Coming Apart: An Informal History of America in the 1960’s by William L. O’Neill (review)

REVIEWS 101 policymakers act and behaveastheydid - it is thisintellectual insightinto thediplomatic recordwhichmarksthebestof these essays. WaterlooUniversity ComingApart: An ln[ormal Historyo[ Americain the x96o's.WILLIAML. O'NEILL. Chicago, Quadrangle Books, i97i. Pp.x, 44•, illus.$i•.5o. Choosing to run all the risksinvolvedin writing historyimmediatelyafter the event,William O'Neill hasprovideduswith a lively,well-written,and useful accountof the 196o's. Inevitably,however, it isunevenand seriously flawed. One problem the authorneverfacessquarely is periodization. He assumes, ratherthanproves, that thesixties constituted a distinctperiodwith a life and character of itsown.He softens the rigidityof hischronological frameworkby providingan introductory chapteron the Eisenhower presidency and by admitting that many movements of the I96o's persisted after the decade's end. Thushesees no significant shifts in racerelations in thelateryears, andthough he asserts, 'The New Left endedwhen the sixtiesdid,' he makesit clear that radicalism did not come to an end. More serious is the problemof sources. O'Neil hasrelied heavilyon the journalismof the sixties, and defends his choiceby asserting that 'no decade hasproduced suchrichandvariedreporting.' This maywell be true,but the relianceon journalismaggravates anotherproblemof instanthistory:the lack ofchronological perspective. Separating theimportant fromthenotsoimportant is alwaysdifficultfor historians; for O'Neill the task is almostimpossible. Virtually everynamein the headlines of the periodfindsa placein the book - HerbertMarcuseandRussMeyer,Lee HarveyOswaldandYokoOho. This isnotto saythat he does not try to develop an interpretation of the period;it is alwayssomething more than a scrap-book, thoughsomething lessthan a history. O'Neill is an excellent exampleof the way in whichpersonal commitments dominateattemptsto write contemporary history.It becomes very clearthat he is a liberal,writinga booklargelyaddressed to fellowliberals.His faith is hardlyuncritical. Liberals arescourged for theirfatuous idealization of youth, their swings from unwarranted optimism to excessive despair, their eagerness toconfess guilt,andtheirloss of nerveby the endof the decade. Despitethese attacks, heclearly believes thatliberalism isAmerica's onlyviablepolitical creed. Conservatives, whennotcranks andracists, areirrelevantandout of theAmericantradition .Asfor radicals, 'thewholemodernexperience goes to provethat radicalism does notworkin America.'His approach to foreignaffairsisa good indication of hispoliticalorientation; whileUnitedStates foreignpolicyisseen asmistaken andvicious, it isnotviewedasa naturalproductof the American politicaleconomy. O'Neill'sbiases become moreevidentandmoredebilitating ashe approaches thepresent. The Eisenhower presidency isgivena thoughtful reappraisal, and 102 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW emerges with somequalifiedpraise.The Kennedyadministration is alsoreevaluated , andO'Neill'sinterpretation is an excellent statement of liberaldisillusionment with themythof Camelot.The treatmentof Johnson ismoreambiguous . Eric F. Goldman's thesis of a 'tragedyof LyndonJohnson,' caused by character defects, isrejected. Instead,Johnson isseen asa manof greatstrength whose errors resulted as much from the men around him and the structure of nationaldecision-making asfromhisownfaults.Ambiguity markshistreatment of RobertKennedyaswell, thoughhe asserts that 'With his deathsomething precious disappeared from publiclife.' Qualifications and doubts vanish,howeverwhen he dealswith the electionof •968. EugeneMcCarthy emerges as a man virtuallywithoutflaw, while Nixon votersare castasvicioushardhats whorejoiced in the beatingof hippies. The treatmentof intellectuallife is more original and valuablethan his reviewof politics. For him, the twomostsignificant culturaldevelopments of thedecade werethecollapse of thedistinction between art andentertainment, and relatedto this,the riseof a counter-culture. It becomes clearthat he does notapprove of these changes, andregards theweakening of artisticandcultural standards as a major problem.He laments,'Logic seemed everywhere to be givingwayto intuition,and self-discipline to impulse.' One of hismajorcriticisms of liberalswastheir failureto upholdintellectualstandards. Eachregularchapterin thebookisfollowed by a 'profile,'threeto tenpages long, of peopleand institutions as diverseas Ralph Nader, sports,and the WarrenReport.The device isuseful, thoughtheprofiles varygreatlyin quality. The oneon Woman'sLiberationis surprisingly weakand uninspired, in view of O'Neill'sprevious publications on thehistory of feminism. O'Neill recognizes the difficultyin assessing the periodand says 'theerawas notall of a piece.'Hisconclusion, however, clearlyreveals thevalues andjudgment which dominatethe book: 'Romanticists scornedthe Americandream; materialists soiled herwayof life. Americawasbeautifulall the same.' In theabsence ofa competing account oftheperiod,O'Neill'sbookwill likely bewidelyused.Readers arewarned,however, that it isindeedwhat thesubtitle says:'an informalhistory.' KEITH CASSIDY Universityof PrinceEdwardIsland EUROPE Ravitaillement et alimentation en Provence aux x•v• et xv• si•cles. •.oms STOUFF. Paris,The Hague,Mouton, x97o.Pp. 5o7ß7•F. Recentyearshave seena resurgence of work on the problemssurrounding the production and supplyof foodstuffs and of humandiet in general, work which has been carried out on a more 'scientific' basis. One welcomes Louis Stouff'swide-ranging and thoroughstudyof thesemattersin later mediaeval Provence and the Corntatwith particularinterest. ...