America in Our Time: From World War II to Nixon--What Happened and Why

by Godfrey Hodgson

America in Our Time is a history of the turbulent years between the end of World War II and the fall of Richard Nixon. Focusing on the 1960s, the book debunks some of the myths about that much misremembered decade. Godfrey Hodgson pioneers the idea that in the 1950s a "liberal consensus" governed American politics, by which conservatives accepted the liberal domestic policy of the welfare state, while all but a few liberals shared the conservative foreign policy of Cold War "containment.?

The book shows in rich detail how that consensus was shattered by the converging blows of racial upheaval, the Vietnam War, and a pervasive crisis of authority in American society, all the way from the family to the White House, opening the way for a new conservatism. Hodgson has added an afterword that looks back at the events covered in the book from the perspective of almost thirty years since it was published.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction

608 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1976

About the author

Godfrey Hodgson was a White House correspondent for a London newspaper with a desk in the Washington Post newsroom during the Kennedy and Johnson years. He has worked as a reporter for print and television throughout the United States and has written sixteen books, most dealing with people and issues in American politics. He taught at Oxford University and lives in Oxfordshire, U.K.

Reviews

[CoachJim · Rating 5 out of 5]

The subtitle of this book is From World War II to Nixon—What Happened and Why. The tell here is the Why. This is not an historical survey of the events during this period. The author uses the chapters of this book like a series of essays explaining the issues and ideology surrounding these events. These are used to support his premise that the seeds of discontent during the late 1960s were sown during the years immediately following World War II.

Godfrey Hodgson in this book introduces the historical concept of The Liberal Consensus. Two of the main principles were the support by conservatives for the social programs that came out of the New Deal, and the support by liberals for the need to contain communism. That agreement was the philosophy of a great nation at the height of its confidence and power. It was born out of the economic success following the war that led to a belief that social domestic problems could be addressed and solved, and confidence that the country’s military might could handle any foreign problem. Those beliefs would face extreme challenges in the 1960s as the Civil Rights Movement exposed the inequalities in American society, and as the Vietnam War destroyed the trust in government and its foreign policies. This consensus was torn to shreds of the events of this history.

Analyzing the events of this period is to aim at a moving target. In 1945 the United States was without question the strongest, most powerful country in the world. At the same time with the rise of hostility by Stalin’s Russia and the spread of communism the United States felt threatened. World War II had proven that isolation and appeasement would not work. These beliefs would be very influential in decisions made later regarding Vietnam.

On the domestic front the economic successes following World War II gave Americans a confidence that their social problems could be buried under the ensuing abundance. However, this economic success led to a great migration of people from the South into the cities of the North. The result was that the race issues which had been unique to the South now became a concern for the North. It became impossible to believe in an American ideal that held: “We hold these truths to be self-evident (except in Mississippi) that all men (except black men) are created equal.” (Page 62)

Liberal elites encountered the conundrum of the distinction between the equality of opportunity and the equality of condition. The reforms of the 1960s had showed that you could not achieve equality of opportunity without having at least some equality of condition. Hodgson also relates a study from 1972 by Christopher Jencks and others that compares the economic equality of individuals which found that the income inequality between the best paid and the lowest paid was greater than that compared to racial inequality.

The decision to escalate the war in Vietnam without raising taxes caused inflation to get out of control which destroyed the economist dream of perpetual growth. There were three clear pluralities of public opinion after Tet regarding the Vietnam War: that it was a mistake to get involved in Vietnam in the first place; that a majority wanted our involvement to end—that the war could not be won; and many that rejected the idea of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal—that losing the war was unacceptable.

There was still an optimism that the 1960s were a great watershed. This was based on four long-range achievements. First was the concept that civil rights for Black Americans had been accepted in principle. Second was that the war on poverty had created a greater consciousness of the existence of poverty and the need to do something about it. Third was the passage of Medicare and the responsibility for national health care. Fourth was the acceptance of the idea that we needed to do something for the disadvantaged in education.

The crisis of the late sixties and early seventies had a profound affect on a prominent generation, an affect which persists today. There were three distinct lessons learned. One, that things could not be changed as easily as thought. The race issue continues to confound America. Second, although possessing the most powerful military in the world, the Vietnam War exposed America’s inability to change the world to its wishes. Lastly, the confidence and trust Americans had in their government was laid to waste by the falsehoods they were told: there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

The lesson was more painful than that. They had learned that there was moral ambiguity where they had once thought the issues of right and wrong were clearest; that their own motives were not above suspicion; and that there seemed little that political action could achieve, however idealistic its intentions, without evoking unforeseen and unwanted reaction.
(Page 494)

This is an extraordinary book about the history of a crucial decade. The critical analysis of the events during this time is essential for the understanding of the subsequent history of this country.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hodgson covers every major trend in America for the 25 years following WWII, with a depth of analysis that's rarely matched -- the migrations of Blacks to the North, Whites to the suburbs, the waves of protest movements, the shattering of consensus on American values, and the rise of a conservative backlash. As he cites Michael Novak, "It has not gone without notice that the same elites that once called white ethnics Polacks, Hunkies, Micks and Guineas, now call them racists, fascists and pigs." Possibly the only major oversight is insufficient investigation of the feminist movement.

In covering events like the Detroit riots of 1967, Hodgson conducts a ruthless critical comparison of accounts, from street talk to the densest sociological studies. He proves a competent slayer of urban myths.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely adore this book. Some of the analysis is a little dated - and we've gained some useful perspective over the past four decades - so I wouldn't recommend it as the *only* thing someone should read on the era of the liberal consensus, but damn is it good.

Really incredible that something this comprehensive and insightful was published just a year after Nixon's fall. Imagine having that kind of grasp on the meaning of such a tumultuous time while it's still going on.

[Donna Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a textbook used in a contemporary history class I took many years ago. The fifth star is missing because the end of the Nixon regime came a long, long time ago, so the title now fits probably less than half the population. An updated and expanded text would be admirable.