Book number three completed on the iPad!
Liberal/Left Wing columnist David Sirota (take your pick) makes a thoughtful introspection and analysis about how the Eighties™ continue to wield its influence over America. In short, he argues that its long-lasting impact has successfully pushed out the Fifties™, the most incorrectly recalled decade by conservative Americans; as Ned Flanders said, “I wish we lived in the place more like the America of yesteryear that only exists in the brains of us Republicans.”
Personally, every decade or era before “now” has left its imprint. Some wane because their “occupants” and adherents die out (Victorian America is practically extinct, pure pre-Civil War America is thankfully gone) while others such as the Nineties and Aughts were too recent, thus it’s too early to tell. I have always felt the Eighties™ started the process of officially erasing the lessons America learned with Vietnam. Sirota takes it beyond the political realm.
First is a quick explanation on Sirota’s use of ™ after the Eighties and Fifties. It’s how he separates the actual years from the time periods. I completely agree with this clarification. The Fifties technically ended when 1960 began. The Fifties™ ending? It could be Kennedy’s election (first president born in the 20th Century) or when the Beatles’ dominance over American youth culture started or any other time in between, maybe after. There’s no hard, clear demarcation yet I hope you see our point. The usage is also a jab at the marketing of decades, especially by politicians who peddle better versions of the past.
Back is nicely organized into five parts. Four examine the cultural-political-economic shifts. The fifth is a conclusion discussing the aftermath. The analysis can be pretty disheartening despite his fondness for the Eighties™; they were his formative years while there were mine too; I’m about eight years older (his bio says he graduated from college in 1998).
Here is the breakdown:
- Liking Ike, Hating Woodstock: the mental shift against all things from the Sixties™ and Seventies™ as the Fifties™ (for better and worse) are embraced mainly by those who were born after 1965.
- The Jump Man Chronicles: the false cult of effective individuals, CEOs and outlaws with morals.
- Why We (Continue to) Fight: how the Pentagon and militarists hijacked popular culture to purport their myths about the past and entangle America into the current quagmires we’re funding.
- The Huxtable Effect: racism and economic disparity just “disappeared,” because it got swept under the proverbial rug with help from The Cosby Show. Thus, all those minorities are just bitching.
- The End of History?: Despite all the glaring wreckage the Eighties™ have left in its wake, there are signs of it waning as a new generation is starting to flex its political muscle. Sirota thinks all is not lost while giant monuments are being erected to promote Reagan’s godhood and Joe McCarthy’s toxic career undergoes a whitewash.
Contrary to how heavy those synopses sound, Sirota demonstrates a lighter nostalgic touch regarding these subjects than say Eric Alterman or Barbara Ehrenreich. The seriousness of the negative trends don’t get buried under the reminiscing though. Some points he makes weren’t new to me: the Pentagon’s successful post-Vietnam lies (the spat-upon vet is a favorite), the demonization of the poor (I’ve heard a young Republican recently claim they don’t pay any taxes) and everything the “gub’mint” touches turns to crap, except that claimants pork project or entitlement. Sirota did bring the racial matters more to light. Being “White” and male, I readily admit those things can escape my notice. I was pretty disgusted over how much pull the military-industrial complex has over films beyond Red Dawn. Then again, the studios are owned by corporations involved with making weapons, namely NBC-Universal, a division of General Electric.
I have to take issue over Sirota’s spiel regarding Michael Jordan’s career. The guy didn’t win any championships with the Bulls until the Nineties. Jordan’s scoring prowess during the Eighties quickly became a liability for his team. A great way to rile Chicago fans whenever they opened their mouths to brag would be this exchange I recall from college circa 1986-88.
Bulls Fan: Jordan scored 40 points last night!
Me: Yeah, but didn’t the Bulls lose by 20?
The Bulls’ domination in the Nineties (six titles) happened thanks to head coach Phil Jackson getting His Airness to buy into an offensive system which involved sharing the scoring (no more just-give-the-ball-to-Michael™) and acquiring more talented assistance. Scottie Pippen and Bill Cartwright readily come to mind. I’m not an expert on pro sports beyond being a fan and having an opinion. However, I do know that a team solely dependent on one star player will rarely make the playoffs. Sirota grew up in Philly. How could he “forget” our Flyers losing the Cup in 1985 and 1987 to the Oilers who were led by Wayne Gretzky. I emphasize the verb “led” since Gretzky couldn’t have done it without Phil Coffey, Mark Messier, Craig MacTavish and Grant Fuhr, just to name a few players. The 1990 Oilers then proved my point by hoisting the Cup sans Gretzky; the Great One was probably playing golf with his fellow Kings by mid-April. My point? The Ayn Rand-driven nonsense about individuals making all the difference always falls apart when used in the context of team sports. Jordan’s contribution to the Eighties™ was being a marketing puppet to shill underwear, hot dogs and overpriced shoes. He was exciting to watch yet the Lakers and Celtics were the most frequent champs (five and three respectively) in the Eighties. They were franchises which used teamwork, not exclusive dependency on Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.
Sorry if I diverted too long about sports. My nitpicking doesn’t totally invalidate Sirota’s point on the ugly trend promoting false heroes such as “the cop who plays by his own rules!” By now those stories are pretty cliche as entertainment. They continue to be swallowed whole in business and politics sadly. Part of Ayn Rand’s nonsensical ravings getting a revival through Teabaggers and RonPaulumpas.
Overall Back to Our Future is an amusing book. The level of detail and research Sirota put into it is amazing. Definitely a work he really threw himself into. Beyond historians, its audience may be limited to individuals born between 1965 to 1980. Older people probably don’t care and can’t completely relate. I won’t even guess with younger readers, maybe one will speak up, clue me in. I’m glad I followed this recommendation from my fellow Beulah Miners Alumnus Cindy. Now I await her two cents and possibly a clarification on the Bulls in the Eighties by Chicago superfan Paul, the roommate I often tormented when his teams lost.
Back to Our Future by David Sirota
Book number three completed on the iPad!
Liberal/Left Wing columnist David Sirota (take your pick) makes a thoughtful introspection and analysis about how the Eighties™ continue to wield its influence over America. In short, he argues that its long-lasting impact has successfully pushed out the Fifties™, the most incorrectly recalled decade by conservative Americans; as Ned Flanders said, “I wish we lived in the place more like the America of yesteryear that only exists in the brains of us Republicans.”
Personally, every decade or era before “now” has left its imprint. Some wane because their “occupants” and adherents die out (Victorian America is practically extinct, pure pre-Civil War America is thankfully gone) while others such as the Nineties and Aughts were too recent, thus it’s too early to tell. I have always felt the Eighties™ started the process of officially erasing the lessons America learned with Vietnam. Sirota takes it beyond the political realm.
First is a quick explanation on Sirota’s use of ™ after the Eighties and Fifties. It’s how he separates the actual years from the time periods. I completely agree with this clarification. The Fifties technically ended when 1960 began. The Fifties™ ending? It could be Kennedy’s election (first president born in the 20th Century) or when the Beatles’ dominance over American youth culture started or any other time in between, maybe after. There’s no hard, clear demarcation yet I hope you see our point. The usage is also a jab at the marketing of decades, especially by politicians who peddle better versions of the past.
Back is nicely organized into five parts. Four examine the cultural-political-economic shifts. The fifth is a conclusion discussing the aftermath. The analysis can be pretty disheartening despite his fondness for the Eighties™; they were his formative years while there were mine too; I’m about eight years older (his bio says he graduated from college in 1998).
Here is the breakdown:
Contrary to how heavy those synopses sound, Sirota demonstrates a lighter nostalgic touch regarding these subjects than say Eric Alterman or Barbara Ehrenreich. The seriousness of the negative trends don’t get buried under the reminiscing though. Some points he makes weren’t new to me: the Pentagon’s successful post-Vietnam lies (the spat-upon vet is a favorite), the demonization of the poor (I’ve heard a young Republican recently claim they don’t pay any taxes) and everything the “gub’mint” touches turns to crap, except that claimants pork project or entitlement. Sirota did bring the racial matters more to light. Being “White” and male, I readily admit those things can escape my notice. I was pretty disgusted over how much pull the military-industrial complex has over films beyond Red Dawn. Then again, the studios are owned by corporations involved with making weapons, namely NBC-Universal, a division of General Electric.
I have to take issue over Sirota’s spiel regarding Michael Jordan’s career. The guy didn’t win any championships with the Bulls until the Nineties. Jordan’s scoring prowess during the Eighties quickly became a liability for his team. A great way to rile Chicago fans whenever they opened their mouths to brag would be this exchange I recall from college circa 1986-88.
Bulls Fan: Jordan scored 40 points last night!
Me: Yeah, but didn’t the Bulls lose by 20?
The Bulls’ domination in the Nineties (six titles) happened thanks to head coach Phil Jackson getting His Airness to buy into an offensive system which involved sharing the scoring (no more just-give-the-ball-to-Michael™) and acquiring more talented assistance. Scottie Pippen and Bill Cartwright readily come to mind. I’m not an expert on pro sports beyond being a fan and having an opinion. However, I do know that a team solely dependent on one star player will rarely make the playoffs. Sirota grew up in Philly. How could he “forget” our Flyers losing the Cup in 1985 and 1987 to the Oilers who were led by Wayne Gretzky. I emphasize the verb “led” since Gretzky couldn’t have done it without Phil Coffey, Mark Messier, Craig MacTavish and Grant Fuhr, just to name a few players. The 1990 Oilers then proved my point by hoisting the Cup sans Gretzky; the Great One was probably playing golf with his fellow Kings by mid-April. My point? The Ayn Rand-driven nonsense about individuals making all the difference always falls apart when used in the context of team sports. Jordan’s contribution to the Eighties™ was being a marketing puppet to shill underwear, hot dogs and overpriced shoes. He was exciting to watch yet the Lakers and Celtics were the most frequent champs (five and three respectively) in the Eighties. They were franchises which used teamwork, not exclusive dependency on Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.
Sorry if I diverted too long about sports. My nitpicking doesn’t totally invalidate Sirota’s point on the ugly trend promoting false heroes such as “the cop who plays by his own rules!” By now those stories are pretty cliche as entertainment. They continue to be swallowed whole in business and politics sadly. Part of Ayn Rand’s nonsensical ravings getting a revival through Teabaggers and RonPaulumpas.
Overall Back to Our Future is an amusing book. The level of detail and research Sirota put into it is amazing. Definitely a work he really threw himself into. Beyond historians, its audience may be limited to individuals born between 1965 to 1980. Older people probably don’t care and can’t completely relate. I won’t even guess with younger readers, maybe one will speak up, clue me in. I’m glad I followed this recommendation from my fellow Beulah Miners Alumnus Cindy. Now I await her two cents and possibly a clarification on the Bulls in the Eighties by Chicago superfan Paul, the roommate I often tormented when his teams lost.