Debating the 1960s: Liberal, Conservative, and Radical Perspectives

by Michael W. Flamm, David Steigerwald

The conventional interpretation of the 1960s emphasizes how liberal, even radical, the decade was. It was, after all, the age of mass protests against the Vietnam War and social movements on behalf of civil rights and women's rights. It was also an era when the counterculture challenged many of the values and beliefs held by morally traditional Americans. But a newer interpretation stresses how truly polarized the 1960s were. It portrays how radicals, liberals, and conservatives repeatedly clashed in ideological combat for the hearts and minds of Americans. Millions in the center and on the right contested the counterculture, defended the Vietnam War, and opposed civil rights.

Debating the 1960s explores the decade through the arguments and controversies between radicals, liberals, and conservatives. The focus is on four main areas of contention: social welfare, civil rights, foreign relations, and social order. The book also examines the emergence of the New Left and the modern conservative movement. Finally, it assesses the enduring importance of the 1960s on contemporary American politics and society. Combining analytical essays and historical documents, the book highlights the polarization of the decade by focusing on the political, social, and cultural debates that divided the nation then and now.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Politics

222 pages, Paperback

First published August 30, 2007

Reviews

[Ai Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Used for teaching. I'm not sure either half of the book does a good job of explaining liberalism to students, but the Liberal/Radical debates section especially does not do a great job; it's unclear to students the difference between liberals and radicals as they're being defined in this book, much less more broadly. The Liberal/Conservative section does a little better, but fails to put the definition in conversation with a longer history of liberalism to contextualize it for students. Additionally, the Conservative section plays the debate so even as to overlook certain aspects--the "social order" section mentions the "possibility" of racism in thinking through these sets of policies. It could maybe be paired with Imani Perry's work out of Vexy Thing: On Gender and Liberation about "order" and Nixon's language, but otherwise underplays the policies to students who don't have a larger grasp of the kind of hidden racialized language in these claims.

Overall I'd say it does an okay job; the primary sources are a little superfluous given that we're also using a primary source reader that covers SDS, the Great Society, and the New Right, but ymmv on that front.

[Renée Terrebonne Finch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for a class. I took a class with the author of the book, and it was fantastic. I really appreciated that the authors interpreted the events of the sixties from multiple perspectives. I learned a ton!

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Including actual speeches/documents added to the book overall. Nothing like reading primary sources to get a real feel for the historical figure/event being discussed.
Good information on the rise of conservatism in the 1960s-- not how many "see" the 60s.

[Sabrina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wasn't a huge fan, but that's more of a personal issue (I don't care for US History to begin with) rather than a reflection of the book, which is pretty good for its purpose.

[Cordellya Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love that this book includes the extra documents referenced in the essays. Read the second essay, on conservatism, first. It is the best of the two.

[Piker7977 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good survey of 1960s political discourse and the events that framed the debates. Do not expect elaborate descriptions of the figures, conflicts, and events of the era. The sections only give general information but they provide a good context to a reader unfamiliar with the ideological arguments of the times. The documents at the end of each section are relevant and echo the authors' arguments. It is a little disheartening to realize how little political discourse has progressed in the past 50 year.

[Jason Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's history, so I have to give it three stars. And Michael Flamm is a scholar and stand-up guy and professor. But it's narrative and expository, which by itself is a bore. I'll take it over bad interpretive history, but it's still a bore.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short review of the sixties, with the original primary sources included. While strolling down memory lane, it was still eye opening.

[Jon]

co-written by a prof at my alma mater