This is an excellent survey of the 1960's. I am hesitant to use the word "survey" because this work is very detailed, but it covers so much ground it does not attempt to be comprehensive. Isserman shows the development of the 1960's and the major milestones in a chronological narrative. He breaks down the big events in the Civil Rights Movement, VIetnam, the Free Speech Movement, and the Great Society. He does not have a strong over arching theme except that the 1960s were divisive and so complicated that easy summaries are impossible.

For the Civil Rights movement, he discusses the major events of the sit-ins, marches in Alabama and civil rights legislation. He shows the ups and downs of the movement, particularly how it needed white support to flourish. He shows how marches in Birmingham and Selma were mainly successful because of overreaction of the white authorities, which led to sympathy from northern whites and political pressure in Washington. He also shows that neither Kennedy nor Johnson had much interest to deal with civil rights until that pressure mounted. The movement splintered after 1965 because it movement away from segregation in the south to employment and housing, sometimes in the north, which got a lot less sympathy. Young African-Americans because resentful that their only successes came because of white sympathy. which led some to become more militant in the Nation of Islam or SNCC.

For VIetnam, he shows both what happened in Washington and in public perceptions. This is perhaps the weakest part of the book, although that may be a bias on my part because it is the part I am most familiar with. He shows that Kennedy was unlikely to order the sort of buildup that Johnson did, but he never explains why Johnson decided to escalate (at least to my satisfaction). Given that he thought the Great Society would be his legacy, it seems a very odd gamble to take. He also glosses over incidents of Johnson's duplicity, only mentioning the increasing "credibility gap". He does much better with Nixon. He explains that that he didn't get out in 1969 because he wanted to be the war hero who won the unwinnable war but his strategy was not that different than Johnson. He wanted to make the war so costly for the North Vietnamese that they would have no choice but to capitulate. But it didn't work and he finally got out in 1973 with pretty much the same deal he was offered in 1969. By that point, he was so unpopular and public pressure was so much, he had little choice.

Isserman is fairly critical of the Great Society, especially the War on Poverty. He paints it as poorly thought out and with little commitment in resources. Johnson didn't want to raise taxes (although he did eventually) and didn't want to give "handouts", so he grand program wasn't that grand. Medicaid and Medicare, however, were much more successful. The Great Society floundered because of Johnson's limited approach and because he very unpopular by 1966, only a year into the war. After the Tet Offensive, his political career was over.

That brings up one of the most interesting arguments Isserman makes. He shows how quickly political fortunes can changed. His biggest argument is that while liberalism appeared ascendent in the 60s, it as actually waning. It was disorganized and was creating resentment in mainstream America. Meanwhile, after Goldwater's defeat in 1964, conservatives were forming grass roots organizations that tied free-markets and conservative Christianity together into a force that would emerge in the 1970's with Reagan. On a smaller scale, he shows that Johnson and Nixon both won overwhelming landslide victories for reelection but were incredibly unpopular only a year later. American politics are fickle and the winds change fast.

This is an excellent book for a specialist or for anyone interested in the period. It is well-written and well-researched. I highly recommend it. ( )