HST 202 Module #12
We Didn't Start the Fire (1978 CE - 1986 CE
During the years of 1978 CE to 1986 CE, the United States experienced a tumultuous period marked by profound social, economic, and political transformations that affected the nation in both constructive and harmful ways. The period bore witness to the ascendancy of conservative politics, economic upheaval, and a series of pivotal events that have left an indelible imprint on the nation's historical fabric.
Ah, the 1980s! A time of renewal for the American economy after the oil crisis of the 70s. In '83, the economy picked up by 3.5% and the following year by a whopping 7.3%. What brought about this surge? It was a combination of factors - introducing newfangled technologies, the flow of money, and the Reagan administration's savvy policies. However, as the economy boomed, so did the national debt. It swelled to enormous proportions, a ballooning burden that persisted even after Reagan's office term ended.
If there's one thing that'll make your stomach churn faster than a bad batch of street food, it's political turmoil. And let me tell you, the Iran Hostage Crisis was one hell of a stomach-churner. In '79, many Iranian militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for a mind-boggling 444 days. Yeah, you heard that right. Nearly a year and a half of being held captive in a hostile land. As you can imagine, this little episode didn't do wonders for the already shaky relationship between the U.S. and Iran. It led to economic sanctions, diplomatic tensions, and other fun stuff we're still dealing with today.
The 1980s were a time of mixed outcomes in international affairs. Yet, there were some notable glimmers of hope amidst the tension. Take, for instance, the historic 1985 meeting between the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Ronald Reagan, and Soviet bigwig Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva. The summit catalyzed a warming of relations between the two superpowers and set the stage for an unprecedented treaty to reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe: The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. By eliminating a whole class of nuclear weapons, this agreement was a crucial step toward securing a safer world.
It was an era where civil rights bulldozed forward, breaking down barriers with the tenacity of a charging bull. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 was a turning point, reviving the federal government's authority to enforce laws that safeguard the rights of all citizens. No longer could those in power turn a blind eye to inequality and injustice. The hammer of justice had been restored, pounded down on those who dared to impede progress. But it wasn't just about restoring power; it was about ensuring that all individuals, regardless of ability, were given a fair shake. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was a clarion call to action, a resounding proclamation that people with disabilities could not be sidelined, discriminated against, or forgotten. It was a revolutionary change, smashing boundaries and tearing down walls. The road ahead was uncertain, but the winds of change were blowing strong, and there was no stopping them.
In the waning days of the seventies and into the early eighties, the United States underwent great upheaval and transformation. Aye, there were glimmers of hope and moments of triumph, but shadows loomed over the land. 'Twas a time of shifting fortunes, when the winds of change blew fierce and wild. From the year of our Lord 1978 to 1986, the nation saw its fair share of troubles and trials. Though the economy boomed and foreign relations improved, darker clouds were still on the horizon. The scourge of inequality reared its ugly head as the chasm between the haves and have-nots widened evermore. The national debt grew more prominent daily, like a beast that could not be tamed. And in the Middle East, the Iran Hostage Crisis held the nation in its grip, straining relationships with other countries and threatening to plunge the world into chaos. Yet amidst all these trials, glimmers of hope shone like beacons in the dark. Aye, the struggle for civil rights gained momentum, and progress was made that would reverberate through the ages. The impact of these changes can still be felt today, shaping the very fabric of our society. To truly understand the complexity of our nation's history, we must study this period with a keen eye and an open heart. For in those tumultuous years, we can see the struggle and triumph of the American spirit and the path that has led us to the present day.
THE RUNDOWN
- The period from 1978 to 1986 was marked by social, economic, and political transformations in the US.
- The economy experienced a surge due to new technologies, money flow, and Reagan's policies, but the national debt also grew substantially.
- The Iran Hostage Crisis strained relationships between the US and Iran, leading to economic sanctions and diplomatic tensions.
- The 1985 meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev led to improved relations between the US and the Soviet Union, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty reduced the risk of nuclear catastrophe.
- The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 revived the federal government's authority to enforce laws that safeguarded citizens' rights, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ensured fair treatment for people with disabilities.
- The period was marked by both trials and triumphs, with progress made in civil rights and economic growth but also challenges such as inequality and the national debt.
QUESTIONS
- How did the economic policies of the Reagan administration contribute to the economic boom of the 1980s? What were the consequences of this boom, particularly in regards to the national debt?
- Discuss the impact of the Iran Hostage Crisis on US-Iran relations and international affairs more broadly. How has this event continued to shape global politics?
- The meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva in 1985 was a significant moment in US-Soviet relations. How did this meeting contribute to the eventual signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty? What were the implications of this treaty for global security?
#12 Perception Is More Important Than Reality
Before you report me as some doublespeak Big Brother agent, look at the current world we live in. The Age of Information never promised to be useful information, let alone accurate information. Social media is riddled with half-truths, pretenses, manipulated numbers, and flat out lies. This is to be expected, mainly when we accept that human beings are all emotional beings. And emotions can subdue logic often quickly and effortlessly. If you want to believe an election was stolen, you will. But one does not have to go far in history to see events veiled in fabrication that swayed public opinion. There are almost no cases in which the United States has been to War that hasn't been more fiction than fact. Whether you choose to believe in systemic racism or the presence of "weapons of mass destruction," history does not bother with these things.
In this mysterious world, we inhabit, the notion that perception reigns supreme over reality resonates deeply. The present epoch bombards us incessantly with many information streams, confounding our ability to differentiate truth from fiction. The so-called Age of Information, once lauded for its potential to enrich our understanding and wisdom, has instead brandished a dangerous two-edged blade that offers misleading half-truths, sham facades, distorted statistics, and brazen untruths. These deceptions proliferate with alarming frequency in social media, where logic and reason are often smothered by emotion.
History's got a funny way of foolin' us into believin' a bunch of hogwash. The good ol' US of A ain't no stranger to this sort of thing, especially when it comes to war. Take the Vietnam War, for instance. Like that Gulf of Tonkin incident, the whole thing was built on a flimsy foundation of lies. Supposedly, North Vietnamese forces attacked our Navy ships, but that was all a big lie. The government used it as an excuse to ramp up the war effort. And don't even get me started on the Iraq War. We went in there lookin' for "weapons of mass destruction," but it was all based on some bogus intelligence. These examples prove that what we think is the truth isn't always so. The way we see things shapes our opinions and decides our fate.
Perception can be a tricky thing, a double-edged sword, if you will. But, sometimes, it can be a catalyst for some much-needed change. Take, for instance, the civil rights movement of the 1960s. People saw the stark inequalities and injustices and wouldn't take it lying down. Nope. In droves, they took to the streets, demanding justice and equality for all. And you know what? They made a difference. They fought tooth and nail, and it paid off in the end. Or how about the #MeToo movement? This one hit the scene a bit more recently, but boy, did it ever make an impact. People started to see the rampant sexual harassment and assault that had been going on for far too long. And they said, "Enough is enough!" They banded together, shared their stories, and held those accountable who had been getting away with this kind of behavior for far too long. It wasn't easy, but it was necessary. And you know what? It's working. Of course, there's still work to be done, but we're moving in the right direction. And that's all thanks to perception, my friends.
Okay, let's break it down: history is like a time capsule that holds the secrets of our past. It's a treasure trove of insights that can help us decode human behavior and decision-making. By sifting through the annals of yesteryear, we can start to see how perception can twist reality and how those in power can bend it to their will. Take a look at the way historical events have played out. The winners write history books. Well, what if the winners could be better guys? What if they're just really good at manipulating public opinion? By examining the past through this lens, we can learn to be more discerning information consumers. We can separate the truth from the lies and make up our minds about what happened. So, why is all of this important? Because perception shapes our world. It determines how we see ourselves and how we see others. It can even influence the course of history. By studying the role of perception in the past, we can gain a deeper understanding of the present and make more informed decisions about the future.
Perception can make or break how we see things, which can have serious consequences. It can be used to bend the public's will and steer outcomes in a shady direction, but it can also be a catalyst for positive change, holding those in power accountable and driving social progress. So, what's the key to unlocking the potential of perception? Well, my friends, it's all about studying history. By delving into the past, we can understand how perception shapes reality and how we can use that knowledge to be more informed information consumers. We can't afford to be duped by propaganda and fake news, especially today. We need to be sharp, we need to be discerning, and we need to be proactive in building a society that's just and equitable for all.
So, if we can manipulate the outcomes of our future, can we predict what happens next?
THE RUNDOWN
STATE OF THE UNION
Before you report me as some doublespeak Big Brother agent, look at the current world we live in. The Age of Information never promised to be useful information, let alone accurate information. Social media is riddled with half-truths, pretenses, manipulated numbers, and flat out lies. This is to be expected, mainly when we accept that human beings are all emotional beings. And emotions can subdue logic often quickly and effortlessly. If you want to believe an election was stolen, you will. But one does not have to go far in history to see events veiled in fabrication that swayed public opinion. There are almost no cases in which the United States has been to War that hasn't been more fiction than fact. Whether you choose to believe in systemic racism or the presence of "weapons of mass destruction," history does not bother with these things.
In this mysterious world, we inhabit, the notion that perception reigns supreme over reality resonates deeply. The present epoch bombards us incessantly with many information streams, confounding our ability to differentiate truth from fiction. The so-called Age of Information, once lauded for its potential to enrich our understanding and wisdom, has instead brandished a dangerous two-edged blade that offers misleading half-truths, sham facades, distorted statistics, and brazen untruths. These deceptions proliferate with alarming frequency in social media, where logic and reason are often smothered by emotion.
History's got a funny way of foolin' us into believin' a bunch of hogwash. The good ol' US of A ain't no stranger to this sort of thing, especially when it comes to war. Take the Vietnam War, for instance. Like that Gulf of Tonkin incident, the whole thing was built on a flimsy foundation of lies. Supposedly, North Vietnamese forces attacked our Navy ships, but that was all a big lie. The government used it as an excuse to ramp up the war effort. And don't even get me started on the Iraq War. We went in there lookin' for "weapons of mass destruction," but it was all based on some bogus intelligence. These examples prove that what we think is the truth isn't always so. The way we see things shapes our opinions and decides our fate.
Perception can be a tricky thing, a double-edged sword, if you will. But, sometimes, it can be a catalyst for some much-needed change. Take, for instance, the civil rights movement of the 1960s. People saw the stark inequalities and injustices and wouldn't take it lying down. Nope. In droves, they took to the streets, demanding justice and equality for all. And you know what? They made a difference. They fought tooth and nail, and it paid off in the end. Or how about the #MeToo movement? This one hit the scene a bit more recently, but boy, did it ever make an impact. People started to see the rampant sexual harassment and assault that had been going on for far too long. And they said, "Enough is enough!" They banded together, shared their stories, and held those accountable who had been getting away with this kind of behavior for far too long. It wasn't easy, but it was necessary. And you know what? It's working. Of course, there's still work to be done, but we're moving in the right direction. And that's all thanks to perception, my friends.
Okay, let's break it down: history is like a time capsule that holds the secrets of our past. It's a treasure trove of insights that can help us decode human behavior and decision-making. By sifting through the annals of yesteryear, we can start to see how perception can twist reality and how those in power can bend it to their will. Take a look at the way historical events have played out. The winners write history books. Well, what if the winners could be better guys? What if they're just really good at manipulating public opinion? By examining the past through this lens, we can learn to be more discerning information consumers. We can separate the truth from the lies and make up our minds about what happened. So, why is all of this important? Because perception shapes our world. It determines how we see ourselves and how we see others. It can even influence the course of history. By studying the role of perception in the past, we can gain a deeper understanding of the present and make more informed decisions about the future.
Perception can make or break how we see things, which can have serious consequences. It can be used to bend the public's will and steer outcomes in a shady direction, but it can also be a catalyst for positive change, holding those in power accountable and driving social progress. So, what's the key to unlocking the potential of perception? Well, my friends, it's all about studying history. By delving into the past, we can understand how perception shapes reality and how we can use that knowledge to be more informed information consumers. We can't afford to be duped by propaganda and fake news, especially today. We need to be sharp, we need to be discerning, and we need to be proactive in building a society that's just and equitable for all.
So, if we can manipulate the outcomes of our future, can we predict what happens next?
THE RUNDOWN
- In our world today, how we see things is more important than what's actually true.
- Because of the Internet, there's a lot of fake or tricky information on social media.
- Throughout history, some events were made up to change people's minds.
- How we see things can help or hurt us, but it can also make things better.
- If we learn about history, we can understand how our views affect what happens and make better choices.
- How we see things affects everything around us, including how we see ourselves and others, and even what happens in the future.
- To make a fair and equal society, we need to be careful and active when we look at information.
STATE OF THE UNION
HIGHLIGHTS
|
|
We've got some fine classroom lectures coming your way, all courtesy of the RPTM podcast. These lectures will take you on a wild ride through history, exploring everything from ancient civilizations and epic battles to scientific breakthroughs and artistic revolutions. The podcast will guide you through each lecture with its no-nonsense, straight-talking style, using various sources to give you the lowdown on each topic. You won't find any fancy-pants jargon or convoluted theories here, just plain and straightforward explanations anyone can understand. So sit back and prepare to soak up some knowledge.
LECTURES
LECTURES
- COMING SOON
READING
Carnes, Chapter 30: Running on Empty: 1975-1991
“The American Übermensch: History of Superheroes” by Ryan Lancaster
Mark C. Carnes and John A. Garraty are respected historians who have made notable contributions to American history. Carnes specializes in American education and culture, focusing on the role of secret societies in shaping American culture in the 19th century. Garraty is known for his general surveys of American history, his biographies of American historical figures and studies of specific aspects of American history, and his clear and accessible writing.
Carnes, Chapter 30: Running on Empty: 1975-1991
“The American Übermensch: History of Superheroes” by Ryan Lancaster
Mark C. Carnes and John A. Garraty are respected historians who have made notable contributions to American history. Carnes specializes in American education and culture, focusing on the role of secret societies in shaping American culture in the 19th century. Garraty is known for his general surveys of American history, his biographies of American historical figures and studies of specific aspects of American history, and his clear and accessible writing.
Howard Zinn was a historian, writer, and political activist known for his critical analysis of American history. He is particularly well-known for his counter-narrative to traditional American history accounts and highlights marginalized groups' experiences and perspectives. Zinn's work is often associated with social history and is known for his Marxist and socialist views. Larry Schweikart is also a historian, but his work and perspective are often considered more conservative. Schweikart's work is often associated with military history, and he is known for his support of free-market economics and limited government. Overall, Zinn and Schweikart have different perspectives on various historical issues and events and may interpret historical events and phenomena differently. Occasionally, we will also look at Thaddeus Russell, a historian, author, and academic. Russell has written extensively on the history of social and cultural change, and his work focuses on how marginalized and oppressed groups have challenged and transformed mainstream culture. Russell is known for his unconventional and controversial ideas, and his work has been praised for its originality and provocative nature.
My classes utilize both Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Larry Schweikart's Patriot's History of the United States, mostly in excerpts posted to the modules. You can access the full text of People's History or Patriot's History by clicking on the links.
My classes utilize both Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Larry Schweikart's Patriot's History of the United States, mostly in excerpts posted to the modules. You can access the full text of People's History or Patriot's History by clicking on the links.
Zinn, A People's History of the United States
".. In 1986, a story appearing in a Beirut magazine created a sensation: that weapons had been sold by the United States to Iran (supposedly an enemy), that in return Iran had promised to release hostages being held by extremist Moslems in Lebanon, and that profits from the sale were being given to the contras to buy arms.
When asked about this at a press conference in November 1986, President Reagan told four lies: that the shipment to Iran consisted of a few token antitank missiles (in fact, 2,000), that the United States didn't condone shipments by third parties, that weapons had not been traded for hostages, and that the purpose of the operation was to promote a dialogue with Iranian moderates, hi reality, the purpose was a double one: to free hostages and get credit for that, and to help the contras.
The previous month, when a transport plane that had carried arms to the contras was downed by Nicaraguan gunfire and the American pilot captured, the lies had multiplied. Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams lied. Secretary of State Shultz lied ('no connection with the U.S. government at all'). Evidence mounted that the captured pilot was working for the CIA.
The whole Tran-contra affair became a perfect example of the double line of defense of the American Establishment. The first defense is to deny the truth. If exposed, the second defense is to investigate, but not too much; the press will publicize, but they will not get to the heart of the matter.
Once the scandal was out in the open, neither the Congressional investigating committees nor the press nor the trial of Colonel Oliver North, who oversaw the contra aid operation, got to the critical questions: What is U.S. foreign policy all about? How are the president and his staff permitted to support a terrorist group in Central America to overthrow a government that, whatever its faults, is welcomed by its own people as a great improvement over the terrible governments the U.S. has supported there for years? What does the scandal tell us about democracy, about freedom of expression, about an open society? "
".. In 1986, a story appearing in a Beirut magazine created a sensation: that weapons had been sold by the United States to Iran (supposedly an enemy), that in return Iran had promised to release hostages being held by extremist Moslems in Lebanon, and that profits from the sale were being given to the contras to buy arms.
When asked about this at a press conference in November 1986, President Reagan told four lies: that the shipment to Iran consisted of a few token antitank missiles (in fact, 2,000), that the United States didn't condone shipments by third parties, that weapons had not been traded for hostages, and that the purpose of the operation was to promote a dialogue with Iranian moderates, hi reality, the purpose was a double one: to free hostages and get credit for that, and to help the contras.
The previous month, when a transport plane that had carried arms to the contras was downed by Nicaraguan gunfire and the American pilot captured, the lies had multiplied. Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams lied. Secretary of State Shultz lied ('no connection with the U.S. government at all'). Evidence mounted that the captured pilot was working for the CIA.
The whole Tran-contra affair became a perfect example of the double line of defense of the American Establishment. The first defense is to deny the truth. If exposed, the second defense is to investigate, but not too much; the press will publicize, but they will not get to the heart of the matter.
Once the scandal was out in the open, neither the Congressional investigating committees nor the press nor the trial of Colonel Oliver North, who oversaw the contra aid operation, got to the critical questions: What is U.S. foreign policy all about? How are the president and his staff permitted to support a terrorist group in Central America to overthrow a government that, whatever its faults, is welcomed by its own people as a great improvement over the terrible governments the U.S. has supported there for years? What does the scandal tell us about democracy, about freedom of expression, about an open society? "
Larry Schweikart, A Patriot's History of the United States
"... A more serious reverse for the Reagan agenda came in November 1986 when news surfaced that administration officials had been involved in an effort to negotiate an arms-for-hostage deal with the Iranians. The United States had a long-standing set policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, but Reagan, who was personally troubled by the suffering of three Americans being held by radical Muslim groups in the Middle East, approved a deal that sent Iran weapons for use in Iran’s war against Iraq. Even more troubling was the revelation that administration officials, apparently without Reagan’s approval, had funneled money from that arms trade to the contra rebels fighting in Nicaragua against the communist government there. Marine Colonel Oliver North, who became the focal point of the congressional inquiry that followed, was given immunity and proceeded to take all the blame himself, insulating Reagan. Democrats on the committee were outraged. Having given North immunity to, in their view, implicate the president, all they had was a low-level colonel who had admitted to everything!
Critics of Reagan’s administration cite the Iran-contra affair as the central reason why the Gipper’s last four years were not as productive as his first term. Much more damaging, however, was the shift in control of the Senate, combined with a host of cabinet-level resignations, defections, and even a death (Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldridge in a rodeo accident). Many of Reagan’s key insiders left to take advantage of their temporary fame and marketability. Ultimately, however, Reagan realized that he had only enough time and energy left to see to fruition a couple of his most important agenda items, and at the top of the list was the demise of the Soviet Union..."
"... A more serious reverse for the Reagan agenda came in November 1986 when news surfaced that administration officials had been involved in an effort to negotiate an arms-for-hostage deal with the Iranians. The United States had a long-standing set policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, but Reagan, who was personally troubled by the suffering of three Americans being held by radical Muslim groups in the Middle East, approved a deal that sent Iran weapons for use in Iran’s war against Iraq. Even more troubling was the revelation that administration officials, apparently without Reagan’s approval, had funneled money from that arms trade to the contra rebels fighting in Nicaragua against the communist government there. Marine Colonel Oliver North, who became the focal point of the congressional inquiry that followed, was given immunity and proceeded to take all the blame himself, insulating Reagan. Democrats on the committee were outraged. Having given North immunity to, in their view, implicate the president, all they had was a low-level colonel who had admitted to everything!
Critics of Reagan’s administration cite the Iran-contra affair as the central reason why the Gipper’s last four years were not as productive as his first term. Much more damaging, however, was the shift in control of the Senate, combined with a host of cabinet-level resignations, defections, and even a death (Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldridge in a rodeo accident). Many of Reagan’s key insiders left to take advantage of their temporary fame and marketability. Ultimately, however, Reagan realized that he had only enough time and energy left to see to fruition a couple of his most important agenda items, and at the top of the list was the demise of the Soviet Union..."
Thaddeus Russell, A Renegade History of the United States
"...Richard Nixon, who virtually repeated Wallace’s pledges in his successful campaigns in 1968 and 1972, was endorsed by country stars Tex Ritter and Roy Acuff and invited Merle Haggard and Johnny Cash to perform at the White House. Likewise, Ronald Reagan found the winning formula in 1980 when he declared that “work and family are at the center of our lives; the foundation of our dignity as a free people,” and vowed to protect that foundation with tax cuts and an aggressive military. The year of Reagan’s victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter, more than two hundred radio stations switched to all-country formats, and between 1977 and 1983, the number of country stations doubled from 1,140 to 2,266. Reagan, who as governor of California had pardoned Merle Haggard for his previous conviction on felony burglary charges, invited the “Okie from Muskogee” to the White House on several occasions.
The “new right” and its cultural expressions combined a renegade rejection of elite social control with a fierce defense of obligations—to nation, family, and work—that comprised the responsibilities of American citizenship in the postwar period. As in earlier periods, citizenship and whiteness were constructed in tandem, with African Americans serving as the model of the noncitizen. Moreover, this dual investment in Americanness and whiteness was always presented as a self-regulating paternalism. The (normally male) individual would work hard to support his family without assistance from the state, and would sacrifice himself to protect the family from its enemies, be they loose women, criminals, or communists..."
What Does Professor Lancaster Think?
In the aftermath of the Second World War, a formidable political and cultural entity known as the "new right" emerged in the United States. This movement's hallmark was a sincere devotion to Americanness and whiteness and a steadfast repudiation of the social supremacy exerted by the ruling class while also advocating for the nation, family, and labor. The values that animated this political force were embodied in the ringing endorsements bestowed upon Republican politicians, including Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, by country music icons. Yet, the foreign policy missteps of the Reagan administration, notably the Iran-Contra scandal, unveiled the flaws in his leadership, leading to a marked downturn in productivity during his second term. The realization that even the highest office of the land was fallible and that the exercise of power by the ruling class could be detrimental to the public interest compelled many Americans to reassess their values and beliefs.
In the tumultuous decades of the 1960s and 1970s, a peculiar new breed of conservatives arose in response to the shifting social and political tides. Feeling beleaguered by the winds of change, these Americans sought solace in the steadfast guidance of conservative leaders and cultural icons who upheld the values of the old. Icons of the genre, like Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard, lent their voices and support to the Republican cause, strumming their way into the hearts of conservative voters and rousing them to action at political rallies. And lo and behold, country music emerged as a potent weapon in the arsenal of the "new right," for it extolled the virtues of Americana and all things traditional.
In the turbulent arena of American politics, the New Right's deep-seated commitment to preserving a particular brand of whiteness has been readily apparent. Their fervent opposition to affirmative action and immigration policies served as tangible expressions of this commitment, as did their stubborn defense of Southern heritage and unwavering resistance to the civil rights movement. At the forefront of this movement were groups such as the League of the South, whose agenda was to safeguard the cultural heritage of the Southern states and repel what they viewed as a cultural Marxist assault on their traditional values. In their minds, they were the last line of defense against the erosion of the Southern way of life and were determined to hold their ground against any perceived threats.
Let's examine the rejection of elite social control by the New Right, a conservative movement that burst onto the scene like a firework on the Fourth of July. This ideology fundamentally distrusted the federal government and its supposed grip on power, instead promoting states' rights as a means of decentralization. The New Federalism was the banner under which this movement marched, calling for a reduction in the size of the federal government and greater autonomy for individual states. This movement's core values centered around the defense of nation, family, and work, often manifested in their opposition to hot-button issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and welfare. Please make no mistake, the New Right was a force to be reckoned with, boldly championing their beliefs and taking on the establishment with a fierce intensity. Love it or hate it, there's no denying this movement's impact on the political landscape of its time.
The savage grip of the New Right was felt most acutely during the reign of Reagan, whose very essence embodied their twisted ideals. A Hollywood actor turned political juggernaut; he paraded himself as the savior of American tradition, a hero to the masses. His brazen pursuits included a radical conservative agenda, slicing taxes, casting off regulations, and fortifying the nation's defense like a warrior preparing for battle.
This affair, shrouded in secrecy, revolved around the clandestine sale of arms to a nation under embargo - Iran - in exchange for hostages and the siphoning of funds from those sales to support rebels opposing the communists in Nicaragua. In the annals of Reagan's rule, the Iran-Contra scandal is a dark blemish, exposing chinks in the armor of his foreign policy and draining the vigor from his second term. The devastating fallout led to the ouster of multiple cabinet members, and the tide of power in the Senate shifted as a result.
The rise of the new right looms large, leaving an indelible mark on politics and culture in the postwar era. Yet, like all movements, its legacy is not easily summarized. On the one hand, the new right championed an investment in Americanness and whiteness that resonated with many Americans. But on the other, this investment frequently manifested in virulent strains of racism and xenophobia, poisoning the body politic and undermining the very foundations of democracy. Moreover, the new right's defense of so-called traditional values often came at a steep cost to social justice and equality. By privileging the status quo and resisting change, it too often reinforced the structures of oppression that have long plagued this nation. In this way, the new right sowed the seeds of division and conflict that continue to haunt us today. Indeed, the Iran-Contra affair exposed the deep flaws in the new right's foreign policy and the dangers of unchecked executive power. With Reagan at the helm, the nation was plunged into a crisis of epic proportions, covert actions in Central America came to light, and the public was forced to confront the extent of its government's misdeeds. The fallout from this debacle was profound, shaking the nation to its core and forcing us to re-examine our assumptions about power, democracy, and the state's role. In the end, the legacy of the new right is complicated, marked by both triumphs and tragedies, achievements and failures. But one thing is sure: its impact on American history cannot be ignored, and we would do well to heed its lessons as we navigate the treacherous waters of the present moment.
Suppose we're going to wrap our heads around the story of American conservatism and its role in today's politics. In that case, we must dig into the new right's political and cultural expressions. It's like having a flashlight in the dark, helping us make sense of the intricate web of connections between culture, identity, and political ideology. And if we're wise to the world's ways, we can use this knowledge to argue our points better on topics like immigration, social justice, and executive power.
THE RUNDOWN
QUESTIONS
"...Richard Nixon, who virtually repeated Wallace’s pledges in his successful campaigns in 1968 and 1972, was endorsed by country stars Tex Ritter and Roy Acuff and invited Merle Haggard and Johnny Cash to perform at the White House. Likewise, Ronald Reagan found the winning formula in 1980 when he declared that “work and family are at the center of our lives; the foundation of our dignity as a free people,” and vowed to protect that foundation with tax cuts and an aggressive military. The year of Reagan’s victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter, more than two hundred radio stations switched to all-country formats, and between 1977 and 1983, the number of country stations doubled from 1,140 to 2,266. Reagan, who as governor of California had pardoned Merle Haggard for his previous conviction on felony burglary charges, invited the “Okie from Muskogee” to the White House on several occasions.
The “new right” and its cultural expressions combined a renegade rejection of elite social control with a fierce defense of obligations—to nation, family, and work—that comprised the responsibilities of American citizenship in the postwar period. As in earlier periods, citizenship and whiteness were constructed in tandem, with African Americans serving as the model of the noncitizen. Moreover, this dual investment in Americanness and whiteness was always presented as a self-regulating paternalism. The (normally male) individual would work hard to support his family without assistance from the state, and would sacrifice himself to protect the family from its enemies, be they loose women, criminals, or communists..."
What Does Professor Lancaster Think?
In the aftermath of the Second World War, a formidable political and cultural entity known as the "new right" emerged in the United States. This movement's hallmark was a sincere devotion to Americanness and whiteness and a steadfast repudiation of the social supremacy exerted by the ruling class while also advocating for the nation, family, and labor. The values that animated this political force were embodied in the ringing endorsements bestowed upon Republican politicians, including Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, by country music icons. Yet, the foreign policy missteps of the Reagan administration, notably the Iran-Contra scandal, unveiled the flaws in his leadership, leading to a marked downturn in productivity during his second term. The realization that even the highest office of the land was fallible and that the exercise of power by the ruling class could be detrimental to the public interest compelled many Americans to reassess their values and beliefs.
In the tumultuous decades of the 1960s and 1970s, a peculiar new breed of conservatives arose in response to the shifting social and political tides. Feeling beleaguered by the winds of change, these Americans sought solace in the steadfast guidance of conservative leaders and cultural icons who upheld the values of the old. Icons of the genre, like Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard, lent their voices and support to the Republican cause, strumming their way into the hearts of conservative voters and rousing them to action at political rallies. And lo and behold, country music emerged as a potent weapon in the arsenal of the "new right," for it extolled the virtues of Americana and all things traditional.
In the turbulent arena of American politics, the New Right's deep-seated commitment to preserving a particular brand of whiteness has been readily apparent. Their fervent opposition to affirmative action and immigration policies served as tangible expressions of this commitment, as did their stubborn defense of Southern heritage and unwavering resistance to the civil rights movement. At the forefront of this movement were groups such as the League of the South, whose agenda was to safeguard the cultural heritage of the Southern states and repel what they viewed as a cultural Marxist assault on their traditional values. In their minds, they were the last line of defense against the erosion of the Southern way of life and were determined to hold their ground against any perceived threats.
Let's examine the rejection of elite social control by the New Right, a conservative movement that burst onto the scene like a firework on the Fourth of July. This ideology fundamentally distrusted the federal government and its supposed grip on power, instead promoting states' rights as a means of decentralization. The New Federalism was the banner under which this movement marched, calling for a reduction in the size of the federal government and greater autonomy for individual states. This movement's core values centered around the defense of nation, family, and work, often manifested in their opposition to hot-button issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and welfare. Please make no mistake, the New Right was a force to be reckoned with, boldly championing their beliefs and taking on the establishment with a fierce intensity. Love it or hate it, there's no denying this movement's impact on the political landscape of its time.
The savage grip of the New Right was felt most acutely during the reign of Reagan, whose very essence embodied their twisted ideals. A Hollywood actor turned political juggernaut; he paraded himself as the savior of American tradition, a hero to the masses. His brazen pursuits included a radical conservative agenda, slicing taxes, casting off regulations, and fortifying the nation's defense like a warrior preparing for battle.
This affair, shrouded in secrecy, revolved around the clandestine sale of arms to a nation under embargo - Iran - in exchange for hostages and the siphoning of funds from those sales to support rebels opposing the communists in Nicaragua. In the annals of Reagan's rule, the Iran-Contra scandal is a dark blemish, exposing chinks in the armor of his foreign policy and draining the vigor from his second term. The devastating fallout led to the ouster of multiple cabinet members, and the tide of power in the Senate shifted as a result.
The rise of the new right looms large, leaving an indelible mark on politics and culture in the postwar era. Yet, like all movements, its legacy is not easily summarized. On the one hand, the new right championed an investment in Americanness and whiteness that resonated with many Americans. But on the other, this investment frequently manifested in virulent strains of racism and xenophobia, poisoning the body politic and undermining the very foundations of democracy. Moreover, the new right's defense of so-called traditional values often came at a steep cost to social justice and equality. By privileging the status quo and resisting change, it too often reinforced the structures of oppression that have long plagued this nation. In this way, the new right sowed the seeds of division and conflict that continue to haunt us today. Indeed, the Iran-Contra affair exposed the deep flaws in the new right's foreign policy and the dangers of unchecked executive power. With Reagan at the helm, the nation was plunged into a crisis of epic proportions, covert actions in Central America came to light, and the public was forced to confront the extent of its government's misdeeds. The fallout from this debacle was profound, shaking the nation to its core and forcing us to re-examine our assumptions about power, democracy, and the state's role. In the end, the legacy of the new right is complicated, marked by both triumphs and tragedies, achievements and failures. But one thing is sure: its impact on American history cannot be ignored, and we would do well to heed its lessons as we navigate the treacherous waters of the present moment.
Suppose we're going to wrap our heads around the story of American conservatism and its role in today's politics. In that case, we must dig into the new right's political and cultural expressions. It's like having a flashlight in the dark, helping us make sense of the intricate web of connections between culture, identity, and political ideology. And if we're wise to the world's ways, we can use this knowledge to argue our points better on topics like immigration, social justice, and executive power.
THE RUNDOWN
- In the aftermath of WWII, the "New Right" emerged in the US, embodying devotion to Americanness and whiteness, and a rejection of the ruling class's social supremacy, promoting nation, family, and labor.
- Country music icons like Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard supported the Republican cause and embodied these values.
- The New Right was deeply committed to preserving whiteness, defending Southern heritage, and resisting civil rights movements, expressing their views through groups like the League of the South.
- The New Right distrusted the federal government, promoting states' rights and decentralization, and fighting against hot-button issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and welfare.
- The movement had a significant impact on politics and culture during the reign of Reagan, who embodied its ideals and pushed for radical conservative policies, but the Iran-Contra scandal revealed the flaws in his foreign policy and the dangers of unchecked executive power.
- The legacy of the New Right is complicated, with both achievements and failures, triumphs and tragedies, leaving an indelible mark on American history that cannot be ignored, but also sowing the seeds of division and conflict that continue to haunt us today.
QUESTIONS
- What were the core values of the New Right, and how did they differ from the traditional conservative movement of the time?
- In what ways did the New Right promote Americanness and whiteness, and what were the consequences of this investment in terms of racism and xenophobia?
- How did the Iran-Contra scandal expose the flaws in the New Right's foreign policy and the dangers of unchecked executive power?
THE RUNDOWN
"The Century: America's Time - 1981-1989: A New World" episode is all about the happenings of the 80s in the land of the free. Ronnie Reagan was in charge, and he had a plan - less government control, less tax, and more defense spending. He was quite the communicator too, and people loved him for it. But then there was that Iran-Contra scandal and things got pretty messy. The 80s were also a time of economic prosperity, with the stock market rising and people buying more stuff. But with this came the growth of the rich-poor gap, which could have been better. There were also some significant social changes, like the rise of religious conservatism, the gay rights movement, and the arrival of MTV on the scene. Oh, and let's not forget the fall of the Soviet Union, marking the end of the Cold War. Ronnie played a big part in all that, which was a big deal.
KEY TERMS
"The Century: America's Time - 1981-1989: A New World" episode is all about the happenings of the 80s in the land of the free. Ronnie Reagan was in charge, and he had a plan - less government control, less tax, and more defense spending. He was quite the communicator too, and people loved him for it. But then there was that Iran-Contra scandal and things got pretty messy. The 80s were also a time of economic prosperity, with the stock market rising and people buying more stuff. But with this came the growth of the rich-poor gap, which could have been better. There were also some significant social changes, like the rise of religious conservatism, the gay rights movement, and the arrival of MTV on the scene. Oh, and let's not forget the fall of the Soviet Union, marking the end of the Cold War. Ronnie played a big part in all that, which was a big deal.
KEY TERMS
- 1978 Turner Diaries
- 1979 Oil Crisis
- 1980- Fashion
- 1980 New Wave
- 1980 Genetically Modified Organisms Become Eligible for Patents
- 1980 Cuban Immigration
- 1980 The Miracle on Ice
- 1981 PATCO Strike
- 1981 MTV
- 1981- HIV/AIDS global epidemic
- 1982 Vincent Chin
- 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger
- 1982 Jane Fonda
- 1982 Compact Disc
- 1983: Space Shuttle Challenger
- 1983 Michael Jackson’s Moonwalk
- 1983 Video Game Crash
- 1984 Mary Lou Retton
- 1985 Nintendo
- 1985 Len Bias
- 1985 Iran Contra
- 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
DISCLAIMER: Welcome scholars to the wild and wacky world of history class. This isn't your granddaddy's boring ol' lecture, baby. We will take a trip through time, which will be one wild ride. I know some of you are in a brick-and-mortar setting, while others are in the vast digital wasteland. But fear not; we're all in this together. Online students might miss out on some in-person interaction, but you can still join in on the fun. This little shindig aims to get you all engaged with the course material and understand how past societies have shaped the world we know today. We'll talk about revolutions, wars, and other crazy stuff. So get ready, kids, because it's going to be one heck of a trip. And for all, you online students out there, don't be shy. Please share your thoughts and ideas with the rest of us. The Professor will do his best to give everyone an equal opportunity to learn, so don't hold back. So, let's do this thing!
ACTIVITY: The Iran Hostage Crisis Simulation
Objective: To understand the political and social factors that contributed to the Iran Hostage Crisis, and the impact it had on US foreign policy and international relations.
Instructions:
Activity: Decoding Political Cartoons of the 1980s
Objective: Students will analyze political cartoons from the 1980s to understand the major political and social issues of the era and the perspectives of different political groups.
Instructions:
SUMMARY
ASSIGNMENTS
Forum Discussion #13
Vice is a YouTube channel that produces documentary-style videos covering a range of topics such as politics, culture, technology, and social issues. The channel is known for its edgy and provocative content, often featuring stories and perspectives that are not covered by mainstream media. Vice has a large following and has won numerous awards for its journalism and storytelling. Watch this video and answer the following:
ACTIVITY: The Iran Hostage Crisis Simulation
Objective: To understand the political and social factors that contributed to the Iran Hostage Crisis, and the impact it had on US foreign policy and international relations.
Instructions:
- Divide the class into groups of 6-8 students. Assign each group a role in the simulation, such as US government officials, Iranian government officials, US embassy staff, Iranian students, etc. Provide each group with the scenario and background information handouts.
- Instruct the groups to read and analyze the scenario, and to prepare their responses to the unfolding events.
- Once the groups have had time to prepare, begin the simulation. The US embassy in Tehran has been taken over by Iranian students, and the US hostages are being held captive. The groups must negotiate with each other to find a resolution to the crisis.
- As the simulation progresses, write down key events and decisions on the whiteboard or poster paper. Encourage the groups to explain their reasoning behind their decisions and to listen to each other's perspectives.
- After the simulation, hold a debriefing session. Ask the students to reflect on the experience and discuss the following questions:
- What were the main factors that contributed to the crisis?
- What were the different perspectives and interests of the US and Iranian governments, and other groups involved?
- What were the consequences of the crisis for US foreign policy and international relations?
- What lessons can we learn from the crisis for contemporary US foreign policy?
- Summarize the key takeaways from the simulation and discussion, and encourage the students to continue reflecting on the topic in their own research and reading.
Activity: Decoding Political Cartoons of the 1980s
Objective: Students will analyze political cartoons from the 1980s to understand the major political and social issues of the era and the perspectives of different political groups.
Instructions:
- Begin by introducing the political and social context of the 1980s, including the Reagan presidency, the Cold War, the rise of conservatism, and the cultural changes of the era.
- Divide the class into small groups and distribute the handouts with guiding questions for analysis.
- Display a political cartoon on the whiteboard or projector and ask the groups to work together to analyze the cartoon and answer the questions on the handout.
- After a set amount of time, bring the class back together and ask each group to present their analysis of the cartoon. Encourage discussion and debate among the groups.
- Repeat this process with several different cartoons, focusing on different issues and perspectives of the era.
- As a concluding activity, have the class work together to create their own political cartoon reflecting a major issue or event from the 1980s. Display the cartoons around the classroom for all to see and discuss.
SUMMARY
- 1978 to 1986 saw social, economic, and political transformations in the US
- Economy grew due to new technologies, money flow, and Reagan's policies but national debt grew substantially
- Iran Hostage Crisis strained relationships between US and Iran, leading to sanctions and diplomatic tensions
- Reagan-Gorbachev meeting in 1985 improved US-Soviet relations and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty reduced nuclear risk
- Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 made progress in civil rights and fair treatment for people with disabilities
- Perception is important in shaping reality and can be a catalyst for positive change or misinformation and deception
- New Right emerged after WWII promoting Americanness and whiteness, rejecting social supremacy, and defending Southern heritage
- New Right promoted states' rights, resisted civil rights movements, and had significant impact on Reagan's policies
- Legacy of the New Right is complicated with achievements and failures, leaving an indelible mark on American history.
ASSIGNMENTS
- Forum Discussion #13
- QUIZ #4
Forum Discussion #13
Vice is a YouTube channel that produces documentary-style videos covering a range of topics such as politics, culture, technology, and social issues. The channel is known for its edgy and provocative content, often featuring stories and perspectives that are not covered by mainstream media. Vice has a large following and has won numerous awards for its journalism and storytelling. Watch this video and answer the following:
Do you think the government has a responsibility to investigate and address the allegations of their involvement in the drug trade, specifically in regards to communities of color? What steps do you think can be taken to address the historical and ongoing harm caused by the War on Drugs and the crack epidemic?
Need help? Remember the Discussion Board Rubric.
THE RUNDOWN
It's no secret that the American government has been accused of intentionally flooding the streets with hard drugs for decades. Rumors swirl that the CIA and law enforcement have been funneling drugs into inner cities, specifically the African-American community, as part of a covert effort to prevent them from attaining stability, building wealth, and achieving political power. And let me tell you; it's aimed right at the African-Americans, no doubt about that whatsoever. But what about the other non-African people? Well, they should know that this directive will harm them too. The '80s saw the emergence of the so-called crack epidemic, which solidified these ideas, making it easy for people of color to believe that US authorities do not have their best interests at heart. But do these drug charges hold any weight? Did the intelligence agencies play a role in flooding American cities with cocaine?
Let's go back to the beginning when the story of the CIA and crack cocaine began not on the streets of LA or Miami but in the jungles of Central America. In 1979, the dictatorial government of Nicaragua was overthrown by socialist revolutionaries called the Sandinistas. Right-wing groups known as the Contras began a brutal paramilitary campaign, receiving money and weapons from the CIA as part of the Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union. But in 1982, Democrats in Congress passed laws to cut off support for the Nicaraguan rebels. So, the Contras and their CIA backers had to find new ways of funding their struggle. And that's when they found cocaine. By the early '80s, more people in the US were snorting coke than ever before, most of it imported from Colombia. Smokable cocaine, or crack, exploded across American cities, proving to be a goldmine for countless organized crime groups, even those backed by the CIA.
The Contras soon became linked with Colombian cartels, and in 1985, reporters Robert Parry and Brian Barger broke an almost unbelievable story. They claimed Nicaraguan rebels were involved in cocaine trafficking. Not only did the CIA know about these activities, but they also allowed them to continue to help fund the Contras' war effort. The CIA, of course, denied any involvement in the drug trade. But on the streets, rumors began to spread that the government was either actively or passively allowing the crack to be sold. These rumors remained until 1996, when San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb picked up the story from a new angle. Webb investigated the case of Freeway Rick Ross, who in the early 1980s was the most critical kingpin in LA's crack scene and probably America's first-ever crack millionaire. What Webb uncovered was that Ross's leading cocaine supplier was a guy named Danilo Blandón, a Nicaraguan exile who funneled tens of thousands of dollars...
WORK CITED
Hey, welcome to the work cited section! Here's where you'll find all the heavy hitters that inspired the content you've just consumed. Some might think citations are as dull as unbuttered toast, but nothing gets my intellectual juices flowing like a good reference list. Don't get me wrong, just because we've cited a source; doesn't mean we're always going to see eye-to-eye. But that's the beauty of it - it's up to you to chew on the material and come to conclusions. Listen, we've gone to great lengths to ensure these citations are accurate, but let's face it, we're all human. So, give us a holler if you notice any mistakes or suggest more sources. We're always looking to up our game. Ultimately, it's all about pursuing knowledge and truth, my friends.
LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO
Need help? Remember the Discussion Board Rubric.
THE RUNDOWN
It's no secret that the American government has been accused of intentionally flooding the streets with hard drugs for decades. Rumors swirl that the CIA and law enforcement have been funneling drugs into inner cities, specifically the African-American community, as part of a covert effort to prevent them from attaining stability, building wealth, and achieving political power. And let me tell you; it's aimed right at the African-Americans, no doubt about that whatsoever. But what about the other non-African people? Well, they should know that this directive will harm them too. The '80s saw the emergence of the so-called crack epidemic, which solidified these ideas, making it easy for people of color to believe that US authorities do not have their best interests at heart. But do these drug charges hold any weight? Did the intelligence agencies play a role in flooding American cities with cocaine?
Let's go back to the beginning when the story of the CIA and crack cocaine began not on the streets of LA or Miami but in the jungles of Central America. In 1979, the dictatorial government of Nicaragua was overthrown by socialist revolutionaries called the Sandinistas. Right-wing groups known as the Contras began a brutal paramilitary campaign, receiving money and weapons from the CIA as part of the Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union. But in 1982, Democrats in Congress passed laws to cut off support for the Nicaraguan rebels. So, the Contras and their CIA backers had to find new ways of funding their struggle. And that's when they found cocaine. By the early '80s, more people in the US were snorting coke than ever before, most of it imported from Colombia. Smokable cocaine, or crack, exploded across American cities, proving to be a goldmine for countless organized crime groups, even those backed by the CIA.
The Contras soon became linked with Colombian cartels, and in 1985, reporters Robert Parry and Brian Barger broke an almost unbelievable story. They claimed Nicaraguan rebels were involved in cocaine trafficking. Not only did the CIA know about these activities, but they also allowed them to continue to help fund the Contras' war effort. The CIA, of course, denied any involvement in the drug trade. But on the streets, rumors began to spread that the government was either actively or passively allowing the crack to be sold. These rumors remained until 1996, when San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb picked up the story from a new angle. Webb investigated the case of Freeway Rick Ross, who in the early 1980s was the most critical kingpin in LA's crack scene and probably America's first-ever crack millionaire. What Webb uncovered was that Ross's leading cocaine supplier was a guy named Danilo Blandón, a Nicaraguan exile who funneled tens of thousands of dollars...
WORK CITED
Hey, welcome to the work cited section! Here's where you'll find all the heavy hitters that inspired the content you've just consumed. Some might think citations are as dull as unbuttered toast, but nothing gets my intellectual juices flowing like a good reference list. Don't get me wrong, just because we've cited a source; doesn't mean we're always going to see eye-to-eye. But that's the beauty of it - it's up to you to chew on the material and come to conclusions. Listen, we've gone to great lengths to ensure these citations are accurate, but let's face it, we're all human. So, give us a holler if you notice any mistakes or suggest more sources. We're always looking to up our game. Ultimately, it's all about pursuing knowledge and truth, my friends.
- "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 50 Years Later" by Robert J. Hanyok, NSA's Center for Cryptologic History: https://www.nsa.gov/News-Features/Declassified-Documents/Gulf-of-Tonkin/
- "The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: Anatomy of a Vote" by Richard F. Grimmett, Congressional Research Service: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42784.pdf
- "Civil Rights Timeline" by The National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilrights/timeline.htm
- "US Economy of the 1980s and 1990s" by The Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/1980-to-present/us-economy-of-the-1980s-and-1990s/
- "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq" by Amy F. Woolf, Congressional Research Service: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32217.pdf
- "The Hostage Crisis" by The Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum, https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/crisis/hostages.phtml
- "U.S.-Soviet Relations" by The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/10685c
- Jacoby, T. (2014). The New Right, Then and Now. Dissent Magazine. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-new-right-then-and-now
- Perlstein, R. (2010). Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. Hill and Wang.
- Schulman, B. (2016). The New Right and the Rise of the Alt-Right. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-new-right-and-the-rise-of-the-alt-right/
LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO
- (Disclaimer: This is not professional or legal advice. If it were, the article would be followed with an invoice. Do not expect to win any social media arguments by hyperlinking my articles. Chances are, we are both wrong).
- (Trigger Warning: This article or section, or pages it links to, contains antiquated language or disturbing images which may be triggering to some.)
- (Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is granted, provided that the author (or authors) and www.ryanglancaster.com are appropriately cited.)
- This site is for educational purposes only.
- Fair Use: Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
- Fair Use Definition: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.