American Maelstrom: The 1968 Election and the Politics of Division

by Michael Cohen

In January of 1965, Lyndon Baines Johnson delivered his inaugural address as president from the steps of the U.S. Capital and announced his vision for an America that would soon see "an end to poverty and racial injustice." Johnson had been elected by a landslide over the conservative Barry Goldwater and, bolstered by the "liberal consensus," economic prosperity, and a strong wave of nostalgia for his martyred predecessor, John Kennedy, the new president would usher in the most ambitious government agenda since the early days of the New Deal. However, by 1968, merely three years later, everything had changed. Johnson's approval ratings had plummeted; the liberal consensus was shattered; the war in Vietnam splintered the nation; and the politics of civil rights had created a fierce white backlash. A report from the National Committee for an Effective Congress warned of a "national nervous breakdown."

The 1968 presidential election was thus caught up in a swirl of powerful forces and the eight men who sought the nation's highest office attempted to ride them to victory--or merely survive them. Eugene McCarthy focused the youthful energy anti-war movement; George Wallace, the working-class white backlash; Robert Kennedy, the mantle of his slain brother. Entangled in Vietnam, Johnson, stunningly, opted not to run again, scrambling the odds. The assassinations of first Martin Luther King, Jr. and then Bobby Kennedy seemed to push the country to the brink of chaos, a chaos reflected in the Democratic Convention in Chicago, a televised horror show. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, finally liberating himself from Johnson's grip, waged a tardy campaign that nearly overcame the lead long enjoyed by Richard Nixon who, by exploiting division and channeling the yearning for order, was the last man standing.

In American Maelstrom, Michael A. Cohen captures the full drama of this watershed election, establishing 1968 as the hinge between the decline of political liberalism and the ascendancy of conservative populism and the anti-government attitudes that continue to dominate the nation's political discourse, taking us to the source of the politics of division.

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

448 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 2016

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads' database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Porter Broyles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every four years, we are barraged with the notion that “This election is a pivotal election for the country.” In most cases, that is simply puffery. A few presidential elections, however, really do matter. The 1968 election is one of those.

Most people think about the 1968 election and think one of three things:
1) That’s the election Bobby Kennedy would have won if he hadn’t been assassinated,
2) That’s the election with the rioting in Chicago, or
3) How did Nixon win it?

In reality it is much more complex and intriguing than that!

In 1964, LBJ swept the electoral map and won the presidency on his own right. Although he had already served 5 years as president, he was still eligible to run for president again in 1968. While the Vietnam War was not going as well as America would have liked, he was still the prohibitive favorite to win re-election in November. But he chose not to run. The reasons presented in the book were cursory and it really made me eager for Robert Caro’s next book on LBJ, but the stated reason was so that he could negotiate the end of the war without outside pressure. I expect Caro to say more.

So suddenly, the presumptive Democratic nominee is not running for re-election. Whom does that favor? Robert Kennedy, the brother and arguably mastermind be JFK presidency? Hubert Humphry, the Vice President to LBJ? George McGovern? Eugene McCarthy? How does being Vice President to LBJ help or hurt Humphrey’s chances? Did Kennedy really have the inside track on the nomination? Would LBJ (who despised Bobby Kennedy) acted against Kennedy to deny him the nomination or the Presidency? And what happened after the Kennedy’s assassination? Then there is the whole ordeal with the riots in Chicago? What happened there?

Not to mention the Republican Party. Richard Nixon was running for president----again? Hadn’t he shown that he was best known for being the other guy? The alternative? While historians now argue that he might have won the 1960 election had it not been stolen, that view had not emerged by 1968. He was known for completely blowing his first debate with JFK. Then there was a Rockefeller. Would Rockefeller run? Or won’t he? Can he make up his mind? And who is this young California Governor, Ronald Reagan? Where did he come from and what might he do?

But our 1968 presidential election wouldn’t be complete without a major third party candidate! The Democratic Party was losing its grip on the South and the Republican Party had not yet established its grip there, so Alabama Governor George Wallace ran for President. Most know Wallace as the segregationist racist Governor of Alabama. To stop desegregation of public schools, Wallace famously stood at the entry way defying the National Guard to remove him. When he was term limited from running for Governor in 1967, he had his wife Lurleen Wallace run. Lurleen became the first “Governor” of Alabama---in reality she was little more than a figurehead for her husband.

So 1968, had three major candidates: 1) The successor to the LBJ legacy, 2) The poster child for “I’m the best alternative”, and 3) a white supremist.

The primaries for these candidates was where most of the action occurred, but the actual election was fascinating as well. Humphrey’s stood under LBJ’s shadow too long, but once he broke away from it, he started to gain ground on Nixon. Nixon held onto a slim victory. The electoral vote makes it look larger than it really was. Wallace won 46 electoral votes in 5 southern states. Humphrey won 191 electoral votes. Nixon won 301.

What is hidden in those figures is that had approximately 41,000 votes shifted from Nixon to Humphrey in Alaska, Missouri, and New Jersey, then Nixon would have lost the electoral ballot and the House of Representatives would have elected the president. The Democrats had a clear advantage in the House and Humphrey would have likely emerged as the president!

Strong 4 star review... might be raised to a 5 star review.

[Rob Neyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to know what happened in '68, this is probably your best bet, as Cohen's exhaustively researched the events leading up to the election. I think my only reservations are about the short chapter covering everything that's happened in American politics *since* '68, as those events are probably too complex to be fairly summarized in so few pages. Again, though, if you want to know about the presidential candidates in '68 and the election itself, this is outstanding work.

[Noah Goats · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 1968 election was a fascinating one. It was the last gasp for liberal Republicans with Romney running to a lead before falling apart early on, and Rockefeller stumbling his way to defeat at the convention. A fairly liberal republican (Nixon) was actually nominated, but Reagan took additional steps towards making the party his.

But the real drama was on the Democrat side, where Lyndon Johnson, facing surprisingly strong anti-war opposition from Eugene McCarthy, shocked the country by declaring that he wouldn't run for another term. It was also the election where Bobby Kennedy rose up to contend for the nomination with all his older brother's charisma and charm, only to be brought down by an assassin's bullet the night he won the primary in California. And then there's poor Hubert Humphrey, a pathetic figure who was picked by the Dems but then struggled to get out of Johnson's shadow.

Oh, and don't forget George Wallace, the Democrat who abandoned his party so he could run on a more explicitly racist platform, and chose the equally unbalanced Curtis LeMay as his running mate. These two crackpots were actually able to win a few states.

The whole election played out against a background of war and civil unrest (including the famously chaotic and violent Democratic convention in Chicago) and helped shape and define the Republican and Democratic parties as we know them today. This book is a political and historical page turner.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great book. Even though I knew a lot about this election, I still found the book informative, insightful - and also easy to read (which is never a bad thing).

Cohen's point is that a lot of current American political rhetoric and division got kicked off in 1968. In many ways, it created a political earthquake that we're still living with today. GOP moderates and liberals went into terminal freefall. The South and blue collar workers in general began swinging away from the Democrats. Talk of law & order really began national in this election cycle. Cohen even has a quote from one politico who flatly states it's never stopped being 1968 in America. He also quotes Newt Gingrich in 2012 using a bunch of anti-leftist, anti-San Francisco rhetoric that really does sound like it came out of 1968 directly. Most notably, Cohen says this was the beginning of the fall of mid-20th century liberalism. Democrats won big in 1968 on them, but people began pulling away from ideas that an active state could solve poverty, improve civil rights, help the general welfare. The GOP made those things sound like code words for helping blacks instead of whites. The GOP also learned that using their own code words were more effective in winning white working class support - which is why Nixon was more effective than George Wallace. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the lingering impact of 1968 is a point Cohen never makes: Trump. This book went to print before last year's election and Trump is never even mentioned in the book - but a lot of the things from the 1968 Nixon campaign could easily be applied to Trump in 2016. (Ironically, in the last few pages Cohen argues that the impact of '68 may be wearing off, as attempts by Romney to use the old approach fizzled so badly).

Looking at 1968, Cohen argues that maybe the most significant moment came in late 1967, when LBJ decided NOT to rethink his administration's approach to the Vietnam War, as Robert McNamara was urging him to do. That made the old approach his party's approach and thus tied old school liberalism to an increasingly unpopular war and revolt against it by the New Left.

Vietnam inspired Eugene McCarthy to run for president. He had been one of the least regarded senators, which made it easier for him to take on LBJ - he had less standing and thus less to lose. Humphrey had initially realized how bad a deal Vietnam was, but let himself become reverse engineered into being a hawk due to political ambition and a desire to serve the administration. RFK had little appeal from traditional blue collar Democrats. He appealed more to blacks and to liberals. Cohen argues that it was no sure thing he'd win the nomination. He had plenty of problems in many states, unions, and no love from party bosses. McCarthy had a genteel demeanor but ran a very liberal campaign whereas RFK sounded like a pre-Clinton with talk of a 3rd way, but also ran with an evangelical style. McCarthy opposed overall US foriegn policy eventually (not just Vietnam), but he also never made any serious outreach to blacks. McCarthy became less interested after RFK's assassination. Humphrey's team offered little for McCarthy supporters to get on board, almost treating them as if they had no other choice. Humphrey crowds were often listless.

Nixon's hawkishness won over conservatives who didn't like that he'd made peace with the New Deal welfare state (and were still angry at the 1960 Compact of Fifth Avenue). His middle strategy with the South won him support there without costing him much outside. Romeny meanwhil didn't try to pacify conservatives. He also lacked an answer to Vietnam. Rockefeller left the race, then got back in and went even further left. He wasn't even placating white backlash voters. Cohen called his campaign the last gap of the 1960s liberal consensus. Reagan was also emerging.

George Wallace captured the frustrations of many. He was a southern New Dealer in that he liked programs that funneled money to whites. Fear was the main driver of his support.

Ultimately, few loved Nixon, but many were just comfortable enough with him to live with him. GOP liberals and moderates were undermined by the nation's rightward turn. Humphrey didn't realize his own political strengths and made compromises when he didn't need to. McCarthy refused to speak at the DNC (a decision that kept with tradition) when he may have electrified things if he had.

LBJ undermined Humprhey during the general campaign. Humphrey was heckled and his campaign did poorly - while Wallace pooled at over 20%. That went down as LeMay made pro-war statements and many union members went back to teh Ds. Nixon avoided the mistakes of 1960 and micromanaged his image while essentially giving a souped-up spin on normalcy. He discussed little of policy and showed little interest in gaining black support. (It was addition by subtraction - he was winning more white votes that way). He intentionally conflated civil rights demonstraters with rioters and criminals. His campaign worried about Agnew's gaffes but Nixon was unphased by them. The campaign also worked behind the scenes to disrupt peace negotiations.

The election was a repudiation of LBJ and hurt the party as a whole. They got only half the vote from union members whereas JFK got 2/3 of it. Wallace's national emergence helped spur the GOP's rightward tilt as it hurt the moderates and put the South in play. By 1970, even Rockefeller was denouncing welfare recepients. By 1972, the Dems had no idea how to win back the disaffected.

Any criticism of the book? It could use maybe more discussion of US society and the war to discuss why society was changing. He notes the nation was more rightward leaning - OK, discuss in some detail the rise in crime he occasionally alludes to. That's one example. But by and large, it's a great book.

[Craig Werner · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 1968 election--Bobby Kennedy, Nixon, George Wallace, Gene McCarthy, Reagan, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson--was as complicated a mess as our political system has ever created. Cohen does a very good, clear job chronicling the events, sketching the major figures, and, most crucially, explaining how the election created the horrendous political discourse we've been living with ever since. Definitely on the short shelf of crucial books about the decade.

[Paul Brewer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent read for anyone interested in traditional-style political history. Cohen keeps the narrative moving, even when he engages in more analytical passages, and his portraits of the main characters (those who ran for president) are quite engaging, even when the subjects are unpleasant characters.

Having got the praise out of the way, let me turn to one critique and one observation. I have a major disagreement with Cohen’s interpretation. The big disagreement is that his own evidence leads me to conclude that he overestimates the role of racism in the 1968 election. This is quite troublesome to his thesis as a whole, since the influence on race is fundamental to explanation for the outcome of the vote. As is usually the case in this kind of analysis, it really depends on how you want weight the different components of the evidence.

Here’s how to construct a different interpretation just using the references Cohen supplies. In the introductory chapter to the issues that would dominate public debate during the year, on page 22, Cohen notes surveys consistently showed a majority of Americans believed African-Americans had ‘legitimate grievances’. (He repeats this point on page 25.) Then, on pages 31-2, Cohen says polling ��consistently showed’ that actions feeding a sense of public disorder were strongly opposed by those queried. On pages 257-60 we read how Nixon, the winning candidate, emphasised the need for assimilation, specifically naming America’s Apostle of Assimilation, Teddy Roosevelt. Finally, jumping ahead to the pages covering the aftermath of the election, on 332 we find that ‘vocal antiwar activists’ protesting the Vietnam war were ‘among the most unpopular groups in the country’. Cohen repeatedly refers to white fears of measures promoting black advancement, but nowhere does he make it clear what these measures were, an odd lack of precision considering his very considered discussion of exactly where LBJ and Humphrey went wrong in handling other matters. Cohen characterises the ‘backlash’ as ‘incoherent’, but I find that applies equally to his focus on race, which seems to reflect the course of subsequent events more than those leading up to 1968.

I would propose that Cohen’s own evidence shows the key shift that occurred between 1964 and 1968 was concern over the breakdown of ‘traditional’ American culture under the impact of postwar suburbanisation, the demographic impact of the Baby Boom generation coming of age and rising crime rates. The ‘juvenile delinquency’ panic had begun a decade earlier, and the number of juveniles was peaking exactly in the 1964-8 period. There was a sense that the country was ‘out of control’, represented both by Southern law enforcement setting dogs on peaceful protestors just as much as a riot in Watts and young people wanting to let it all hang out. Race was a much more salient issue after the 1968 election rather than during it, and especially in 1972.

The observation I would make is that, despite Cohen’s best efforts, I have come away from his book with much, much greater respect for Eugene McCarthy’s analysis of the politics of 1968 than I had going into it. A note of personal history – for some years, I ‘voted’ for McCarthy over RFK because the latter only jumped into the race once the former had exposed himself to the wrath of LBJ. Courage deserved its reward. Then, around about the turn of the century, I switched to favouring RFK, simply as someone more likely to win in November. Cohen, however, shows that it was McCarthy, for all his urbane detachment, who really questioned America’s course in the mid 1960s. He recognised that the cities were ‘hollowing out’, and offered a solution (mass transit to and public housing in the suburbs). He recognised the flaws of the Cold War consensus, the idea of America as the dominant power with an interest everywhere. He opposed the domestic impact of the Cold War by calling for the removal of J. Edgar Hoover, master of the country’s surveillance state. Unfortunately, as Cohen observes, McCarthy was not the political leader capable of putting this analysis into action. In Chicago, McCarthy’s ‘Clean for Gene’ followers were outflanked by Jerry Rubin and his Yippee Ilk, tainting the antiwar cause to such an extent that another bad candidate, McGovern, rode much the same coalition to disaster in 1972.

The book overall makes a little too much use of ‘presentism’ – deploying an anachronistic understanding of the issues. Although it was written without knowledge of the results of November 2016, one can draw parallels between the two elections. As an online acquaintance of mine put it, ‘it’s like 1968, except our choice is limited to Nixon and Wallace’.

[Kieran · Rating 5 out of 5]

For anyone who has a passing interest in American politics, you should read this. Even if you know the main events of 1968, Michael Cohen does a really good job of setting them into context of how they shaped the next half a century of American political life. It also benefits from having been written over the last five or six years, meaning it is immune from the tendency of many lazy think pieces that appeared in 2016, comparing it to 1968.

And what an election 1968 was. By the end of it, a US presidential candidate lay dead, as did an American Noble Peace Prize winner. A sitting President had been forced to quit the race, a political party had all but disintegrated in the face of deep divisions, a demagogue had run on exploiting racial divisions, and the winning candidate had all but committed treason in his pursuit of the ultimate prize. And despite all this, it was still a photo finish.

And somewhere in the United States, a 22 year old recent graduate cast his first ever ballot for president. And although he does not feature in the book at all, not even as a throwaway reference, I would be amazed if the maelstrom that engulfed the United States in 1968 did not prove decisive in shaping the worldview of Donald J Trump.

[Max Godin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 1968 US Presidential Election was a pivot point in American history. This is the premise of the book and Cohen puts forward his argument rather well. The events of the year, the politics, set up the next forty to sixty years for both parties, the demise of American Liberalism and the rise of American Conservatism, from Reagan to Bush 43. Everything in this book is centered around this statement. Failure of the Great Society twinned with a rise of white resentment and racially fueled urban violence because of the Johnson reforms equaled the election of President Richard Nixon and his breed of law and order politics. Not forgetting the assassinations of Senator Robert Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King which only added to the sent that America as a country was spiraling out of control.

On a personal note, I greatly appreciated how much attention Cohen placed on the whole cast of characters that made up the 1968 election. From Vice President Hubert Humphrey, his tortured relationship with the Johnson policies on Vietnam to Governor George Wallace and his policies of division.

In each and every election, every four years, they say the same thing, how this election is the most important in history but in this case it is absolutely true.

[Bill Manzi · Rating 5 out of 5]

American Maelstrom

Every four years we hear that the upcoming Presidential election is the most important in history, and there is no question that each one carries special ramifications for the country. As we gaze back we can identify, with the benefit of some hindsight, key “pivot points” in history. The Presidential election of 1968 most certainly falls into that category. Michael A. Cohen has written a book that takes us back through the tumultuous political year of 1968 that did so much to change the country, bringing us political divisions that have broadened and hardened. It started in 1968.

The election of 1968 brought us some of the biggest political personalities in American history, people that impacted American politics for years to come. On the Republican side you had George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon, with the Democrats featuring LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, and Eugene McCarthy, with a little peek at George McGovern. And of course you had one of the greatest demagogues in American political history, George Wallace, running as an independent.

The story starts with the smashing LBJ victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964, and how the Johnson Great Society, civil rights programs, and conduct of the Vietnam War started the great political backlash that brought us to 1968. LBJ recognized that he would be spending down political capital after 1964 but he simply could not reconcile his Vietnam policies with a changing political landscape in the country. He did not spend down political capital as much as he burned it thoroughly. The Democrats lost 47 seats in the U.S. House in 1966, although maintaining control, as well as 3 seats in the U.S. Senate, as well as a loss of 7 governorships. (Ronald Reagan defeated Pat Brown in California in 1966.)

Johnson’s attempt to thread the political needle between newly empowered Democratic constituencies, on the rise after 1964, and the traditional power base of the Party, faltered, despite his very formidable political skills. LBJ speechwriter Horace Busby presciently said 

“America’s real majority is suffering a minority complex of neglect. They have become the real foes of Negro rights, foreign aid, etc., because as much as anything, they feel forgotten, at the second table behind the tightly organized, smaller groups at either end of the U.S. spectrum.”
Cohen highlights the backlash, in large part a racial one, by observing “These strains contributed to an emerging political movement of white anger and frustration, which after Watts threatened not only Johnson’s presidency but the very aspirations of American liberalism.”

Cohen, Michael A. “American Maelstrom” Page 21

The backlash was on. Cohen brings forward the candidates in 1968, one by one, with a really first rate look at their candidacies, positions, and how they fit into the larger set of changes occurring in the country. Cohen’s quick analysis of the LBJ political failure on Vietnam, and how that failure not only forced him from the race, but created the protest candidacy of Eugene McCarthy, and then the entry into the race of Bobby Kennedy, in my opinion hits the mark exactly.

“When finally forced to change course in March 1968, his dreams of a Great Society lay in tatters, his hopes for a second term had been dashed, and his party was mired in open revolt. In hindsight, the two moments were inextricably linked. Had Johnson shifted course in the fall of 1967, he almost certainly would not have been forced from the presidential race. A decision to de-escalate would have meant that Senator Eugene McCarthy-whose rationale for running was Johnson’s refusal to change his policy in Vietnam-would likely not have challenged the president for the Democratic nomination. No McCarthy would have also meant no Robert Kennedy candidacy. Instead, if he’d chosen to run, Johnson would have been the Democratic nominee for president in 1968, if as much by default than by universal acclaim.”

Cohen, Michael A. “American Maelstrom” Pages49-50

Cohen has some observations on the Democratic side that bring into focus the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. Eugene McCarthy, whose challenge to LBJ brought out the political weakness of a sitting President, is the first, and maybe the best example of this in the book. Cohen clearly is respectful of the McCarthy role in 1968, but does not hesitate to show us his very great weaknesses as a candidate. The “Clean for Gene” movement of young people to the McCarthy candidacy truly did create a huge change in the Democratic Party. But McCarthy, as Cohen points out, was just not really interested in the job of being President. He most certainly eschewed, despite the protest nature of his candidacy, harsh or demagogic rhetoric on the campaign. His was a candidacy reflective of the man: reasoned, intellectual, and non-emotional.

Cohen manages to deconstruct much of the legacy of RFK’s candidacy in 1968. He is certainly a little less respectful of RFK than he was of McCarthy , and some of the shine of the RFK 1968 campaign is tarnished in the book. We get some terrific campaign narrative dealing with the McCarthy-Kennedy fight after Bobby got into the race, with some surprisingly bitter exchanges between the men and their campaigns. RFK’s refusal to get into the race against President Johnson until McCarthy had stepped forward was a constant sore spot with many. The charge of opportunism was never far behind RFK as far as the McCarthy people were concerned.

“Allard Lowenstein spoke even more glowingly of McCarthy. ‘We all had our heroes,’ said Lowenstein years later.’Jack Kennedy, Mrs. Roosevelt, but…none of them had ever been so heroic or had so many people owing him so much as Gene McCarthy. ‘ Lowenstein said it was something that Kennedy and his people could never fully appreciate. ‘They never understood the depth of feeling on the issues, and therefore, the depth of gratitude to McCarthy that he made the fight when Kennedy wouldn’t.’”

Cohen, Michael A. “American Maelstrom” Page 133


One of the most important figures that Cohen looks at, in my opinion, is George Wallace. The sections of this book dealing with Wallace, and his appeal outside of the South, are so very important. Wallace represented a racist populism that was always considered to be “conservative” but in reality was much more than that.

“In an interview with U.S. News and World Report in June 1968, Wallace nonetheless argued, ‘We are still against the philosophy of big government controlling every phase and aspect of our lives.’ In reality, Wallace wanted to redirect the flow from the government’s spigot rather than turn it off altogether. Indeed, conservatives regularly attacked Wallace for his “collectivist” views. James Ashbrook, the head of the American Conservative Union, blasted his candidacy as ‘repugnant to ideals of American conservatism.’ In fact, the overlap between Wallace and Goldwater voters was far less extensive than generally assumed. Only half of those who would vote for the Alabama governor in 1968 had voted for Goldwater four years earlier. Goldwater’s strongest backing came from those who considered themselves economically secure, while Wallace did best among the working class. Even given the reactionary nature of Wallace’s politics, his supporters were more likely to call themselves “liberals” than Nixon voters. Wallace voters had little apparent interest in the right’s ideological dogmatism. For them politics had become a zero sum game of resource allocation and government attention. More money and public programs for blacks meant less for them-and they wanted to protect what they had.” 

Cohen, Michael A. “American Maelstrom” Page 234-235
Wallace had created “Reagan Democrats” before Reagan, and his appeal to the white working class portended a larger realignment that would come to full fruition many years later. His rejection of “conservative” orthodoxy in favor of populist appeal looks very familiar today.

Nixon’s rise from the ashes of 1960, and 1962, is a story that has been covered extensively. We see a political master beginning to exploit newer methods of campaigning, and managing to at once say nothing specific but at the same time appeal to the public desire for some return to “normalcy.” The outlines of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and the huge realignment that followed that success flowed from his winning campaign in 1968. Nixon was a far more subtle candidate than Wallace, but he managed to appeal, in his way, too much of the constituency in the South that abandoned the Democratic Party over civil rights. Nixon, in my view, was and is, the architect of the modern Republican Party.

Cohen, through this book, gives us a great look at the monumental political year of 1968. It is not simply a retelling of the narrative, but allows us to transcend the candidates, and look at the ideas and strategies those candidates deployed that impact us to this very day. Get this book. You will both enjoy it, and learn from it.

[Linxi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, and timely read during the 2020 election season given the parallels. Cohen does a good job intertwining the political and social issues of the time with the arc of each candidate running in the 1968 election, which he argues undergirded the foundation of the politics of both parties for the next fifty years.

[Hallie Cantor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Riveting account of 1968, a pivotal year in all respects. The author provides lucid, linear background of each candidate -- Nixon, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Humphrey, McCarthy, Wallace, et al -- with historical detail starting from the idyllic Camelot of the early decade to the bitter anti-war protests and rise of a militant counterculture. It was not politics as usual.

The author shows a liberal bias in describing Johnson's "Great Society," as he blames the Democrats' failures on the Vietnam War, rather than a poorly conceived welfare system. The race problems are attributed solely to poverty, racism, and despair rather than possible dysfunctionality within black society. It is difficult to know. Most likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle -- economic imbalance, white flight, breakdown of black families, etc. It is also difficult to guess the possible outcome of the "Great Society" had the war not diverted Johnson's attention -- or had Johnson decided to run a second term. By bowing out he threw a monkey wrench into the Democratic plans.

However, one incident seemed to foreshadow a tragically flawed mindset. Standing before a group of all-white medical students, Robert Kennedy described the afflictions of the black underclass and the need for extensive social programs. "Who is going to pay for all of this?" asked one student. "The whites," answered Kennedy, since the whites were presumably the core of all black suffering. Never mind that a substantial black middle class existed, and that not all whites claimed slave-owner ancestry. This alone marks the turning point of the Democrats, from the "working man's party" to one for the underclass, Socialists, and radical chic types.

The Republicans, especially Nixon, are presented as patrician or shifty buffoons. Wallace, of course, deserved little praise. In fairness, the author does a good critique of the Democratic candidates. He dispels the myth of heroic Robert Kennedy, who is regarded here is a sort of opportunist (and naïve to boot). McCarthy (whom my parents supported) was ethereal -- almost flaky. All of the Democrats, especially Humphrey, appear wishy-washy. The latter struggled to get out from under Johnson's shadow; not until the end of the election did Humphrey begin to gain momentum and inspire audiences in his own right.

I couldn't help thinking: what a difference between this group of politicians (all white males) and the motley crew today. Regardless of their flaws and weaknesses, they seemed to have substance then, so much depth and a strong sense of public service.

Nevertheless, the parallels to today (2016) are significant. I write this immediately after the upset Trump victory, following an election replete with vitriol and divisiveness. The same variables were there, just as nearly 50 years ago -- obsessions with race, inequality, foreign threats (here, Islam instead of Communism). However, today's society has grown far more liberal than the one during the 1960s, as well as diverse -- thanks, ironically, to the moral breakdown that 1968, Year Zero, spawned. The "white patriarchy" that dominated the election back then has declined, as well as the economy. Gender has been added into the mix, as Hillary's defeat is being partially blamed on sexism.

Unfortunately, this most recent election, now considered historic, shows how the Republican party, thanks to Trump, has changed as far as connecting with the mainstream, and how little have the Democrats, who have remained desperately out of touch with reality. True, the year 1968 never really left us -- the same kind of issues and the same failed ideas. This book helped me tremendously to understand the modern American voting process and the root cause of today's political morass.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did the election of 1968, contested by Humphrey, Nixon and Wallace, encapsulate the division in the American polity that remain today? This is the question American Maelstrom seeks to address. Michael Cohen's work places the 1968 election in the context of the rapid political and social changes following Johnson's overwhelming electoral victory over Goldwater in 1964, the assasinations of King and Kennedy, the urban disturbances and rising crime rates and the war in Viet Nam.

One of Mr. Cohen';s more insightful findings was that the anti/pro war division did not seem to be critically important in the general election outcome. The feature of the campaign that has the most relevance for today is white racism in northern states, especially the industrial midwest. This racism caused by court instituted measures to achieve school integration, open housing, and open hiring, was a social change unacceptable to ethnic white communities who bordered segregated black communities in the north. Racism, not economic hardship and inequality, after all this is 1968, years before wage stagnation began, motivated the Wallace voters and perhaps a contingent of Nixon voters.

One of the consequences of the Republican victory in 1968, and McGovern's annihilation in 1972, according to Mr. Cohen was the silence of a consistent center left voice in American politics. Two of the Democratic presidents in the years since 1968 have been centrists, but Obama? The elections of 2008 and 2012 do not easily fit into Mr. Cohen's analysis of the continuing impact of the 1968 election in American politics. Sadly, Mr. Cohen's analysis of the fissures in American society, appear rather permanent and the structure of the American electoral system, including but not limited to, the electoral college, reinforces the cleavages and places at a political disadvantage those American who support government policies that similar to those of the scandinavian countries.

[Neil Bhatiya · Rating 4 out of 5]

While it's cliche to say that U.S. Presidential elections are turning points in American history, it would be hard to argue that the 1968 election wasn't one of the most influential of the 20th Century. In this well-researched, far-ranging, and often funny book, Michael Cohen assesses the cast of characters who sought the highest office in the land during one of the most turbulent years in our history.

In the first months of the year, Americans saw their country's major military involvement in Vietnam (500,000 troops deployed) face a major setback in the Tet Offensive; the political consequences of that defeat (the Administration lost Walter Cronkite) led to the shock announcement that LBJ, an incumbent who had entered his first full term with one of the biggest landslides ever, would not seek another term. The tussling among his prospective successors in the Democratic party led to chaos at the Chicago convention and the assassination of one of its most beloved figures, Robert Kennedy. This tragedy had followed closely on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., which occasioned riots in almost every major American city. By the time November came around, a shellshocked nation narrowly went with the least risky apparent choice, Richard Nixon.

Many of the long-term trends we are dealing with saw their crystallization in '68. White apprehension and resentment about racially fueled urban violence bred law and order politics, the consolidation of the South for the Republican party, and the politics of division represented then by the popularity of George Wallace and which we see now with...well you know who. Cohen's book will probably stand as one of the most readable one volume treatments.

[J Earl · Rating 4 out of 5]

American Maelstrom by Michael A. Cohen does a great job of presenting the 1968 election in the larger context of what that historical moment means to American history. For those of us who still hold strong feelings about the election Cohen manages to avoid very much in the way of partisanship so that the story and its aftermath comes through clearly.

This work does what a good political history book should do: take the information most of us (those old enough to remember it and/or those who have studied it) know and present it in a manner that makes and supports an argument larger than just who won the election. It is the synthesis of the information into a reasonable hypothesis that makes this more than simply the story of the 1968 election. What did it mean for both parties at that time, who was on the rise and who was fading from view? What sort of tactics introduced here would become common in elections to come? The answers to these questions lead directly to the chaos that is the 2016 election.

There are plenty of "good guys" and "bad guys" for readers across the political spectrum. The mistakes made and the strategies implemented will likely anger all who believe that democracy should be used to better the country not to promote one party over the other through manipulation.

I would recommend this to anyone interested in political history as well as political science. While Cohen admirably weaves the events into a larger tale, he does so in a manner that should allow those unfamiliar with the 1968 election to follow along wonderfully. Well worth the read as well to better understand how we got to where we are now with two parties unwilling to work together.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

American Maelstrom takes a look at the election of 1968 and shows that the major divergence of the Democrat and Republican parties took place at this moment in history. The confluence of Great Society politics and the Vietnam war would fracture the democratic party removing the power base of the political machines and the unions to the various groups that would center around socialism, environmentalism, the peace movement and a variety of causes that would become the Hallmark of the modern democratic party. The Republicans after years of being frozen out of power would focus in on Law and Order, military and foreign policy and small government. Although it would take another 10 years before the Reagan revolution would take hold the seeds were sown in this election.
This book does a great job of focusing in on the implosion of the democratic party under LBJ and the split between Humphrey and McCarthy. It looks at the opportunism of Richard Nxion who crafted himself as the centrist that could win the election and although it almost proved a fatal error Nixon pulled it off. As the author shows in several modern quotes the parties are still caught up in the spirit of ’68. This book is impeccably researched and well written. If you are a political history buff this is not one to be missed.

[Peter M. B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A compelling re-telling of the major political events in the US Presidential election of 1968. It is fascinating to see how it all played out in chronological time and not just see the isolated snippets of LBJ's withdrawal, MLK and RFK assassinations, and the Dem convention police riots. Reading this allowed me to put those infamous events in their proper political context at last.

About the only weakness of the book is its attempt to link the aftermath of that election to current politics. This is a powerful argument for the 1980s and 1990s and perhaps as late as 2004. But the salience of the 1968 aftermath has receded dramatically over the last ten years. Fortunately this only affects a small portion of the book.

[Debra · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are interested in how our political situation arrived at where it is today, read this book.
For me the greatest insight was that data indicates that had Bobby Kennedy lived, he would not have won the presidency in '68. He may not have even won the party nomination. Interesting stuff, not shaded by the murder of RFK, but based on where the power rested in Democratic party actions in 1968.
I found this book a compelling read.

[Mshelton50]

A wonderful look at the anguished 1968 presidential race. Cohen shows how the old New Deal coalition of northern liberals and southern working-class voters came apart in '68, largely over issues of race, and how this watershed election set the template for virtually every presidential election since. Very compelling read.

[Craig · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's no sugar coating here. It's a well-researched, factually driven recap of one of the most pivotal elections in American history. It has a clear thesis that it proves again and again, but reminds us, sometimes shockingly, that everything old is new again.

[Tobias · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really exceptional political - as in heavily focused on campaigns - history of the 1968 election. Shows how it cemented the political coalitions that dominate American politics up to the present day. The chapter on George Wallace alone was worth the price of admission.

[Cindy Salamone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read. I was a teenager, newly interested in politics in 1968. This book filled in many gaps for me and gave context to the many events of that year and beyond.

[Vincent · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-paced history or what was certainly a pivotal moment.

[India Siecke · Rating 5 out of 5]

RIP RFK you would have loved Obamacare

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

history stays repeating itself : (

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

It reminds me of this election cycle and the immortal words of Jack Webb:"The story you have just seen is true but the names were changed to protect the innocent." I'd strongly recommend this book to any of you interested in politics and/or the 2016 election.

[Gerald Friedman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book that overstates

Book raises interesting issues about direction of US politics since 1968 but it is wrong to suggest that political gridlock was locked in place by that year's turmoil.

[Marianne · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting review of the 1968 elections but ends up as a dull recounting.

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really well written and fascinating book about the '68. A must-read for anyone interested in American politics as the similarities between the '68 and '16 campaign are plain as day in this account.