TheGaggle
Politics • Culture • News
Our community is made up of those who value the freedom of speech, the right to debate and the promise of open, honest conversations.

We don't agree on everything but we never silence our followers and value every opinion on our channel.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
The Gaggle Book Club: "America in Our Time: From World War II to Nixon—What Happened and Why" By Godfrey Hodgson

Each week, the Gaggle Book Club recommends a book for Gagglers to read and—most important—uploads a pdf version of it.

Our practice is that we do not vouch for the reliability or accuracy of any book we recommend. Still less, do we necessarily agree with a recommended book's central arguments. However, any book we recommend will be of undoubted interest and intellectual importance.

Today's book club selection is "America in Our Time: From World War II to Nixon—What Happened and Why" by Godfrey Hodgson. Published in 1976, Hodgson's book examines the key political, social and economic changes that defined postwar America. The book is not a straightforward history but rather an attempt to analyze why America changed in the way that it did.

Hodgson, a liberal British journalist who covered America for "The Observer" during the 1960s and 70s, argued that post-1945 America was ruled by a "liberal establishment"—a coalition of business elites, policymakers and intellectuals who adhered to a broad liberal consensus. This consisted of a commitment to economic growth and Keynesian demand management; civil rights and gradual social progress; and, above all, a strong, interventionist foreign policy, which went by the name of Cold War containment.

The reign of the liberal establishment began to crumble when confronted by the rise of Black Power and the incidence of urban riots. The Cold War containment policy, bogged down in the jungles of Southeast Asia, had led to massive antiwar protests by a newly-radicalized youth.

That part of the story has been told many times. Hodgson, however, adds a few intriguing details. For example, he details the role of liberal philanthropic foundations—such as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations—in exacerbating racial divisions in America. Most histories of the civil rights movement and the racial politics of the 1960s and 70s focus on government policies, grassroots movements or white backlash. Hodgson, however, brings in an often-overlooked factor: the influence of elite liberal foundations in shaping the debate on race in ways that deepened, rather than resolved, racial tensions.

Hodgson argues that major philanthropic foundations saw themselves as benevolent "social engineers." Early foundation efforts (in the 1950s and early 1960s) focused on traditional civil rights goals such as racial integration. By the late 1960s, however, foundations began funding more radical, separatist elements within the Black Power movement.

This shift, Hodgson argues, marginalized traditional civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and the NAACP, while elevating more radical figures who advocated for racial separatism, economic self-sufficiency and violent activism.

Hodgson pays particular attention to the Ford Foundation, which heavily funded community control projects in urban black neighborhoods. One major example was Ford’s support for "community control" of schools in New York City, which led in 1968 to intense racial conflict between black and Jewish communities in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville school controversy.

Rather than foster interracial cooperation, these initiatives provoked backlash from groups that felt alienated by racial favoritism. Hodgson points out that these liberal foundations were often run by the very same elite groups they claimed to oppose: wealthy white liberals, corporate executives and elite academics. Their efforts served to promote social and racial divisions.

Another original aspect of "America in Our Time" is Hodgson’s argument that Great Society programs fueled inner-city violence by channeling federal funds into the hands of urban gangsters and radical groups. Most mainstream accounts of the Great Society focus on its noble intentions and progressive goals—expanding welfare, fighting poverty and promoting civil rights. Hodgson, however, presents a much more critical perspective, showing how federal money often ended up funding criminal elements and radical activists rather than helping the communities the programs were supposedly meant to serve.

Under President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, millions of dollars were funneled into inner-city programs. Much of this money ended up in the hands of criminals, street gangs and corrupt political operatives. City officials and law enforcement found themselves powerless as radical groups and gangsters gained influence through federal funding.

Hodgson describes how big-city mayors, including those of New York, Chicago and Detroit, pleaded with Johnson to curtail Great Society funding because it was fueling violence. These mayors—who were themselves Democrats—recognized that federal programs were not stabilizing their cities but rather making life worse for their residents. The money that was supposed to help reduce poverty was instead empowering radical militants, organized criminal gangs and local political bosses who had no interest in peaceful reform.

Hodgson also details how Democratic political machines in cities such as Chicago, New York and Philadelphia used Great Society money for patronage, rather than real social reform. In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley took War on Poverty funds and redirected them to his own political network, ensuring that federal money served the Democratic Party rather than poor residents.

In some cities, community organizations created under the Great Society became fronts for organized crime. Black nationalist groups received funding and used the money to recruit militants.

Most liberal histories of the Great Society present it as an altruistic, well-intentioned effort that was undermined by racism, conservative backlash or insufficient funding. Hodgson, however, shows that the failure was baked into the system itself—the programs empowered the wrong people, fueled violence and undermined their own goals. Hodgson was among the first to argue that liberal policies themselves contributed to the very problems they were supposed to fix.

Another original aspect of "America in Our Time" is Hodgson’s revisionist view of Nixon as a strong and effective president, whose downfall remains paradoxical given his political skill and achievements. Hodgson portrays Nixon as a master-strategist who understood American politics better than most of his predecessors. Nixon built a new coalition that reshaped American politics particularly through his Southern Strategy, which forever peeled away white Southerners from the Democratic Party. While liberals disparaged middle-class concerns, Nixon channeled them effectively into a broad conservative movement. As a policymaker, whether on domestic or foreign policy, Nixon was among the most successful.

Hodgson suggests that the liberal establishment Nixon had spent his career fighting against played a crucial role in his downfall. While Nixon was effectively dismantling the old liberal order, the media and political elite turned on him with full force during Watergate, seeing it as a moral reckoning for his attacks on the system that had served them so well.

"America in Our Time" remains one of the best accounts of how the optimism of postwar America gave way to the political and social fractures of the 1970s. In a highly readable way, Hodgson explains how and why the postwar "liberal establishment" collapsed as a result of its own internal contradictions and failures. The book is important in helping us understand how the political realignments in the 1960s and 70s served to generate to the Trumpian political conflicts we are embroiled in today.

America_in_Our_Time___From_World_War_II_to_Nixon_What_--_Hodgson,_Godfrey_--_Serie_Vintage_books,_V-517,_New_York,_NY,_1978_--_Vintage_Books..pdf
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
October 14, 2026
TG 2195: Serbia's Election: National Independence Is On The Ballot

George Szamuely and Serbian political analyst, Vladimir Kršljanin, discuss the Oct. 25 parliamentary election in Serbia, and wonder whether any real political change will follow in Belgrade.

01:07:51
October 12, 2026
Monday Night At The Movies: "Colossus: The Forbin Project" (1970)

Join Gagglers for "Colossus: The Forbin Project"!
The screening starts at 3 p.m. ET sharp.
Share all of your thoughts, comments and criticisms on the Live Chat.

See you at 3 p.m. ET

01:36:06
October 11, 2026
TG 2194: Is Trump Planning To Do Regime Change In Ukraine?

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss President Trump's agreement with President Putin to release Russian diesel oil on world markets, followed by the U.S. president's call for the removal of President Zelensky from power in Ukraine, and wonder whether the American and the Russian have a plan in place for regime change in Kiev.

00:45:55
October 14, 2026
Monday Night At The Movies

Please choose which one of the following 8 movies you would like to have screened next Monday, Oct. 19.

In light of recent events at Cornell University, the poll is films that address the theme of wrongful sexual accusations and allegations.

Please continue to vote in this poll after Oct. 19, so that we can determine the runner-up. The runner-up will be screened on Oct. 26.

Timothy Garton Ash
For a demonstration of affectation beyond the bearable ... the very worst type, the flickering eyes, the smile of lofty privilege, the glance above as he plucks down some defining flower of wisdom, the head tilt. The attitudes of course are not simply bred in the soil of Liberal Europe of the past 50 years, but represent a distinctly repellant form of British privileged birth and education.

Merz opposes transferring frozen Russian assets under US control

The German chancellor said the funds should remain under European control.

The Atlantic: Ukraine is only beginning its campaign to paralyze Russian airports

Ukraine is trying to disrupt the operation of Russian airports using long-range drones. However, Volodymyr Zelensky has not yet approved the initial plan for a much larger operation, The Atlantic reports.

The plan envisages the use of AI-powered drones capable of bypassing Russian air defenses. Mass production could begin in the near future.

Most importantly, the operation does not depend on American technology or intelligence.

In October, Moscow’s four airports collectively suspended operations for 101 hours during the first two weeks of the month.

By comparison, they were closed for a total of 46 hours throughout September.

January 21, 2023
More Leftie Than Thou
"Jacobin" Magazine Celebrates A Strike Against Ol' Blue Eyes

Here at "The Gaggle" we have very little time for the "more Leftie than thou" school of thought--that's the approach to life according to which the only thing that matters is whether you take the right position on every issue under the sun from Abortion to Zelensky. No one in the world meets the exacting standards of this school of thought; any Leftie leader anywhere is always selling out to the bankers and the capitalists. The perfect exemplar of this is the unreadable Jacobin magazine. 

The other day I came across this article from 2021. It's a celebration of trade union power. And not simply trade union power, but the use of trade union power to secure political goals. Of course (and this is always the case with the "more Leftie than thou" crowd), this glorious, never-to-be-forgotten moment on the history of organized labor took place many years ago--in the summer of 1974 to be exact. Yes, almost half a century has gone by since that thrilling moment when the working-class movement of Australia mobilized and prepared to seize the means of production, distribution and exchange. 

Well, not quite. Organized labor went into action against...Ol' Blue Eyes, the Chairman of the Board, the Voice; yes, Frank Sinatra. Why? What had Sinatra done? Sinatra was certainly very rich, and he owned a variety of properties and businesses. But if the Australian trade union movement were, understandably, searching for the bright, incandescent spark that would finally awaken the working class from its slumber there were surely richer, greedier, more dishonest, more decadent, above all more Australian individuals it could have discovered. Australia was never short of them. Rupert Murdoch immediately springs to mind. Why Sinatra?

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals