"The best thing about this book is Pearlstein's descriptions of key but forgotten moments of the mid sixties to early seventies American trainwreck. The grousing ex-Vice President gets a tongue-lashing from a fresh-faced Roger Ailes, McGovern only allow reporters to source his desire to jettison Thomas Eagleton as that of a senior McGovern aide and Jimmy Stewart sweats at the 1972 Republican convention podium because the air conditioning had been sabotaged. There are hundreds of brief but revealing portraits that convey a sense of real people caught up in a crazy time.

As history, his thesis seems a bit forced; these critical years formed our own times. While this maybe true, I wondered how much he left out in order to convey this belief. He doesn't build an argument idea by idea but image by image. In a sense, "Nixonland" plays out like a Michael Moore documentary, compelling, absorbing, immediate but a bit too clever and clear to be completely believable.

But it is a great read and for anyone who finds Nixon one of the most fascinating political characters of the 20th century, Pearlstein gives the man a grandeur, a desperation, an unhinged quality that feels right. He has the great insight that Nixon was truly popular, loved even. He wasn't just an actor conveying an appealing blandness that made him seem safe among the crazies like Lester Maddox or the charismatics like Bobby Kennedy or the overheated like Hubert Humphrey. Nixon got people to root for him as if he was their surrogate most tellingly by creating a club for all the outsiders not welcomed by the elites who called themselves the Franklins. He named the club the Orthogonians and used it as a platform to win his college's student body presidency. It was an approach he used again and again, marshalling the forces of mass resentments to ever more political power.

But there is one thing I found myself bothered by as I read the book. How can you explain the violence of that time? There was civil rights, the student protests, police brutality, the killings in Vietnam and none of it fit neatly together but gave the era a crazy, recklessness, sensibility but it was an energized society very different from the atomized culture of today that is refracted through flat screen TVs and computer monitors. Did that violence lead to exhaustion and a reaction that made subsequent generations dubious of angry expressions of radicalism? Dubious of all radicalism? Did that violence more than anything lead to the apathy of the present day where torture and denial of due process and wars waged without scrutiny are the legacy? I feel like this disturbing question which Pearlstein's vivid and detailed reporting raises, is more than he wants to tackle yet it seems to me to be central to understanding our times."

"The best thing about this book is Pearlstein's descriptions of key but forgotten moments of the mid...

"Perlstein intertwines an analytic history of Richard Nixon's political career with a description and analysis of the forces that tore asunder the broad-based consensus that seemed to have emerged with Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory in 1964. He presents a vast panorama of people and events, which are interesting in themselves and serve to elucidate both the upheavals that convulsed American society between 1965 and 1972 and the motives and character of one of the most complex political leaders of the twentieth century (a man who was repulsive, pathetic, and yet, in an odd way, appealing). Perlstein accomplishes all three functions that a historian should perform. He narrates what happened, provides plausible explanations, and enables the reader to relive it.
However, I think that Perlstein only partially proves his basic thesis. Only four times in American history has a presidential candidate received over 60 percent of the popular vote: Harding in 1920, Roosevelt in 1936, Johnson in 1964, and Nixon in 1972. Harding's victory was followed by a decade of Republican dominance, which was ended by the Depression. Roosevelt's victory was followed by sixteen years of Democratic dominance. It was ended by the combination of an economic boom, which deprived Depression-era economic issues of their appeal, and by an immensely popular military hero. Just eight years elapsed between Johnson's and Nixon's victories. Nothing in that period altered the way most Americans lived to anywhere near the same degree as the Depression and post-World War II economic boom. So how did Nixon pull off this stunning reversal?
Perlstein answers this question in the subtitle of his book: by "the fracturing of America." Nixon succeeded in expressing the resentments of those Americans who felt that "liberals," "cosmopolitans," and "intellectuals" ignored their needs and concerns and scorned their ideals and loyalties. Nixon could achieve this both because he shared these resentments and because he had an uncanny ability to discern the shifts in American attitudes that were taking place below the surface of events. ("Subterranean" is one of Perlstein's favourite words when he describes this ability (e.g., pages 213, 232, 509).)
I think that Perlstein is partially correct. However, he himself points out a serious problem with his thesis. Beginning in late 1969, Vice President Agnew launched an onslaught against "an effete corpse of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals" and "nattering nabobs of negativism." What Agnew was supposed to be doing was giving a voice to what Nixon called "the silent majority." But, as Perlstein points out, in the Congressional election of 1970, nearly all the candidates whom Nixon favored lost. Similarly, Nixon's overwhelming victory in 1972 was accompanied by a decisive Congressional victory for Democrats, and especially liberal Democrats. Perlstein does not point out that, by contrast, the victories of the three other presidents who were elected with over 60 percent of the popular vote were accompanied by huge majorities for their parties in Congress and in state and municipal elections.
Perlstein ends his book with the election of 1972. The last two sentences are "How did Nixonland end? It has not ended yet." It is true that the ideas, loyalties, and resentments that emerged between 1965 and 1972 are still basic to the way the Democrats and Republicans and the American people in general define themselves. However, when the Republicans gained control of Congress it was under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, who eschewed Agnew's and Nixon's vituperation and projected a non-confrontational, benevolent image. Then the Democrat Bill Clinton finally responded decisively to two of the complaints that alienated many Americans from liberalism: welfare and crime. He did not respond to them in the way liberals constantly urged, by solving their root causes. His administration simply stopped giving money to welfare recipients. With regard to criminals, federal, state, and municipal governments followed the precept of the proverbial barroom bigot: "Lock them up and throw away the key."
Inexplicably to me, Perlstein pays remarkably little attention to another basic factor that emerged between 1965 and 1972 and that turned many Americans against liberalism: institutionalized anti-White discrimination (i.e., affirmative action). Instead, he concentrates on Nixon's pandering to those who were hostile to Black demands. He never mentions the fascinating fact that it was Nixon who personally, and in opposition to Congressional Democrats, imposed affirmative action throughout American society (S. Farron, The Affirmative Action Hoax, pages 287-8, 374).
Perlstein chronicles in detail Nixon's shameless lying and horrific misuse of presidential power. However, on his telling, Nixon was no worse than any other national political figure of the 1960s and early 1970s. The Kennedy brothers (John, Robert, and Edward), Lyndon Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, Hubert Humphrey, and John Lindsay were just as unscrupulous as Nixon. According to Perlstein, only George Romney and George McGovern were politically honest; and he depicts the former as a fool and the latter as an incompetent bungler. Indeed, with regard to Nixon's normalization of relations with China, Perlstein grants to him both courage and wisdom (page 572: "a pragmatic understanding few others were wise enough to reach"); and Perlstein grants those attributes to no other politician.
Other readers will come to other conclusions. But few will be able to read this book without engaging in a continuous dialogue with it.
"

"Perlstein intertwines an analytic history of Richard Nixon's political career with a description an...

"Ok, Ok, we all know that Richard Nixon was a "boring" person & president- -- -he was a 1950s 1960s nerd of the first order, but why does Perlstein"s 800 + page book need to be as equally boring as the person he writes about? During the course of this book, we have a walk thru of every character, ever listed on the front page of the NY Times or WAJ during the 50's & 60's, taking up your reading time. That being said, there are some good sections in the book depending on what your political beliefs are - -- But, the book is so long and so tedious that one gets saturated with "era reports" rather than in depth data on Nixon! Perlstein also exacerbates the problem by not supplying dates for situations and events he discusses. The reader forgets where in Nixon's "Energizer Bunny" carrer they are as the story unfolds. I expected this book to be on the level of Eisenhower or John Adams, but alas, it fails all the tests --It should be prescribed by every MD nation wide for patients suffering from insomnia -- -it is a sure cure! What we have here is a 250 page story expanded to 800+ pages --"

"Ok, Ok, we all know that Richard Nixon was a "boring" person & president- -- -he was a 1950s 1960s ...

"Earlier this month the New York Times Book Review asked a wide range of American writers what books they would recommend to the then three remaining candidates for President of the United States. Suggested titles ranged from classical literature such as ANNA KARENINA to books on health care and economics. Conspicuous by its inclusion as one of the few contemporary books on American politics was NIXONLAND by Rick Perlstein. It is an epic recounting of the political era that spanned the final third of the 20th century and continues to leave its footprint on our nation's politics and the forthcoming presidential election.

Perlstein has become a respected historian of the post-World War II American political scene. In 2001 he authored BEFORE THE STORM: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. As the title reflects, the focus was on the 1964 election battle between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. At the time, Johnson's landslide victory appeared to signal the beginning of a second New Deal era for American liberalism. But within one national election cycle, liberalism was on the wane and the movement nurtured by Goldwater seized control of American politics. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush would be the beneficiaries of the Goldwater movement. While Nixon's political career pre-dated the conservative movement, the political vacuum created by Goldwater's defeat also made possible Nixon's political rebirth.

The members of Nixon's political generation were the products of the Great Depression and the Second World War. Those experiences tempered their political philosophy and created a Republican Party that was forced to eschew economic policies identified with Herbert Hoover. Domestic politics was what elected Democrats, and Republicans were forced to become a party that built its foundation upon anti-communism. Nixon was a master at this game; using that platform he was elected first to the House of Representatives, then to the U.S. Senate and finally became Vice President. Narrowly defeated for President in 1960 by John F. Kennedy, he returned to California to seek the Governor's office in 1962. His defeat in that election resulted in his famous bitter concession when he lambasted the media and announced, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore." Those words, however, were a lie, and he immediately began to plot his return to the national political stage.

But despite its title, NIXONLAND encompasses far more than the story of our 37th President. After the election of 1964, the cadre of voters who had previously been faithful supporters of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal began to leave the party. Perlstein argues that white middle-class dissatisfaction with crime, civil rights and economic woes made Republicans out of a critical mass of Democrats. Nixon exploited that anger and political disenchantment with his "Southern Strategy" of 1968. Reagan and both President Bushes refined his work to cement a solid Republican political majority.

More than a book about politics, NIXONLAND is a brilliant narrative of the entire social, political and cultural history of an era that began with optimism after World War II and turned into post-war cynicism with Vietnam. The events of the '60s and '70s --- the politics, riots, wars and assassinations --- are detailed in an exquisite style.

Political upheavals such as the elections of 1912, 1932, 1964 and 1972 are often difficult to pinpoint with accuracy. Indeed, historians frequently must identify these cataclysmic events years after the fact. While Perlstein suggests that the political revolution detailed in NIXONLAND may remain with us for another generation, there are signs that he may be incorrect. It remains to be seen whether the election of 2008 between the hopeful politics of Barack Obama and the old politics of John McCain will emerge victorious. Perlstein will be ready to offer his analysis in a future political history, for which readers can be grateful.

--- Reviewed by Stuart Shiffman
"

"Earlier this month the New York Times Book Review asked a wide range of American writers what books...

"This book is just a terrific read. Almost every page has some shocking or outrageous detail: Nixon is bugging Kissinger, the Secretaries of State and Defense have to find out about administration policy by reading the newspapers, Mayor Daley is raiding McCarthy headquarters with police, hardhats are charging peaceniks during their lunch hours, the horrible killer Lt. Calley was getting 2000 letters of fan mail a day; it was probably the sickest, most dangerous era we've ever been through. Some pages had me laughing out loud about the endless insanity and corruption, some pages just shaking my head and thinking what a miracle it is that we came through that era with our democracy intact.

I lived through it but there is so much I have forgotten. I was at Washington University in the late 1960's but I forgot that they burned the ROTC down, twice, and I was in Chicago in 1968 but not in the battle zone. I do remember the horrible phone calls that filled the radio shows after the Kent State killings; the hatred people had for those who protested was unimaginable to me then and still is. One detail that the author doesn't mention is that one of those four innocent students killed at Kent State was an ROTC member and another was just a student going to class. But that didn't stop people from filling up the air waves with hatred or giving Lt. Calley, who murdered hundreds of innocent people in cold blood, a huge approval rating.

Can you imagine the president sponsoring and funding a burglary ring operating out the White House today? The burglaries actually achieved nothing, but the endless acts of sabotage of the campaigns of the Democrats in 1972, which made it almost impossible for them to present their message, were a hideous assault on our democracy. The ironic thing was that Nixon wanted to do so many other more drastic things to destroy his political opponents, like big time IRS audits, that even his criminal subordinates got cold feet.

In 1968 Nixon posed as a candidate with a plan for peace (like Eisenhower in 1952) while actually he was sabotaging the peace talks in Paris, telling the South Vietnamese to hold out and he'd get them a better deal. What I just can't understand is how the people could see their sons sent off to a senseless war for so many more years after it became clear that Nixon had no plan to end the war, and why people as a whole just stood by while literally hundreds of thousands of totally innocent civilians in Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam were killed in senseless bombing.

The real theme of this book, as I see it, is what was wrong with us. How did we ever let a guy like this in the Presidency, let alone re-elect him? And why were we so intolerant and so filled with malice toward those who disagreed with us? Maybe it's no exaggeration to say that we owe our democracy today to a burglar on the White House payroll named McCord who was so inept that he taped the locks on the doors within the Watergate horizontally instead of vertically so that the security guard noticed the tape and called the police (who finally responded the second time). "

"This book is just a terrific read. Almost every page has some shocking or outrageous detail: Nixon...