Scan barcode
davenash's review against another edition
1.0
The author uses big words to make up for his poor prose and lack of primary sources.
ethanhedman's review against another edition
5.0
The author makes the argument that concrete and cyclical divisions existed between Americans and argues that Nixon heightened those contradictions in order to exploit them for political gain. It is this paradigm, Perlstein argues, of domestic politics between two factions, factions that come to hate each other so much they are willing to kill and maim each other, that is “Nixonland”.
Perlstein ends with this: “Do Americans not hate each other enough to fantasize about killing one another, in cold blood, over political and cultural disagreements? It would be hard to argue they do not. How did Nixonland end? It has not ended yet.”
Perlstein ends with this: “Do Americans not hate each other enough to fantasize about killing one another, in cold blood, over political and cultural disagreements? It would be hard to argue they do not. How did Nixonland end? It has not ended yet.”
abdiel47's review against another edition
5.0
I want to like Richard Nixon. He started out poor and worked his way to the top. And he was a political genius. But he seems to have had a seething absence of self worth. There is a story that Perlstein tells of Nixon in college in Southern California where Nixon tried to join a social organization called the Franklins and was rejected because his impoverished upbringing means he lacked the proper social connections. Rather than take rejection, he started his own social club called the Orthogonians.
The first thought is to get excited for Nixon taking things into his own hands, building his own bridge when he’s not allowed to use the one others are using. But Nixon didn’t want to be an Orthogonian and the Franklin rejection burned inside him. Perlstein describes Nixon as seeing the world as full of Orthogonians and Franklins. And he spends his entire career prostrating himself before the wealthy and well connected in the hopes they will give him some of what they have. Which means he’s always doing the dirty work, humiliating himself, playing bad cop to get ahead. And still there’s always a Franklin like Kennedy to put him in his place.
Nixon sees the world as divided, and sees himself as not really belonging anywhere. And in the mid 60s the US was truly divided: race riots, Vietnam, etc. Nixon charges into this divide trying to burn it all down, divide America, do anything it takes to become president because he, and he alone, is suited to lead the US through those trying times. The ends justify the means.
Rick Perstein once again writes a breathtaking but dense narrative of American politics. These 800 pages cover four election cycles: 1965-66, 1967-68, 1969-70, and 1971-72. They include some of the most explosive events in US political history. There are a number of common themes: the increasingly chaotic Democratic party, the increasingly immoral and opportunistic Republican party, and a free press that consistently fails to comprehend what’s happening while it’s happening.
The first thought is to get excited for Nixon taking things into his own hands, building his own bridge when he’s not allowed to use the one others are using. But Nixon didn’t want to be an Orthogonian and the Franklin rejection burned inside him. Perlstein describes Nixon as seeing the world as full of Orthogonians and Franklins. And he spends his entire career prostrating himself before the wealthy and well connected in the hopes they will give him some of what they have. Which means he’s always doing the dirty work, humiliating himself, playing bad cop to get ahead. And still there’s always a Franklin like Kennedy to put him in his place.
Nixon sees the world as divided, and sees himself as not really belonging anywhere. And in the mid 60s the US was truly divided: race riots, Vietnam, etc. Nixon charges into this divide trying to burn it all down, divide America, do anything it takes to become president because he, and he alone, is suited to lead the US through those trying times. The ends justify the means.
Rick Perstein once again writes a breathtaking but dense narrative of American politics. These 800 pages cover four election cycles: 1965-66, 1967-68, 1969-70, and 1971-72. They include some of the most explosive events in US political history. There are a number of common themes: the increasingly chaotic Democratic party, the increasingly immoral and opportunistic Republican party, and a free press that consistently fails to comprehend what’s happening while it’s happening.
pacvarez's review against another edition
4.0
i've always had a fascination with nixon mostly because though in many ways he's my opposite, we have two big things in common: we share the same birthday, and we both run entirely on spite
dexcg's review against another edition
This took a long, long time to read, but I’m glad I read it. There’s such rich history in here, so much that I knew little about. Perlstein’s descriptions are vivid but grounded, the chapter on a day of the convention in ‘68 is a particularly great example.
I do think the book suffers from two flaws, although they do not diminish it from being an incredible work. The first is the slow decrease in the importance of racial relations as an aspect of Nixonland that should be discussed. After King’s death, there was not a ton of description of various instances besides one-liners about things happened. Kind of dampens the conclusion that race and the war were the two determining factors in ‘72. Also, his tendency to make equally condemnatory judgments on “both sides” feels forced at times. There are surely things to compare between Orthogonians/Franklins and Dems/Reps but there were a couple times where it simple felt like comparing apples and something that isn’t even a fruit like an orange.
Edit- After skimming through the review for this in The Atlantic and The New York Times, it is striking to read his conclusion in a radically different way 10 years after those reviewers were writing. Just this week, Ahmaud Arbery was, for all intents and purposes, lynched in Georgia. Armed protestors stormed the Michigan capital building. Our President was impeached. This looks a lot more like Nixonland than 2008 did.
I do think the book suffers from two flaws, although they do not diminish it from being an incredible work. The first is the slow decrease in the importance of racial relations as an aspect of Nixonland that should be discussed. After King’s death, there was not a ton of description of various instances besides one-liners about things happened. Kind of dampens the conclusion that race and the war were the two determining factors in ‘72. Also, his tendency to make equally condemnatory judgments on “both sides” feels forced at times. There are surely things to compare between Orthogonians/Franklins and Dems/Reps but there were a couple times where it simple felt like comparing apples and something that isn’t even a fruit like an orange.
Edit- After skimming through the review for this in The Atlantic and The New York Times, it is striking to read his conclusion in a radically different way 10 years after those reviewers were writing. Just this week, Ahmaud Arbery was, for all intents and purposes, lynched in Georgia. Armed protestors stormed the Michigan capital building. Our President was impeached. This looks a lot more like Nixonland than 2008 did.
theartolater's review against another edition
5.0
Reading this makes you really think about how much the Trump era resembles the Nixon era.
Then you realize the book is well over a decade old, and thus couldn't have been written with that in mind.
Then you realize the book is well over a decade old, and thus couldn't have been written with that in mind.
bailorg's review against another edition
5.0
Great book.
As someone born in 1980 and as a student of history and politics, I never understood the late 1960s to 1970s era until I read this book. I never understood the still extant bitterness that people who experienced this period still exhibit to this day. I never understood the massive societal, cultural, and political divides of this period. I never understood why a Republican president would implement wage and price controls. I never quite understood why the Democratic party practically fell apart, in a big way, nationally and why the Republican party moved sharply to the right and upwards in popularity at the same time. Perhaps most fundamentally to my above quandaries, I never understood Richard Nixon.
An outstanding exposition on the excesses and anger of all sides in American politics in this period and why Richard Nixon was able to emerge and take power and control over the events of this period.
As someone born in 1980 and as a student of history and politics, I never understood the late 1960s to 1970s era until I read this book. I never understood the still extant bitterness that people who experienced this period still exhibit to this day. I never understood the massive societal, cultural, and political divides of this period. I never understood why a Republican president would implement wage and price controls. I never quite understood why the Democratic party practically fell apart, in a big way, nationally and why the Republican party moved sharply to the right and upwards in popularity at the same time. Perhaps most fundamentally to my above quandaries, I never understood Richard Nixon.
An outstanding exposition on the excesses and anger of all sides in American politics in this period and why Richard Nixon was able to emerge and take power and control over the events of this period.