Hardhats, Hippies, and Hawks: The Vietnam Antiwar Movement as Myth and Memory

by Penny Lewis

In the popular imagination, opposition to the Vietnam War was driven largely by college students and elite intellectuals, while supposedly reactionary blue-collar workers largely supported the war effort. In Hardhats, Hippies, and Hawks , Penny Lewis challenges this collective memory of class polarization. Through close readings of archival documents, popular culture, and media accounts at the time, she offers a more accurate "counter-memory" of a diverse, cross-class opposition to the war in Southeast Asia that included the labor movement, working-class students, soldiers and veterans, and Black Power, civil rights, and Chicano activists. Lewis investigates why the image of antiwar class division gained such traction at the time and has maintained such a hold on popular memory since. Identifying the primarily middle-class culture of the early antiwar movement, she traces how the class interests of its first organizers were reflected in its subsequent forms. The founding narratives of class-based political behavior, Lewis shows, were amplified in the late 1960s and early 1970s because the working class, in particular, lacked a voice in the public sphere, a problem that only increased in the subsequent period, even as working-class opposition to the war grew. By exposing as false the popular image of conservative workers and liberal elites separated by an unbridgeable gulf, Lewis suggests that shared political attitudes and actions are, in fact, possible between these two groups.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, Labor

272 pages, Paperback

First published April 12, 2013

Reviews

[Craig Werner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hardhats, Hippies and Hawks isn't a perfect book; the academic framing is intrusive at times and Lewis's handling of the cultural elements (movies, tv) is a tad superficial. I wish she'd included music in the mix, not just because that's my obsession but because it's relevant. Part of her argument hinges on the mis-representation of working class attitudes in our cultural and political spheres, and, while I think she's right, I also think that mixing in Bruce Springsteen, Marvin Gaye and Dion (to scratch the surface) would have been useful when she reflects on the possibilities.

For all that, this is an important book, in some ways crucial to rethinking the Sixties. The title invokes the familiar stereotypes (grounded in the brutal attack of hardhats against a NYC protest march in May 1970) that pit working people against elitist liberals and hippies. As Lewis demonstrates very well, that's at best half the story. Yes, the antiwar movement took root on college campuses and opponents of the war frequently had condescending attitudes towards those who didn't share its moralistic and intellectual analyses of the war. In a war where, as Christian Appy's shown in Working Class War, the burden was carried largely by working class families, the occasional attacks on the troops, combined with rhetoric that questioned basic American values, created very real tensions between working people and *some* opponents of the war.

That *some* is key. In fact, and absolutely counter to the myth, Americans with grade school educations were *more* likely to oppose the war than were those with high school educations. And college educated white males from the upper/middle classes were consistently the war's strongest supporters. The evidence is clear and convincing. One of the keys is not confusing "working class" with "white working class." The other is giving the GI anti-war movement the importance it deserves. The vast majority of veterans who came together in organizations like VVAW and actions like Dewey Canyon III were working class. Unlike the SDS activists who played a constructive role early int he war before the ideological fragmentations that rendered the group irrelevant after about 1967, the anti-war GIs didn't have to reach out to the working class. They *were* the working class. Similarly, while Vietnam wasn't the driving principle of the Civil Rights or Black Power movements, anti-war attitudes were much stronger in black communities than anywhere else. And the Chicano movement *did* place Vietnam at the center; the Chicano Moratorium, probably the single most important event in the Chicano movement, was explicitly directed at Vietnam.

Put it all together and the notion of working class support of the war dissolves into pure myth. While white union members--the "hardhats"--often disliked the counterculture, that wasn't the same as supporting the war. Another of Lewis's contributions is making it clear that union leaders, especially the disastrous George Means, took stances that were far to the right of the rank and file, whose opinions on the war covered the entire spectrum. The hardhat image, deployed and furthered by Nixon, Agnew and Reagan for their own political ends, has led to near-total amnesia about the radical union activism that emerged at the end of the 1960s and was a major part of the labor story in the early 1970s. (See Jeferson Cowrie's Staying Alive for the story of labor during that period.)

Despite it's flaws, Hardhats, Hippies, and Hawks is a necessary corrective to the ideologically driven right wing myths that demonize the anti-war movement.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

This had some good ideas behind it, but was poorly executed. It was trying to be too many things- history, sociology, and media analysis- and did none of them well. It relied too much on secondary histories, had some facts wrong (spotted a few errors just based on my own knowledge), and didn't do a great job of supporting its arguments. I think the author was also trying to relate the Vietnam antiwar movement to the movements of the early 2000s, but didn't do enough to make that work. It also was distracting from the original point, especially in a not very long book. This would have been a better article than book.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This dense little book will fundamentally change the way you think about the antiwar movement. I didn't always love Lewis's style - it tends to be overly academic - but her argument is persuasive and surprisingly far-ranging despite the book's short length.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

absolutely incredible book... meticulous and nuanced...read it