found it insightful and entertaining and learned a lot. It was an advantage to have memories of the key events and have impressions confirmed, challenged, and elaborated on.
One of the things that came to mind in reading this book were what seem to be clear similarities between what was debated in this period and what is being debated in the same country in 2016. Funnily enough, the conservative right on both occasions is being led by men who are not obviously religious in Reagan and Trump, but that this doesn't seem a problem for believers.
May 4, 2015
Ever since I read "Never Had It So Good", his first volume of post war British political, social and cultural history, I've been hooked on Dominic Sandbrook's writing. He has developed a formula (in the nicest possible sense) to bring together events and opinions of people who lived through them mixing freely important events with smaller, personal, incidents which illustrate moods and trends. Apart from politics and current affairs, he delves extensively into the literature, music and film of the times he is discussing. All of which has the effect of recreating for the reader a vivid and compelling picture of the times.
"Mad as Hell" predates his works on British history and the formula wasn't quite in place at the time. Although the familiar style is here - informative, discursive, quietly analytical and yet eminently readable - the formula isn't quite in place. As its subtitle indicates, the book is heavy on US politics and whilst there are references to music, it is a less culturally inclusive work than its British-based successors.
If you've enjoyed his other books you will enjoy this one. And if you are interested in the book's subject matter you will find it illuminating whether you read more Sandbrook or not. A definite recommendation for the casual or more specialised reader.
"Mad as Hell" predates his works on British history and the formula wasn't quite in place at the time. Although the familiar style is here - informative, discursive, quietly analytical and yet eminently readable - the formula isn't quite in place. As its subtitle indicates, the book is heavy on US politics and whilst there are references to music, it is a less culturally inclusive work than its British-based successors.
If you've enjoyed his other books you will enjoy this one. And if you are interested in the book's subject matter you will find it illuminating whether you read more Sandbrook or not. A definite recommendation for the casual or more specialised reader.
September 29, 2012
I was born in 1971 and one of my first political memories was coloring a poster in grade school welcoming the American hostages back home. As such, having only a vague recollection of that decade, I really enjoyed this political and social overview of the 1970's (Nixon resignation to Reagan inaugural). Ford comes off as a very decent man who lost because of the Nixon pardon, weak economy, and abysmal debate performance ("No Soviet domination of Eastern Europe"). In retrospect, Ford probably deserved to be reelected. Carter comes off as moralistic, morose, and basically alienating everybody in sight. Carter lost reelection because of a disastrous economy, hostage crisis, and quite frankly because nobody really liked him. Carter, however, was not the liberal that modern conservatives make him out to be. Carter referred to himself as a conservative Democrat and actually paved some of the groundwork for Reagan by reducing federal spending on discretionary programs while raising defense spending. The story of the ERA and the conservative backlash is also worth reading. The premise being that ERA was done in by liberal naivete and conservative distortions and fear mongering. Again a worthy read and good overview of this decade.
June 28, 2015
Perhaps it requires an Englishman to see America with an outsider's perspective. Sandbrook, the author of a series of books about post-war Britain, takes an interesting look at America in the six year span that encapsulates nearly everything we think about "the 1970's", starting with Nixon's resignation and ending with Reagan's inauguration.
The general thesis is that the economic hardships of that time (the incredibly deep recession of 1974-1975, and the recession plus inflation of 1979-1981) frightened the daylights out of many Americans, hardening their hearts and turning them from the New Deal/Great Society's "We're all in this together" mindset, into a "I'm only looking out for me and mine" cynicism. Adding fuel to the fire was the spectre of forced busing (deliberately moving kids from predominantly white schools into predominantly black schools, in the name of "equality"), and the growing women's and gay liberation movements, all of which were "turning society upside down". Add to that the most naturally unlucky president of the 20th century, Jimmy Carter, and you've got a decade that's made for the history books.
The general thesis is that the economic hardships of that time (the incredibly deep recession of 1974-1975, and the recession plus inflation of 1979-1981) frightened the daylights out of many Americans, hardening their hearts and turning them from the New Deal/Great Society's "We're all in this together" mindset, into a "I'm only looking out for me and mine" cynicism. Adding fuel to the fire was the spectre of forced busing (deliberately moving kids from predominantly white schools into predominantly black schools, in the name of "equality"), and the growing women's and gay liberation movements, all of which were "turning society upside down". Add to that the most naturally unlucky president of the 20th century, Jimmy Carter, and you've got a decade that's made for the history books.
September 6, 2013
The book explains how the events of the 70s, following on the heels of the turmoil of the late 60s, led to the rise of the political right in the US. I lived through this period of history and have my own ideas what happened, so I was afraid the book wouldn't ring true. It seemed like a fairly objective rendition of what happened. It did place a lot of blame on the left, but did so in a way that didn't attack but sought to understand the reasons why they acted as they did. And it didn't just portray the right as saints, like some books do. I found it challenging to some of my perceptions. I read this book on vacation through the national parks of Utah, which were stunning, but I could hardly wait to get back to my room at night to read the next chapter.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews