Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972

4.16 of 5 stars 4.16 · rating details · 2,320 ratings · 357 reviews

Told with urgency and sharp political insight, "Nixonland" recaptures America's turbulent 1960s and early 1970s and reveals how Richard Nixon rose from the political grave to seize and hold the presidency. Perlstein's epic account begins in the blood and fire of the 1965 Watts riots, nine months after Lyndon Johnson's historic landslide victory over Barry Goldwater appeare...more Told with urgency and sharp political insight, "Nixonland" recaptures America's turbulent 1960s and early 1970s and reveals how Richard Nixon rose from the political grave to seize and hold the presidency. Perlstein's epic account begins in the blood and fire of the 1965 Watts riots, nine months after Lyndon Johnson's historic landslide victory over Barry Goldwater appeared to herald a permanent liberal consensus in the United States. Yet the next year, scores of liberals were tossed out of Congress, America was more divided than ever, and a disgraced politician was on his way to a shocking comeback: Richard Nixon.

Between 1965 and 1972, America experienced no less than a second civil war. Out of its ashes, the political world we know now was born. It was the era not only of Nixon, Johnson, Spiro Agnew, Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern, Richard J. Daley, and George Wallace but Abbie Hoffman, Ronald Reagan, Angela Davis, Ted Kennedy, Charles Manson, John Lindsay, and Jane Fonda. There are tantalizing glimpses of Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, and even of two ambitious young men named Karl Rove and William Clinton -- and a not so ambitious young man named George W. Bush.

Cataclysms tell the story of "Nixonland" Angry blacks burning down their neighborhoods in cities across the land as white suburbanites defend home and hearth with shotgunsThe student insurgency over the Vietnam War, the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and the riots at the 1968 Democratic National ConventionThe fissuring of the Democratic Party into warring factions manipulated by the "dirty tricks" of Nixon and his Committee to Re-Elect the PresidentRichard Nixon pledging a new dawn of national unity, governing more divisively than any president before him, then directing a criminal conspiracy, the Watergate cover-up, from the Oval Office

Then, in November 1972, Nixon, harvesting the bitterness and resentment born of America's turmoil, was reelected in a landslide even bigger than Johnson's 1964 victory, not only setting the stage for his dramatic 1974 resignation but defining the terms of the ideological divide that characterizes America today.

Filled with prodigious research and driven by a powerful narrative, Rick Perlstein's magisterial account of how America divided confirms his place as one of our country's most celebrated historians.(less)

Hardcover, 881 pages

Published May 13th 2008 by Scribner

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

Best American History books

69th out of 769 books — 1,035 voters

The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore H. White

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by Hunter S. Thompson

The Washington Post's Best Political Nonfiction 2010

8th out of 39 books — 21 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

May 12, 2011 Kemper rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2011, history, non-fiction, politics, damn-dirty-hippies, usa-usa

Call us America the Schizophrenic.

How else can you explain a country that embraced a right wing philosophy after a devastating terrorist attack that led to blindly following a moron for eight years, yet finally overwhelmingly rejected those politics by voting in the liberal opposition only to seemingly overnight turn into a nation of screaming maniacs who consider spending a dime on anything but guns and prisons a waste of tax payer money?

The cold comfort I got from reading Nixonland was that Am...more

like 38 likes · see review

Oct 02, 2009 Mike rated it 4 of 5 stars

I'm halfway through this book, and Perlstein's punchy and sweeping account (zeroing in on specific incidents, rack-focusing back out to a big picture) is a pleasure to read, let alone chockfull (hey--what is a "chock"? what does it look like half-empty?) of insights, disturbingly acute analytical asides, a smart-ass view of history that is also determinedly smart. And it reminds me why I think strong political journalism/history matters, and why political campaigns matter.

On the contentious thre...more I'm halfway through this book, and Perlstein's punchy and sweeping account (zeroing in on specific incidents, rack-focusing back out to a big picture) is a pleasure to read, let alone chockfull (hey--what is a "chock"? what does it look like half-empty?) of insights, disturbingly acute analytical asides, a smart-ass view of history that is also determinedly smart. And it reminds me why I think strong political journalism/history matters, and why political campaigns matter.

On the contentious thread under another review (by the very smart Brian) of another book (Wilentz's _Age of Reagan_), another smart commenter noted that he didn't think politicians matter--the system perpetuates itself, and the cults of personality around politicians covers up their complicity in that system. In short, we get distracted by the spectacle of a political campaign, and the ostensible conflict of our political process, in ways that dislocate us from any substantive political engagement or critique. I disagreed when I read it, the comment stuck in my craw. So I want to toss out two rebuttals here. (And, yes, they belong here, because Perlstein's excellent book is exemplary proof of both. But if you want a focused review of _Nixonland_, come back later or seek it elsewhere.)

One, I think our narratives about politics provide the foundations which inform and form our relationship to systems (capitalism, education), issues (civil rights, global warming), communities local and larger. The political process--the campaign--is indeed a largely-symbolic act, but its symbolics are not mere distraction but instead form the core social rituals which define (or reaffirm, or reframe, or rewrite) a sense of who "we" are.

Nixon matters (as do Obama, McCain, Clinton) because the presidential hopeful tries to steer through (or be perfectly, zeitgeistly steered by) the inchoate ideas which structure American consciousness. We vote for someone, in the booth, but what we're doing is looking in the mirror, and trying to vote for who we see (or, as often, who we want to see). NixonLAND is the title, and Perlstein nails it: we're drawn in not so much to the politician who changes the system but the politician who embodies some sense of "Self." The man--or, as now, and ever after?, the woman--on the ballot is the mirror of the masses; what a political campaign illustrates is the on-going conflict over competing symbolic visions of American identity. So, I think politics matters, because it's representative. Less about picking the person who will represent "us" as a leader than the person who represents what we want that "we" to be. Perlstein's book is a brilliant evocation of candidacies as crucibles for social identities.

His book is also a sterling example of how to write a narrative which is itself "inside" the meta-narrative struggles of such political processes. It's crucial that we see through the bullshit which passes for analysis in most mainstream political journalism. David Brooks recently noted an already-tired truism about Obama, that B.O. needs to break down his elitism, that he needs to hang out with people who eat at Applebee's. Eugene Robinson, hearing that, snapped back that he had trouble taking such sociology seriously from critics who themselves don't ever eat at Applebee's. Exactly. The echo chamber of most punditry and too much political journalism not to mention much political history is people ostensibly standing outside the fray, commenting on it; the goal is to fight the estrangement and alienation from such symbolic battles by forcing readers (viewers, listeners) into the fight. I try to seek out those writers (like Perlstein, like Hunter Thompson, like Richard Ben Cramer) who are revelatory in their ability to define the clash of narratives, to see the forest for the trees, to stay inside the narratives (and not to pretend to some objective outsider position "commenting on" the process)--to see the crowd as well as the candidate, to see the history informing a given moment's "big issue," to avoid cheap-seat sociology and remain on the floor of the convention. People who engage in, don't just comment on, the symbolics. Because such political journalism brings you into the political struggle--makes you care, makes you define your own stance in/against the narrative. (Say what you want about Limbaugh and the even more pernicious radio nuts--they GET it. And so do Jon Stewart and Colbert, whose explicitly ironic engagements do far more to engage the critical attention to such narratives than 1000 columns by Brooks.) Perlstein's got a point of view, but not an ax to grind--he recognizes that political symbolics become real and illuminating when engaged politically.

Avoid CNN, and Chris Matthews. Read the Perlstein. As a complement, go read Hunter Thompson's _Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72_ and Robert Coover's infuriating and hilarious _Public Burning_. (less)

like 16 likes · see review

Aug 18, 2011 Chris rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I enjoyed Nixonland very much, as Perlstein managed to intermingle many events and personages that were new to me with those of which I was considerably more aware, and to do so with an effortlessly breezy, witty, and readable style; however, this is a long book, and as the pages piled past it felt long—although it never dragged or stalled, it did eventually prove exhausting in the sheer accumulation of details on electioneering and strategizing, rioting and reacting, Vietnam maneuvering and Was...more

like 12 likes · see review

Jul 22, 2011 John rated it 4 of 5 stars

I put Perlstein’s Nixonland on my "to read" shelf, after I read a very effective and thorough review of the book in the September 1/8, 2010, edition of The Nation. Perstein's book is a must-read for any one interested in the Republican Party's calculated obliteration of whatever tatters and remnants of New World democracy still informed the American polity during the years that Perlstein examines.

I found that this book, although a great read, as one would expect from a much honored journalist,...more I put Perlstein’s Nixonland on my "to read" shelf, after I read a very effective and thorough review of the book in the September 1/8, 2010, edition of The Nation. Perstein's book is a must-read for any one interested in the Republican Party's calculated obliteration of whatever tatters and remnants of New World democracy still informed the American polity during the years that Perlstein examines.

I found that this book, although a great read, as one would expect from a much honored journalist, contains a major flaw - at least from a historian’s perspective. Although Perlstein apparently felt he needed the devices of "national consensus" and its antagonist to enhance the drama in his narrative, he didn't establish at the outset that such a consensus existed for Nixon to assail and extinguish. And I doubt that such a consensus obtained at all. Goldwater and consensus in the same sentence?

Besides, I don't think Perlstein needed these tricks. It's quite sufficient, and dramatic, to demonstrate, which he did by the way, how Nixon and the Republican Party entered upon/exploited the politics of rage and bigotry, following the lead of George Wallace and fellow white supremacists, to entice into their fold angry, white Americans, mostly racist, cultural and moral degenerates in the best of circumstances. He set the stage for decades of distractions that allowed Republicans to cut taxes for their own, i.e. corporate and financial elites, the wealthiest Americans, in order to transfer the cost of government, including the costs of empire and the national debt, to middle and working class Americans, the "little people" who pay taxes at all (to quote the late and long-lamented Leona Helmsley), and allowed, even encouraged, American elites to plunder the Treasury and the world. I like especially Perlstein's discussion of Nixon's exploitation of organized religion and multitudes of Bible-beating cultists to consolidate the power of American elites. None of this entirely captivating account requires a red-herring.

In the end, a fine, although willfully and unnecessarily flawed, book. It only reinforces my fundamental view that the US, the country that has presented the world most of its wars from Korea and Vietnam to the presidential tantrums of Iraq and Afghanistan, has always had the leadership it deserves.
(less)

like 4 likes · see review

Aug 01, 2008 Pglusman Glusman rated it 5 of 5 stars

I am of the age where, until his death in 1994, I considered Nixon to be the omnipresent evildoer. He was around when I was born, and he was still around 47 years later. You couldn't get rid of him. I felt the boomers would be more correctly called the "Nixon Generation." I was too young to remember him vilifying Helen Gahagan Douglas, but I do remember him as Vice-president getting (literally) stoned in Caracas. I remember him running againt Pat Brown for Governor. His, "you won't have Nixon to...more I am of the age where, until his death in 1994, I considered Nixon to be the omnipresent evildoer. He was around when I was born, and he was still around 47 years later. You couldn't get rid of him. I felt the boomers would be more correctly called the "Nixon Generation." I was too young to remember him vilifying Helen Gahagan Douglas, but I do remember him as Vice-president getting (literally) stoned in Caracas. I remember him running againt Pat Brown for Governor. His, "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" speech. His secret plan to end the Vietnam war. Every word that came out of his mouth was a lie. And when it got exposed in 1973-1974 it was so much fun to watch the hearings on television and see his weasels and gofers up before the Senate Watergate Committee turning on each other as Nixon solemnly stated: "I am not a crook." That was when congresspersons and senators had some guts and would bring up a sitting president on charges.

Perlstein was born in 1969, the first year of the Nixon presidency. He writes, however, like he was in the middle of it. His narrative is lively, ironic, and ultimately, depressing. The country, in the years since, has not progressed but regressed. Nixon, in retrospect, looks like a wise man. Despite his "enemies list" he seems a civil libertarian compared to what we have now. Surely he is responsible for the beginnings of what American politics have descended into, but other, more skilled practitioners have dug the hole far deeper than Milhouse could ever have dreamed.

Perlstein takes us through the years 1964-1972 as if they had happened yesterday. That was when America fractured into what Perlstein terms the Franklins and the Orthogonians, representing very roughly the in crowd and the out group and Nixon's Whittier College. We are now red and blue staters.

Perlstein, with a few exceptions, gets it right. (The SDS chant was "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win" and not "Ho Chi Minh is gonna win."

A must read for anyone who wants to understand late 20th century history. My only quibble is that Perlstein stopped with the election of 1972, and did not bring it forward to the more fun and amazing Watergate scandal times of 1973 and 1974, when we all watched the hearings and marveled at Sam Ervin ("I'm just an old country lawyer") digging up things we could not believe.

Now everyone takes that same dishonesty, immorality and dirty tricks in the white house as base-line normality.

(less)

like 3 likes · see review

Jun 15, 2008 John rated it 2 of 5 stars

This book is nowhere near the caliber of Perlstein's earlier book on Goldwater. "Before the Storm" told the story of the origins of the New Right as a social movement, and did so with aplomb and panache. "Nixonland" by contrast is an often-tedious rehash of a lot of things we already knew about the poisonous person and political institution that was Richard Milhous Nixon.

Perlstein goes in for the unmistakable psychological contours of Nixon the man, the special combination of sycophancy and res...more This book is nowhere near the caliber of Perlstein's earlier book on Goldwater. "Before the Storm" told the story of the origins of the New Right as a social movement, and did so with aplomb and panache. "Nixonland" by contrast is an often-tedious rehash of a lot of things we already knew about the poisonous person and political institution that was Richard Milhous Nixon.

Perlstein goes in for the unmistakable psychological contours of Nixon the man, the special combination of sycophancy and resentment that characterizes the "authoritarian personality." He also goes in for the gruesome day-to-day events of the Nixon White House, unable to tear himself away from observing every detail like a horrified motorist observing a bloody ten-car pileup. It is familiar territory: Nixon the paranoiac and anti-Semite; Nixon the wounded political sado-masochist; Nixon the petty and venal gangster who enjoyed nothing more and indeed relished the thuggish plots against his ever-lengthening list of "enemies," always trying to outdo and one-up even his own loathsome "ratfuckers" in his enthusiasm for the intrigue of common hoodlums.

It is familiar to all of us, in fact, because it is all quite notoriously there in The Tapes, but Perlstein can't manage to bring anything fresh and exciting to the material, so that this lengthy book comes perilously close to being downright boring. And it all leads to a conclusion that is downright trite, seeming to castigate "extremists on both sides" for the much-hyped "divide" in US politics. Perlstein -- who is a leftist or at least a left-liberal -- slides unbelievably into a too-easy moral equivalence, where the stupidity and self-marginalizing narcissism of the US left is somehow assigned the same moral responsibility for our current state as the downright murderous behavior of the right that he has just spent over 700 pages painstakingly describing. It would not go too far to say that Perlstein emerges here as the kind of "consensus" historian he also likes to ridicule, even if he positions himself at the left edge of the consensus.

I should add that the book's one redeeming feature is that it cuts through the evasions that always mark discussions about the US right's appeal since Goldwater, George Wallace, and Nixon: Perlstein is well-aware that it was, and is, all about racism. This is a welcome contrast to other commentators of a liberal (and -- in the case of Thomas Frank -- even a leftist) bent, who puzzle over the conundrum of why a critical mass of working-class white voters consistently votes against their own interests, and chalks up this behavior to Republicans' skillful manipulation of a mishmash of cultural resentments, none of which is necessarily any more important than the other. The "God, guns and gays" mantra that has been around since Reagan, or the "acid, amnesty and abortion" attacks that buried McGovern for Nixon's benefit, all fit this narrative. By no means does Perlstein consider these appeals unimportant (indeed, as we've seen, a major problem with this book is Perlstein's insistence that everything but the kitchen sink that turned up in his research has to be thrown in). But Perlstein is too smart and too much of a real leftist not to understand the primacy of white supremacy in all of this, and to his credit he does not simultaneously patronize and flatter the rank-and-file voters of the "backlash" by pretending that their concerns are cultural anxieties to be "understood" if not embraced; rather, his narrative does draw out the unmistakable continuity of the "Silent Majority" that has dominated politics in this country for forty years with the much-earlier traditions of the night-rider and the lynch-rope. Strom Thurmond's guiding role in Nixon's rise gets the prominent place it deserves. For that I'd like to give the book two-and-a-half stars, but its flawed overall structure can't allow me to give it three.(less)

like 1 like · see review

Feb 05, 2009 Bookmarks Magazine added it

Perlstein's writing earned high marks from almost all critics; even the conservative columnist George Will, whose review in the New York Times was at times quite negative, called the book "compulsively readable." Other reviewers' opinions seemed to depend on what they were looking for from Nixonland. Some accepted Perlstein's book as a work of synthesis, a much-needed historical exploration of why today's politics are so vitriolic. Others were more skeptical of Perlstein's choice to center the b

...more

like · see review

Jan 23, 2009 Stop added it

Read the STOP SMILING review of Nixonland:

When it’s written well, with style and wit and invention, I prefer nonfiction to any other form of writing.

You won’t find those qualities on display in mainstream journalism. You have to look on the fringes or dig into the recent past: when Rolling Stone was printed like newspaper and committed to left-field literary journalism; back when Esquire featured some of the great writers of the century; when you could tell it like it is from the rooftops of Ram...more

like · see review

Jan 13, 2009 Jeff rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: biography, non-fiction, history

This is a lengthy, but very detailed, discussion of how the modern political landscape came to be. Writing too much about it would rehash the book, but the author comes from his background as an analyst of Barry Goldwater's effect on the FDR-Truman consensus to discuss how Nixon leveraged, and extended, social divisions and the rifts in American public consciousness to create his political career.

If you think you fully understand the modern culture wars, and everything that went on in the 1960s,...more This is a lengthy, but very detailed, discussion of how the modern political landscape came to be. Writing too much about it would rehash the book, but the author comes from his background as an analyst of Barry Goldwater's effect on the FDR-Truman consensus to discuss how Nixon leveraged, and extended, social divisions and the rifts in American public consciousness to create his political career.

If you think you fully understand the modern culture wars, and everything that went on in the 1960s, you don't... until you've read Nixonland.

Surprisingly, the book does actually acknowledge Nixon as a pitiable, if not exactly sympathetic, character. He did seem to believe in himself as a man with a higher calling--setting the correct international policy and stance towards the world--but it's hard to take this too seriously when you consider everything else he did, from the dirty tricks and crimes to his widely migrating domestic positions and even manipulation of foreign affairs (e.g. the prosecution of the Vietnam war), in order to ensure he could grasp the reins of power. At some point you have to question your status as divinely ordained charioteer if you feel it's necessary to crash into rocks to keep your hold...

As for the book itself, Perlstein's writing style is personable, interesting, and engaging. He treats his narrative voice self-consciously, frequently presenting events speaking from Nixon's perspective (or that of his prejudices), giving us a certain insight into the man's psychology (while disavowing that this book is meant as a psychobiography, which it definitely is not). However, his narrative voice may be a bit too glib and winking for some readers. One habit I found particularly annoying was his insistence on referring to major political figures by diminutive versions of their first names, even when those are not the names by which they are famous, and in one or two cases where this introduces some ambiguity. Also, he's quite ready to throw in references to some famous figures as asides, with no explanation. This poses less difficulty for the reader who is already a political junkie with a good knowledge of the last forty years' history, but I can imagine, in fifty years' time, that it might make the book unreadable in parts. And I swear I'll scream if I see another politician described as "glad-handing," whatever that even means.

In all, this book is highly recommended. One word of warning: if you care about politics in America, it will likely be quite depressing, or at least make you want to tear your hair out. Sadly, no matter how much dramatic tension the narrative pulls together, we all know that in the end the bad guys won this one. Steel yourself for it.(less)

like 4 likes · see review

Dec 04, 2012 Joseph rated it 5 of 5 stars

Profound, if not entirely free of bias, social history of America in the 60s and 70s. Perlstein's real feat is to illuminate many of this history's minor characters: John Lindsay, the long-forgotten mayor of New York who tried to parley his disastrous tenure in City Hall into a Presidential bid; Pat Brown, Jerry Brown's old-school pol father, who was a popular governor of California before running into the Reagan buzzsaw; a union boss named Meany who helped torpedo the hapless George McGovern's...more

like · see review

Mar 31, 2012 Bob Schmitz rated it 4 of 5 stars

I loved this book. As a 59yo I was in junior high school and high school during this period and remember superficially most of the things described in the book.Much of my memories had been sanitized and simplified. Also, I did not understand the things going on in the background nor the overall patterns and flow of history.

At Whittier Nixon felt resentment towards the "Franklins," a select student club filled with the wealthy, most connected, best looking men, the BMC's. He organized a counter c...more I loved this book. As a 59yo I was in junior high school and high school during this period and remember superficially most of the things described in the book.Much of my memories had been sanitized and simplified. Also, I did not understand the things going on in the background nor the overall patterns and flow of history.

At Whittier Nixon felt resentment towards the "Franklins," a select student club filled with the wealthy, most connected, best looking men, the BMC's. He organized a counter club called the Orthogoians where the he and other outsiders gathered. Interestingly the were many athletes in his club but they were the linemen not the quarterbacks. Perrlstein carries this chasm between the elite Franklins and the striving, resentful Orthogonians throughout the book. Nixon discovered the power of speaking to resentments and fears of the "Silent Majority" to build his political power base and the resurgence of the Republican party in middle class America especially in the South. There are huge racist overtones in his playing to the fears of these groups about black unrest, the inner city race riots of the late 60's with his theme of "law and order." It was a shock to me to read what prominent politicians and other throughout the country said publically about race, A city counsel in IL I think refusing to change the name of "Niggerhead Mountain and Lake because "they were logging terms and not racist." Or Wallace speaking in the North about blacks complaining life was unfair because "they didn't get enough watermelons" as a kids." We have made some progress there.

The book is incredibly researched, made easier by the Watergate tapes so that Perlstein can describe what was said in a newspaper at 8AM, what he and Haldeman said in private at nine and then what Nixon spoke about at 10. The deceitfulness, callousness, and illegalities of Nixon's regime are described in grotesque detail. His conduct of the Vietnam war was only for domestic political consumption aimed at getting him reelected. He and Kissinger blocked any success in Paris so as to prolong the war. And to think that Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize. Johnson does not fair well in this regard either.

One of the main takeaways for me was the authors explanation of the ideas and emotions of the two side of the great divide in American politics between Franklins (right wing Republicans) and the Orthogonians (liberal Democrates) that remains today where each side cannot fathom the beliefs of the other and feels that allowing power to the other side will lead to the destruction of our country. Each side is experiencing their lives and the world in very different ways.

This is a great read especially for folks in my age group who remember all this stuff.
(less)

like · see review

Feb 22, 2012 Adam Snider rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book was recommended to me on the strength of my love of great biographies, and in particular of biographies in which the life of the subject is used as a window onto a particular time and place. A friend to whom I'd raved one too many times about the works of Taylor Branch and Robert Caro suggested I give Nixonland a try, claiming that it would "top" any competition. And it comes very close. Perlstein's style is much more journalistic (indeed, large chunks of the book seem to be as much ab...more This book was recommended to me on the strength of my love of great biographies, and in particular of biographies in which the life of the subject is used as a window onto a particular time and place. A friend to whom I'd raved one too many times about the works of Taylor Branch and Robert Caro suggested I give Nixonland a try, claiming that it would "top" any competition. And it comes very close. Perlstein's style is much more journalistic (indeed, large chunks of the book seem to be as much about the American press establishment and its relationship to Nixon as about Nixon himself) tone to his work than Branch or Caro do, with a narrative that darts rapidly about from person to person, event to event, in a way obviously meant to evoke the emerging 24-7 flash-and-bang television culture against which Nixon so often floundered, eventually mastered, and always hated. Which isn't saying much, since as Perlstein never fails to point out, Nixon hated virtually everyone and everything around him.

Nixon is treated with scant (albeit occasional) empathy, appearing mostly in the first few chapters, where the roots of his neuroses are traced, as is traditional, to childhood and early striving against an establishment which gave him scant notice or aid. The case the author makes - that Nixon harnessed and empowered the terrible partisan energies of 60's to crack up the Democratic Party and lead us into an age of virulent partisan upheaval is convincing, but not overwhelming - I think that I'll need to track down Perlstein's earlier book on the Goldwater campaign to explore this in more detail, given that it's the latter who is traditionally seen as beginning the modern age of the Culture Wars. Nixon certainly rode the wave, and this book makes a good case that he tried to direct it, but also provides significant evidence that he was unable to do so nearly as effectively as others (particularly his contemporary and successor to the mantle, Reagan). Nixon was, despite his dark side, in many ways following a traditional liberal script in the way he saw government's relation to society - he wanted it big, centralized, and unchallenged. His similarities, personal and presidential, to LBJ are mentioned but not explored in all that much depth.

The style can, unfortunately, be sometimes disorienting and even irritating, especially during the long sections on the three presidential races - 1964, 1968 and 1972 - which form the bookends and midpoint of the volume. The focus is not on Nixon's presidency per se but on its effects (almost universally destructive, according to Perlstein) on the United States, so anyone interested in an in-depth treatment of Nixon's foreign policy is going to be disappointed. And the end of the book is oddly truncated - Watergate is only dealt with in detail up through the end of the 1972 presidential campaign, and Nixon's final fall is dealt with as an afterthought. I suspect that this was an intentional move to highlight Perlstein's main point - that Nixon altered the American political landscape so deeply that his fall was, in a sense, irrelevant to his legacy, or even acted to reinforce, rather than to purge, the darkness cast by his career over the national landscape. Quoting Bob Dole, he notes that we still live in the "age of Nixon."

These weaknesses aside, it's an excellent book gripping and also frightening - the brutalities and paranoias of the age are brought out in stark relief in a book whose pages include a whole catalogue of shootings, beatings, bombings and sniper fire, along with the less bloody but furious vituperations that stained the airwaves and newspapers during the '60s era. As someone who was born in the '80s, the picture painted is both distant and yet disturbingly familiar, although it also offers the reassurance that we've been through this nightmare of partisan rage before, and survived as a nation. Nixon may define our age, but the nation he sought to shape to his ends has outlived him, both as a political actor an as a mortal human being. There is comfort to the notion that we have been scarred, but strengthened, by our passage through Nixonland.(less)

like · see review

Jan 02, 2012 Ron rated it 4 of 5 stars

I just finished “Nixonland” by Rick Perlstein. It is a sweeping history of the United States between the years 1965-1972. Nixon himself is the central character, but the book is not really about Nixon. Rather, it is about the political conditions that allowed a seemingly dull, washed-up ex-Vice President to recover from defeats at runs for the Presidency and Governorship of CA to become a twice-elected President of the US.

Those political conditions are indeed harsh. Although the country has elec...more I just finished “Nixonland” by Rick Perlstein. It is a sweeping history of the United States between the years 1965-1972. Nixon himself is the central character, but the book is not really about Nixon. Rather, it is about the political conditions that allowed a seemingly dull, washed-up ex-Vice President to recover from defeats at runs for the Presidency and Governorship of CA to become a twice-elected President of the US.

Those political conditions are indeed harsh. Although the country has elected a Democratic government in a sweeping fashion in 1964, merely one year removed from theat election it seems to be falling apart. The book opens with the Watts riots in 1965. The country had not seen inward-pointing violence like this in 100 years. The African-American community of Watts was self-destructing; worse, the instigators of the riot threatened to take the violence to the “quiet” communities.

Nixonland tells the story of the split in America that followed the debate about what to do to pacify the riots, and how it was Nixon who figured out how to exploit that split for political advantage. Perlstein calls one group the Franklins; these are the élites, the liberals, who insist that the riots were caused by lack of resources and opportunities. The other group, the Orthogonians, the “Silent Majority” as Nixon would call them, were the ones who saw lawlessness and chaos and wanted hellfire punishment for and protection from the mobs.

Anger and frustration turned into outrage as the Franklins, who controlled the government at the time, passed and attempted to enforce civil rights legislation. And it seemed that with each new advantage given to the rioters’ communities, more riots occurred. Detroit and Newark followed Watts in going up in flames. More aid to the cities, in the form of a War on Poverty, gave more resources to the poor at a time when they were asked to fight an increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam.

It was Nixon who saw that the Orthogonians supported the war and wanted the riots to stop at any cost. They also did not want racial integration or their taxes raised to fight poverty. And they didn’t appreciate looking like fools in the Franklins’ press.

Sound familiar? For whom was Sarah Palin introduced into this year’s Presidential race? Palin is the ultimate Orthogonian, and is playing the part for her fellow Orthogonians. Do I even need to draw the analogies?

More than anyone, Nixon understood the Orthogonians; hell, he was one. He was a master of stoking and exploiting the differences between the Franklins and Orthogonians while appearing to unite the country. This was possible because this division was not equivalent to the division between Democrat and Republican. Nixon cared little for party lines, as his appointment of Democrat John Connally as Treasury Secretary shows. Rather, it was the desire to beat the Franklins into the ground, at any cost, was what motivated Nixon and his circle.

Nixon of course didn’t invent these divisons. It’s really not clear when they formed: they could be a legacy of the North-South divisions. But the fact is, voting patterns in 1966 became apparent to Nixon and dictated how he would prosecute his path to the Presidency. Democrats swept in 1964, taking many Republican seats. After the riots of 1965 and 1966, however, those seats lost to the Democrats in 1964 were regained in 1966, and then some.

These Orthogonians played by the rules. They worked, married, raised kids, bought a house, paid taxes and their bills, and lived the American dream. Suddenly, the law and order they inherently understood was breaking down around them. Worse, there were Franklins on the TV set, in the newspapers, telling them that they were at fault. Telling them that the system favored them over the negro. Telling them that the war in Vietnam against evil Comunism was itself evil. Telling them that it was the smelly long-haired hippies with the foul mouths and disgusting sexual practices that were good and cool and better than them.

These people didn’t see themselves as racist, but they saw what happened to Watts, and Newark, and Detroit, and they didn’t want that to happen to them. The whites got away and were able to gate themselves off. But then the courts established that the schools had becomes segregated, especially in the North where such things just didn’t exist, and busing ensued. Control was being lost.

Nixon was able to seize on the anxiety and fear of this environment and exploit the divisiveness that such feelings encouraged. The Republicans were also a more disciplined party, so the more liberal members would still support Nixon as the candidate, while the Democrats were literally in higgledy-piggledy in 1968. Although Nixon was not able to bring in many new Republicans in 1970, the Democrats proved themselves in even more disarray in 1972 with the McGovern candidacy.

I think Perlstein’s point is that this division exists today. Call it what you will: Red State/Blue State, liberal/conservative, etc. But it’s there. Reagan may have been a great president, but the resurgence of the Republican party as it exists today is not his doing, it is Nixon’s. Nixon may be seen as an effective liberal by his party today, but his uniting of the Orthogonians against the Franklins is his enduring legacy. And one that must be understood to understand what drives opposition to Barack Obama, and the methods behind the prosecution of that opposition.(less)

like · see review

Sep 21, 2011 Patrick McCoy rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

I found Rick Perlstein’s meticulously researched, exhaustive biography of Richard Nixon, Nixonland: The Rise Of A President And The Fracturing Of America, absolutely fascinating. It basically spans from his first campaign in 1966 and ends after his last campaign in 1972. The book is about how the politics of the 60s created the culture wars between left and right that still thrive in today’s politics. Perlstein is amazing in how he weaves in the stories of political players who later come into p...more I found Rick Perlstein’s meticulously researched, exhaustive biography of Richard Nixon, Nixonland: The Rise Of A President And The Fracturing Of America, absolutely fascinating. It basically spans from his first campaign in 1966 and ends after his last campaign in 1972. The book is about how the politics of the 60s created the culture wars between left and right that still thrive in today’s politics. Perlstein is amazing in how he weaves in the stories of political players who later come into prominence-people like Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, john Kerry, etc. it is fascinating how Nixon cultivates the silent majority and feeds on their fears promising law and order. The fear stemming from the inner city riots that began with Watts in 1964, the Vietnam war and the fight against it at home, school busing and sexual education, civil rights, radicals bombing buildings, vigilante shooting and beating radicals, assignations, and the drugs are just some of the issues frightening Americans in those times. Nixon capitalized on these fears and was elected twice. I also like how Perlstein commented on how certain films had a cultural effect on society; movies like Bonnie and Clyde and its display of violence as well as Nixon’s favorite the jingoistic Patton. Perlstein also comes up with an effect metaphor of the social divide from Nixon’s college days that helps explain Nixon’s behavior and motivations: the battle between “The Orthogonians” and “The Franklins.” In Nixon’s college days there was a club of the well bred wealthy, good looking types for whom everything came easy called “The Franklins.” Nixon resented them and formed his own club of the strivers who had to double their effort to succeed: “The Orthogonians.” Kennedy-a textbook Franklin. This massive text (a hefty 748 pages not including the end notes and bibliography) was a page turner nonetheless. I was slowed down by its weight and left it at home on many occasions to lighten my load. I think it is essential reading for anyone interested in the 60s or American politics.

(less)

like · see review

Feb 01, 2011 Larry Buhl rated it 5 of 5 stars

There is a reason searing biographies and movies are made about Nixon and not about, say, Gerald Ford or Dwight Eisenhower, or Carter. Unlike those amiable nice guys, Nixon was a true head case and his deep, deep neuroses were used to his advantage, to carve out the politics of personal grievance that shaped the political landscape for two generations. He was a paranoid borderline sociopath but almost pitiable in how his lifelong feelings of inadequacy were heightened in an arena where he really...more There is a reason searing biographies and movies are made about Nixon and not about, say, Gerald Ford or Dwight Eisenhower, or Carter. Unlike those amiable nice guys, Nixon was a true head case and his deep, deep neuroses were used to his advantage, to carve out the politics of personal grievance that shaped the political landscape for two generations. He was a paranoid borderline sociopath but almost pitiable in how his lifelong feelings of inadequacy were heightened in an arena where he really was at a distinct disadvantage, money-wise and family-wise. It's like great, sickening performance art, watching a man wound himself on purpose. Without putting Nixon on the couch too much, Perlstein does a good job of exploring how Nixon's obsessive, relentless drive combined with his rage/anguish at not having been born into the lucky sperm club (like his nemesis JFK), and how those twisted views not only haunted him and caused his downfall, but were channeled and used to tap into the same latent fears in the common men and women who would become his supporters. "You think you're not getting ahead? You're right. 'Those people' (the liberals, the blacks, the Harvard elite, the gays, the Jews, war protesters, etc.) hate America and they're taking rights away from you, and they hate you AND they're making fun of you hard working people who love America. I understand you, I am one of you, and I hate these people too and I say it's all right to hate them." That's the unspoken, and sometime spoken, heart of Nixon's appeal - reaching out to tap fear and xenophobia (mostly fear) and sadly this politics of personal grievance (versus the politics of issues) been honed to a fine point and ubiquitous today. It was LBJ who said, when he signed the civil rights legislation, that he lost the south for the Democrats for decades. But it was Nixon who exploited that, with his infamous "southern strategy," a strategy that has been used by every R candidate since. (Was it just a coincidence that Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in a small Mississippi town known for nothing other than the murder of civil rights workers, calling for "states rights" - a dog whistle to bigots?) But I digress. This book is a fascinating portrait of a man and how he bent politics based on his very damaged psyche, and filled with all sorts of juicy "I never knew that" facts about history. (Did you know that in the aftermath of the Kent State shootings that the majority of Ohioans approved of what the national guard did because the protesters had... gasp, long HAIR?) I did not. (less)

like · see review

Dec 29, 2010 Leslie rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

This book taught me a great deal about the directions American politics has taken in the past few decades. It's not a biography of Nixon, but rather an examination of the shifts in American politics and culture from the early sixties to the early seventies, and Nixon provides a good lens through which to see those shifts. What we get in the mass media about the sixties is pretty rose-coloured these days, full of peace signs, civil rights, and idealism (prompting laments that kids these days aren...more This book taught me a great deal about the directions American politics has taken in the past few decades. It's not a biography of Nixon, but rather an examination of the shifts in American politics and culture from the early sixties to the early seventies, and Nixon provides a good lens through which to see those shifts. What we get in the mass media about the sixties is pretty rose-coloured these days, full of peace signs, civil rights, and idealism (prompting laments that kids these days aren't nearly as idealistic and nonmaterialistic--hah!), or caricatured (stoned hippies, goofy clothes, people dancing funny to old music--the stuff of retro nights or costume parties). We all like to think that, if we'd been there, we too would have been fighting the good fight, cheering on Martin Luther King, Jr, hoisting anti-war signs; WE wouldn't have been taken in by all that nasty racism and that grossly unjust, mishandled war. Really? Most people then were scared witless by the changes of the sixties that seem so charming or stirring to many now, and people who are scared witless do very stupid things, believe what seems comforting, are very easy for unscrupulous operators to manipulate. Nixon was very, very good at using people's fear (of uppity blacks, of smelly hippies, of pushy women's liberationists, of unpatriotic war resisters), at encouraging it and whipping it up, so he could put it to work in shoring up his own power; he could distract them from messy facts with canny stage managing, sabotage of the opposition, a willingness to tell any lie or do any dishonest deed, and a skillful use of their anger. So they let themselves be lied to, because the lies were more comforting and believing that their president and their military and political leadership were lying to them was too terrifying. And Nixon's approach has dominated the political scene ever since. Keep people angry, keep people afraid (of school busing and prayers in classrooms, of blacks and "wise Latinas", of gays who want to get married, of abortion, of affirmative action and "reverse racism," of vaguely defined terrorists whose primary characteristic is that they're different from us) stage manage the hell out of everything you do, leave nothing to chance, whip them up with enthusiasm about vague words and slogans (freedom! the dignity of marriage! tea parties!), and they might not notice as you rob them blind.

As much as I liked this book, I must make one criticism: the copyediting was frequently terrible. Really, a publisher like Scribner's should do better. If they have competent copyeditors on contract, none of them worked on this book. The errors are everywhere, errors I'd be ashamed to have missed if I were the copyeditor. Here's one small example (and there are many, many more): "The officers clamored roofward to hunt him down" (384). The word intended here is clearly clambered. One error like this is a minor problem (even the best copyeditors miss things), but the misused words, ungrammatical sentences, and tangled punctuation aren't occasional but typical. That aside, I think this book is essential reading for anyone interested in American politics or who is affected by American politics, as those of us who aren't American frequently are, whether we like it or not. (less)

like · see review

Oct 03, 2009 Don rated it 4 of 5 stars

This works as a summary of the Nixon years from 1962 through his re-election in 1972. As that era recedes in history and distance tends to blur our recollection, this book is a useful reminder of just how venal and, yes, psychotic Nixon was in his years as President. We forget how deep the political corruption of his reelection campaign ran and how dishonest he was with the public during his campaigns and his administration.

Perlstein is less successful in trying to draw parallels with our curre...more

like · see review

Aug 26, 2009 Terry rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

Yeaaah, this was somewhere between two and three stars for me, personally. It's quite well-written, which to me means intelligently written, or, written for an audience the author assumes is intelligent, which I appreciate. Occasionally though Perlstein lapses into these weird, almost conversational, sarcastic asides which seem out of place and sort of inappropriate for a work of history and politics. The book is EXHAUSTING in its detail of back-room politicking, so if you are deeply interested...more

like · see review

Apr 16, 2009 Christopher Carbone rated it 5 of 5 stars

In 1964 LBJ achieved the largest popular vote victory in Presidential history capping off the most liberal movement in America. Just 8 years later, Richard M. Nixon would win the largest electoral land-side in Presidential history, ushering in the most Conservative administration in American history. How did this happen?

From Watts to civil rights legislation; from Woodstock to the riots in Chicago, Nixonland is a look at how one of the most reviled men in American history tapped into the inner d...more

like 1 like · see review

Feb 13, 2009 Billy rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 20th-century-1960s

A brilliantly written, left-leaning polemic against the rise of Nixonian conservatism, Perlstein examines why a democratic electorate awared LBJ an overwhelming victory in 1964 but, in 1972, awarded an almost similar victory to Nixon’s brand of conservatism. He focuses on three main points.

1. American’s voted for LBJ because to do anything else would “court civilizational chaos.” Either years later, they voted for Nixon for the very same reason. In short, LBJs stance on poverty and civil rights...more

like · see review

Nov 19, 2012 Gobasso rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

I think this is a great work of history, both political, sociological and cultural. As stated in the introduction the author tries to answer the question,"Why did so many people vote overwhelmingly for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and then eight years later did the same for Richard Nixon". While not a biography of Nixon he is the central subject during those turbulent eight years. The other being America itself and what was happening to its society and politics. Since I was just a child during this de...more

like · see review

Jan 11, 2011 John Martin rated it 5 of 5 stars

If you're looking for a thorough explanation of the American political landscape in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, buy this book. Then read it (which I finally did, after staring at it for six or seven months as it sat on my bookshelf).

I've never been satisfied with the labels used to try to explain how we're divided. Conservative and liberal, red state and blue state, and even Republican and Democrat all miss the mark, and all seem to mean different things to different people. Conserv...more If you're looking for a thorough explanation of the American political landscape in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, buy this book. Then read it (which I finally did, after staring at it for six or seven months as it sat on my bookshelf).

I've never been satisfied with the labels used to try to explain how we're divided. Conservative and liberal, red state and blue state, and even Republican and Democrat all miss the mark, and all seem to mean different things to different people. Conservatives say they're for smaller government, but then support government expansion when their candidate is in office. Liberals say they're for the little guy, and then favor giving unaccountable bureaucrats power to experiment with the lives of millions. The contradictions are everywhere.

This books lays out the true story of what actually separates (most of) us into our two camps, and what has divided us since Nixon emerged on the scene. On one hand, you have those who feel they are smarter than everyone else, and therefore should be trusted with power. On the other hand, you have everyone else-- those who feel they are being taken advantage of and told how dumb they are by the first group.

Nixon was the first major candidate that made a career fighting (exploiting?) the second of these two types of voter. He and his "silent majority" we're sick of being kicked around by those with the fancier upbringing (think JFK), and for the first time, they were going to make a political issue of it. First Nixon went after alleged communists and Hollywood types (they're not like us-- they hate America). Then he went after those pushing the Great Society programs (they're not like us-- they're lazy, or enable those who are lazy). Then he went after hippies and students (they're not like us-- they're privileged and can afford to skip class to protest a war they'll never have to fight). Nixon was the candidate for the other people-- those who felt the world changing and leaving them behind, and who resented that they were never consulted.

Today, Nixon's followers are still with us, and have been with us since Dick gave his final double-victory sign upon leaving office in '74. They voted for Reagan after he made Carter and Mondale look like wimpy elitists. They tried (unsuccessfully) to label Clinton as a out-of-touch liberal. In 2000, they supported George W., after he successfully convinced the country that he was a simple-spoken everyman who understood them, despite the Ivy League pedigree and the aristocratic upbringing. The fact that Bush Jr. promised more government barely seemed to matter to self-proclaimed conservatives; Bush's opponent was Al Gore. Gore was the quintessential elitist, and didn't deserve the support of regular people.

Today, Nixon's legacy lives on, through Sarah Palin and the increasing numbers of Republican candidates who run from any position that might make them seem too smart for their own good. The death tax, environmental legislation, healthcare reform and a slew of other initiatives that Nixon himself either did or could have supported are now complete non-starters for Nixon's descendants. If a conservative candidate can label an issue as the brainchild of the liberal elite, it doesn't matter how much sense it makes-- no candidate hoping to get the Nixon voter will go anywhere near it.

Goldwater may have given a voice to pure conservatives, but it was Nixon who expanded what it meant to be a "conservative," and therefore made it possible for a Goldwater candidate to get elected. By the time Reagan ran in 1980, millions of working-class Democrats and independents abandoned their roots and began voting against their economic self-interests-- not because they necessarily agreed with what Reagan stood for, but because he made them feel that he was on their side, and wouldn't talk down to them.
(less)

like 1 like · see review

Jan 23, 2013 Kay rated it 5 of 5 stars

For the mission that Perlstein set out to accomplish, namely assessing how America could go from voting in such a large majority for LBJ to voting for Nixon in an equally overwhelmingly way, this book is nearly perfect at accomplishing that. This book is not a biography of Richard Nixon. I think Perlstein's writing is best summed up by something he wrote for the Baffler:

I write long history books that are published with photos of presidents and presidential aspirants on the covers. The photos a

...more

like · see review

Jun 26, 2011 David rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I figured I should read this after a while on the shelf. A good book, a great theory and premise, but for me, It was like I had already read it.
At The Economist, "Lexington" was a big fan of this book, and requested we do an interview/podcast. So we did. Mr Perlstein was an excellent guest and a good interviewee and I think the final productions was good. At the time, I had, sadly not read the book,so I quickly hit the reviews and did a skim. Now that I have, it was good, but like I said, it wa...more

like · see review

Feb 01, 2010 Eric Kibler rated it 3 of 5 stars

The adventures of Tricky Dick, from his first congressional race to the 1972 presidential election and the emergence of Watergate. Not only that, but the historical and political events of the day that provide the contextual backdrop. This is a very long book, but is chock full of information. Reading this took me back to the political science classes of my youth. Everyone is here: JFK, Dr. King, Malcolm X, LBJ, Eugene McCarthy, HHH, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Gerry Ford, John Kerry, Jane Fonda,...more

like · see review

Apr 04, 2013 Jason rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: nixon-watergate, presidential-campaigns

This is a massive book. It is the story of America book-ended by the elections of 1964 and 1972. Two things are seen again and again throughout this epic tale of mid-century America: Richard Milhaus Nixon and the Vietnam War. The story begins in the smoke and flames of the 1965 Watts Riots and concludes with the first rumblings of the only scandal (thus far) to topple an American Presidency: Watergate.

So much is brought up in this book that it strikes me as to why hasn't someone bought up the fi...more

like · see review

Apr 21, 2012 Lori rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: social-issues-economics-politics, political-science, history

Dense, subtly partisan, but fairly un-put-downable combination Nixon bio and history of the 50's through the early 70's in the U.S., examining not merely Nixon's personal triumphs and travails but the volatile national zeitgeist from Eisenhower through Nixon's first administration, including examination of not just the presidents and major-party candidates but other figures/phenomena ranging from George Wallace and Lester Maddox to Bobby Seale, Tom Hayden, Up With People and Roger Ailes. None of...more

like 1 like · see review

Feb 07, 2012 Karl H. rated it 5 of 5 stars

"Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together. Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said, "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about you."

-Hunter S. Thompson

Truth be told, the country was not always so divided. Following the New Deal, the nation was moving increasingly to the left- culminating with LBJ's landslide victories and Great Society. It seemed at o...more "Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together. Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said, "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about you."

-Hunter S. Thompson

Truth be told, the country was not always so divided. Following the New Deal, the nation was moving increasingly to the left- culminating with LBJ's landslide victories and Great Society. It seemed at one point that the Republican party might be wiped out, so strong was this Liberal Consensus. But roiling beneath this was a growing discontent from two factions: what Richard Nixon would call the "Silent Majority" and the increasingly radical racial and anti-war factions on the left. And this discontent would blow the country apart in a decade of massive violence. Violence on both sides, as it turns out, since the radical right dished out riots and domestic terror just as often as the radical left.

Nixon didn't invent this divide. What he did coin was a cynical, vicious and scorched earth politics that dominates the political discourse to this day. In Nixon's world, there were many enemies, and none greater than the truth. Concerned about the possibility of peace in Vietnam before the election costing him votes, he leaked information to the Vietcong that they could expect better terms once he was elected, undercutting peace negotiations. To him, winning the election was more important than the welfare of the country. Nixon, as it turns out, was a greater crook than most people would imagine. He wiretapped his opponents regularly and leaned on the FBI and IRS to monitor and audit his opponents. Nixon invented the concept of politics as a war- one where any measures were justified to beat the enemy, no matter how illegal or harmful to the nation.

Nixon's other gift to us was his political jujitsu, his ability to insinuate a lie, and then when called on his lie, turn around and play the victim. He was marvelous at inventing attacks against himself and turning them against the unsuspecting opponent, who thought they sensed weakness. As Thompson wrote in his obituary, “He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws.” That was Richard Nixon all over. He would let a few protestors into his rallies just so his legions could shout them down in front of the cameras. And make no mistake, this effect was planned. After the disastrous JFK debates, Nixon left nothing to chance when it came to the mass media. He had one of the most staged campaigns in history. Nearly all of it took place in TV studios where all of the audience was hand-picked and the press was not allowed. It was he who popularized the idea of the mainstream media, and he who put the most pressure on the media to cover him his way or lose access.

Perlstein demonstrates all of this about Nixon with a strong interesting voice and impeccable sourcing. He manages to make the turmoil of those times seem alive, and relates it to America today. Even though this is a massive book, it kept me rapt the entire time. Nixon is gone now. Most people prefer to forget the Republican between Goldwater and Reagan, the man who won the biggest electoral landslide in American History. Unfortunately, his legacy still lives on in the politics of the far right today, more so than either of the other presidents. We are still living in Nixonland.
(less)

like 1 like · see review

Jun 08, 2010 John rated it 5 of 5 stars

Great, compelling, engrossing history of the late 60s. In 1964 LBJ and the Democrats won a landslide election. The Republicans were split and in disarray. The Dems passed the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, and it looked like the country was pretty unified. But Vietnam and the Civil Rights protests caused a civil war in the Democratic party, Nixon was elected in 68, and re-elected in a landslide in 72. This book is about how the country split in that time period, betw...more

like · see review

May 01, 2009 Kelly rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a long, meandering, but ultimately gratifying exegesis of a major paradigm shift in the American political landscape. It hop-scotches its way through the 1960s (mainly) to reveal how Richard Nixon and others lassoed pockets of aggrieved conservatives into a durable political coalition. It is both biased and honest: an emerging hallmark of the latest style of journalistic political writing. It's also written with complex and confusing quirks of syntax that, while creative, tend to slow th...more

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (12)

More editions...

Videos About This Book

Add a comment

Genres

History

163 users

Politics

105 users

Non Fiction

93 users

History > American History

32 users

Biography

30 users

Politics > Presidents

14 users

Literature > American

8 users

Presidents > Us Presidents

5 users

Politics > Political Science

4 users

Literature > 20th Century

4 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Rick Perlstein

Eric S. "Rick" Perlstein (born 1969) is an American historian and journalist. He graduated from the University of Chicago with a B.A. in History in 1992. He is a former writer for The Village Voice and The New Republic and the author of numerous articles in other publications. Until March, 2009 he was a Senior Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future where he wrote for their blog about the fail...more

More about Rick Perlstein...

Books by Rick Perlstein

Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus

The Stock Ticker and the Superjumbo: How the Democrats Can Once Again Become America's Dominant Political Party

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

The Tribes of America: Journalistic Discoveries of Our People and Their Cultures

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Nixonland: Americ...

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Nixonland: America's S...

“Richard Nixon was a serial collector of resentments.” — 2 people liked it

“Being hated by the right people was no impediment to success. The unpolished were everywhere the majority.” — 2 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972
avg rating	preview: Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972 Goodreads rating: 4.16 (2320 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393575.Nixonland?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347835266l/2393575.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393575.Nixonland?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972 by Rick Perlstein[/url]

Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website