← New Books Network
New Books Network
Jim Cullen, "1980: America's Pivotal Year" (Rutgers UP, 2022)
00:41:44
An interview with Jim Cullen
Loading summary
Transcript60 lines
- [00:00]
Apple Watch Narrator
If we knew more about our sleep, what would we do differently? Would we go to bed at a consistent time or take steps to reduce interruptions to our sleep? With the all new Sleep Score, Apple Watch measures your bedtime consistency, interruptions and sleep duration. Then every morning it combines these factors into an easy to understand score from 1 to 100 so you'll know how to take the quality of your sleep from good to excellent. Introducing the new Sleep Score ON Apple Watch iPhone 11 or later required Good morning crust.
- [00:33]
Ryan Reynolds
It's a great day to be a bread brother.
- [00:36]
Jim Cullen
Mornings are not my jam or jelly.
- [00:38]
Ryan Reynolds
Oh come on, stop loafing around. I just woke up feeling hollow inside. Just grab one of the new morning Uncrustable sandwiches like Bright Eyed Berry or up an apple filled with 12 grams of protein and tons of deliciousness crust.
- [00:52]
Jim Cullen
What are you eating?
- [00:54]
Jackson Reinhardt
It's just granola.
- [00:56]
Jim Cullen
Not even yogurt.
- [00:57]
Apple Watch Narrator
No crust, no fuss.
- [00:59]
Stitch Fix Narrator
Uncrust your mornings Shopping is hard, right? But I found a better way. Stitch Fix Online Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size, style and budget preferences. I order boxes when I want and how I want. No subscription required. And he sends just for me pieces plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep what works and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started today@stitchfix.com Spotify that's stitchfix.com Spotify.
- [01:31]
Jim Cullen
Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:35]
Jackson Reinhardt
Hello. You are listening to New Books in American Studies, a channel of the New Books Network. I'm your host, Jackson Reinhart, and today I'm with Jim Cullen, teacher at the newly founded Upper Division of Greenwich Country Day School, to discuss his new book, published by Rutgers University Press 2022, called 1980America's Pivotal Year. 1980America's Pivotal Year puts the news events of the era, everything from the Iran hostage crisis to the rise of televangelism to the contentious 1980 election, into conversation with with the year's popular culture. Separate chapters focus on the movies, television shows, songs and books that Americans were talking about and digesting, including both the biggest hits and some notable flops that failed to capture the shifting zeitgeist. As Cullen looks at the events that had Americans glued to their screens, from the Miracle on Ice to the Mystery of who Shot Junior. Cultural historian Jim Cullen garner surprising insights about how American attitudes were changing as they entered the 1980s. Jim, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast today.
- [02:43]
Jim Cullen
Pleasure to be here.
- [02:44]
Jackson Reinhardt
So, before we get into the content of the books, tell me A little bit about your academic background and the scholarly impetus for writing 1980, America's pivotal year.
- [02:54]
Jim Cullen
Well, I do have an academic background. I have a bachelor's degree in English from Tufts University. I have a PhD and a master's degree and a PhD in American Studies from Brown. I have taught, you know, at Harvard, at Sarah Lawrence College. But I've also been for a lot of this period, a high school teacher. And I spent about 19 years at the Ethical Culture Fieldiston School in New York. And I left there a couple years ago to be part of, effectively a startup or a sort of a semi startup at the Greenwich Country Day School. So, you know, I, you know, that's my teaching background. I've written about 20 books. I consider myself a cultural historian. And in recent years I have really focused more on the latter third or so of the 20th century. And I've written books about the sitcom all in the Family. I've written about the filmmaker Martin Scorsese. And this book sort of fits into that sort of pattern of recent years.
- [03:57]
Jackson Reinhardt
Fantastic. So why focus on the year 1980? What was supposedly pivotal, as mentioned in the title, or how did the zeitgeist shift in this year and distinctual from the leading up of the 1970s? How was 1980 a year to focus on? How is it not merely just a continuation of the 70s?
- [04:23]
Jim Cullen
Yeah, I mean, I think one of the great cliches of historical study is to call any particular time a moment of change, because every moment is a moment of change almost by definition. But what interests me about 1980, basically there were two things. One is that, you know, it is. Well, it has been amply documented and is well remembered by those of us who lived through it, that, you know, 1980 was clearly a time of, of ideological shifts in American politics. And the, you know, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 is widely considered a kind of watershed in American history. But I think that less well understood or examined is the way in which that year, which was so important politically, was also important culturally, that, that, that there really were, that, that, you know, the politics and the culture were really in a kind of loose alignment that way. And the other thing that, which brings me to the second thing. I think that 1980 was a little bit unusual in the way in which it seemed to. It almost was like a piece of stop motion photography because there were, if you look at, you know, particular movies or T shows or albums or books that come out that year, you can see how both they really reflect a culture of the 1970s along with, @ the same time an emergent sort of shift toward a kind of neo conservatism that, that you see in the 1980s. And I'm sure we'll talk about particular examples, which I'm happy to do. But you know, it's that, it's that, that sort of protean quality, the way that you can capture the doubleness in that moment, that's what, that what's intrigued me.
- [06:08]
Jackson Reinhardt
So you bookend your lively history with a history of the 1980 presidential election. Give us a sense of the political context of this election.
- [06:20]
Jim Cullen
So, you know, 1980 was a, you know, I think political scientists would say was a time of a political realignment. And, you know, before 1980, you know, the kind of premises of liberalism that had basically been in place since the time of the Great Depression, since the time of the New Deal, had largely been regnant. And after that time, you have essentially a kind of neoliberal order, a kind of, you know, market based kind of approach. In the year 1980, you have an election going on and it's sort of, it's kind of a funny election because I think for a lot of people living at the time, both candidates, both major candidates seem so unlikely and so unappetizing. You know, you have President Jimmy Carter, who had been elected in 1976, and he was a fresh face and a fresh voice at the time. He represented a break from the kind of imperial presidency that had characterized the administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. And he was very appealing that way. But Carter's presidency was very troubled to some degree for reasons beyond his control. The economy was really quite poor. It was a time, actually a time like we're living in now, very high inflation, but it was also coupled with high unemployment. At the same time. Carter was applauded for his honesty and decency, but a lot of people felt like his leadership was lacking. And so, you know, it did not seem very likely that he would be reelected. You know, Ronald Reagan, to many people was an appealing candidate, but for a great many Americans, he seemed preposterous. For one thing, he was, he was sick. 69 years old, which was far too old to be elected to the presidency in a lot of people's minds. He also seemed dangerously radical and out of touch. And so he also seemed, you know, like an unlikely prospect. Now, there are a couple of other figures that are worth mentioning in this context. You know, there's a third, there's a third candidate, John Anderson, who starts out as a Republican. He's sort of a liberal Republican, and he emerges as a third party candidate and he, you know, diminishes in terms of his, you know, the slice of the electorate that he gets. But he is sort of a road not taken and again, shows us, you know, how much things were changing because the notion of a kind of liberal Republican or a liberal ish, or, you know, a kind of secular. Well, he was actually a minister, but nevertheless, he appealed to younger, younger voters at the time. I mean, that's the kind of thing you could never see now. And yet it was sort of. It was sort of an available option. And then the fourth person who's mentioning. Worth mentioning in this context is Senator Edward Kennedy, who challenged Jimmy Carter for the presidency and who many people believe to be the front runner. You know, Kennedy sort of bungled his rollout of his campaign. I mean, he didn't. He was sort of indecisive and got off to a slow start, although he then ended up posing a substantial challenge to Carter. But to me, the most interesting thing about Ted Kennedy's presidency in 1980 was that he was the liberal lion. He was the bastion of the traditional left. And he was seen as a very, very plausible candidate in 1979, going into 1980. And after that point, he would no longer be. I mean, that, that. That tide completely washes out in 1980. So again, you know, this is the political manifestation of. What I'm saying is that in 1980, you know, it was still very much the 1970s, you know, I mean, it was very much the, The Democratic Party of the Kennedys, you know, going back to Joe Kennedy, you know, you know, at the same time, it was very clear that there was. That there was. There were shifting winds afoot. And that over time, Reagan's presidency, which had seemed, you know, an unlikely prospect, ended up becoming an inevitable one.
- [10:22]
Jackson Reinhardt
You mentioned. Yeah, the distaste of both candidates and the enthusiasm for young people of John Anderson. Both of my parents cast their first vote for John B. Anderson. They were the typical kind of college student, New Republic reading, youthful intellectual types who just. Both from, well, the Midwest. And so they really appreciated his message. So I'm grateful you included a little history into Anderson. So your analysis includes chapters on four mediums of popular culture. Film, television, music and literature. What do these mediums reveal about the changing nature of American society? Why pick, in a sense, these four popular mediums?
- [11:04]
Jim Cullen
Well, because I think they are the sort of the, the. The center, as it were, of. Of American culture at the time. And, you know, I think it is Worth pausing for a moment to emphasize that, that, that the media culture of the, of 1980 is much more centralized and cohesive than the kind that we have that we have today. Just to sort of illustrate the point, using television, I mean, this was an age of broadcasting. You know, this was an age when, you know, there were, there were three major networks, you know, there was PBS as an alternative, but, you know, you know, the number one show, you know, a show like say MASH, which was running strong in 1980, would get, would get tens of millions of viewers a week. You know, in, you know, in our time, Game of Thrones getting 10 million viewers for its finale is considered a major cultural earthquake. Like, wow, you know, 10, 10 million viewers would get you canceled in 1980. You know, you know, in terms of, in terms of show, you know, we have a, we have a, and this is not a, you know, praise or criticism, it's just an observation of the, of the, of the media landscape sort of being different. So, you know, that's, that's something that sort of intrigues me. But again, to go to the, the main point here, you know, when you look at these different media in every case, see these examples that have that protean sort of shape shifting quality to them of two things going on at the same time. Let me, let me get, let me get specific here. You know, I opened the chapter on, since we're on popular music, you know, noting that 1980 was the year that, you know, John Lennon, you know, this was of course the year that he died. But he releases a new album for the first time in five years Starting over and there's a bunch of hit singles from that. And of course his death is very tragic and you know, a landmark in its own right. But, but to on the Living Linen for a minute and what he actually was doing and saying, you know, Starting over on the one hand is a, is a feminist statement by a house husband who, you know, is married to a woman who is the breadwinner. You know, I mean, it's, it's the liberal, he's a liberated male, you know, and as such he fits squarely in a kind of a 70s, you know, gender paradigm. You know, but that album Double Fantasy is decidedly retro and it's, you know, avowedly so. I mean, the hits, the first hit single is Starting Over. It's sort of a tribute to Elvis Presley, you know, I mean, so he is, you know, simultaneously his message is sort of a 70s message in terms of its, you know, gender politics. But at the Same time, the musical message is, is neoconservative in the sense that. Not, not in a Reagan esque sense, but in the sense of embracing older forms, recycling them, you know, so those sort of two things are going on sort of simultaneously.
- [13:56]
Jackson Reinhardt
Yeah. You mentioned, just to stick on John Lennon for a little bit, you mentioned indirectly, quickly, about his disavowal of his early 1970s leftism. Right. He said he really doesn't. He was doing it out of guilt. He really didn't know what he's doing, from what I understand. I mean, he said elliptically that he kind of was supportive of Reagan in 1980. I mean, do you have any information on kind of Lenin's politics right before he died?
- [14:20]
Jim Cullen
Yeah, well, I don't any. I don't have any evidence that he said anything positive about, about Reagan. And I, and I. And I think it would, I think it would be, you know, a kind of dereliction of duty on my part to suggest that, you know, that John Lennon was really a Reagan at heart. I don't, I don't believe that he was. But, but to speak to your point, I mean, at the beginning of the 1970s, you know, John Lennon was, was, was a radical leftist voice and was actively entertaining, literally and figuratively, you know, some of the most subversive and challenging sort of figures in the culture at the time. And at the end of the 1970s, he is giving interviews and he's saying, you know, basically, I did that of guilt and peer pressure. You know, I. This was not really an honest reflection of who I was. I mean, again, that's not the same thing as saying that you're a, you know, a neoconservative economist. But I do, I think one of the things about John Lennon, of course, why so many people admire him is that, you know, he was one of those people like Bob Dylan, who would soon become a born again Christian, by the way, which people may not remember, but who really had his finger on the pulse of the culture. And so, you know, it was interesting that even at the very end of his life, Lenin seems to have seemed to have a sixth sense about, you know, the direction of Western culture generally.
- [15:39]
Jackson Reinhardt
Yeah. And you also mentioned Springsteen too, who you've written a book on also. Even though he doesn't capture the politics of the era, still, nonetheless, his 1980 album captures this. Yeah, this nostalgic resourcement of the 1950s.
- [15:53]
Jim Cullen
Right, absolutely. Again, you know, Bruce Springsteen was a lifelong. Still is a dedicated Democrat, you know, hostile to the excesses of the new right. But Musically speaking, he is a deeply conservative figure who in many ways was about preserving the world of his parents, his post war parents, in his, in his musical vision. And certainly in terms of his sonic vocabulary, he hearkens back, you know, he is not a, he is not an avant garde, you know, sort of figure in this period. And it is, and again, it is interesting to point out in this context that the avant garde figures were also beginning to move in this direction. I mean, in 1980, you have, you have someone like, you know, the Talking Heads, you know, release remain in Light, which is very much, you know, the absolute sonic frontier of American popular music. They record the album them with Brian Eno, they experiment with African rhythms. Exactly what you would expect, you know, an experimental, you know, band of the vanguard of American musical culture to do. And yet within a couple of years, the Talking Heads were released. Little creatures. They'd have twangy, you know, country guitars. They would be embracing Americana. And you can sort of see this in David Bowie's music. You can see this in Laurie Anderson's music. I mean, some of this, you know, obviously spills out beyond the narrow confines of 1980, but the trend, I think, is unmistakable.
- [17:18]
Jackson Reinhardt
Speaking of also trends, in your chapter on film, you frequently discuss a book, also kind of bookending the chapter, excuse me, you frequently mention the film Heaven's Gate, directed by Michael Cimino, which is a significant critical and commercial flop in 1980. What does heaven's Gate, the disaster of its production and release, reveal about film and the changing landscapes of Hollywood in 1980?
- [17:52]
Jim Cullen
Well, you know, the story of Heaven's Gate as a flop, you know, that, you know, that brings the studio, United Artists to its knees, is sort of a very familiar one. In fact, there's a brand new book, actually, that probably will break some ground in terms of telling that story. And it is a great story. I mean, how this, this up and coming filmmaker who wins and wins an Academy Award for the Deer Hunter is given carte blanche to make a, to make a movie. He is, he is reckless. He is a reckless spendthrift and, and, and, and, and the movie that he makes ends up becoming a financial disaster. That, that's an intrinsically interesting story. But in terms of, in terms of the story that I'm telling here, again, it speaks to this transitional moment because, you know, Heaven's Gate in a lot of ways is meant to be a kind of revisionist Western. I mean, it tells the story of Eastern European immigrants on the frontier. We don't typically think of Eastern European Immigrants on the frontier. That's sort of part of a 70 story in terms of, you know, widening the lens and bringing the ethnic working class into the mainstream. And, you know, and that's sort of part of the project of Heaven's Gate. And, you know, it's. And it, you know, I think there's a lot to be said for that. But it's also true that Heaven's Gate is a, you know, a sort of, you know, a Western in the grand tradition. I mean, that's what Cimino was trying to do was to, was to, was to. Was to write an epic, you know, or to, you know, to hearken, you know, the great westerns of the 40s and 50s, you know, the John Ford Monument Valley sort of types of stories. And, you know, and one of the reasons why the movie was such a financial disaster is, you know, the sets and the complications of, you know, bringing the railroad to the middle of Idaho, you know, that kind of thing. So it's one more illustration of the larger, you know, argument I'm trying to make here.
- [19:52]
Jackson Reinhardt
What were some other major films in the 1980s that either capture or do not capture this? The shifting zeitgeist?
- [20:00]
Jim Cullen
Well, another movie that I think is interesting in this regard is Goldie Hawn's big hit from 1980, Private Benjamin. You know, and, you know, Private Benjamin is very much a 70s movie again in the terms of terms of a gender context and that we have, you know, a kind of, you know, a kind of lively woman with some, with some grit who overcomes, you know, sexism and her own insecurities and ends up becoming sort of a, sort of a successful soldier. That's like a feminist story. But at the same time, you know, it's worth pointing out that Private Benjamin is a comedy about the military. And that was a contradiction in terms for most of the 1970s. If you made movies about the military, 1970s, you were making, you know, you were making Apocalypse now, you know, you were making the Deer Hunter. I mean, you know, the military was no joke. It was, it was the ultimate symbol of American imperialism. So the idea that, you know, that you could make a light hearted movie about this and you could make a lighthearted movie in which the military is an instrument of gender emancipation is something a little bit new and a sign that the culture was changing. And so once again, you have a document here that is both very much a 70s story and very much a sign of things to come. To be followed, of course, by like Stripes and other sort of comedies. Good Morning Vietnam, of course, toward the end of the decade.
- [21:30]
Jackson Reinhardt
I think you could even connect it to Top Gun, especially with the new Top Gun. This a film showing the benefits, the personal, like, rewarding and fulfilling benefits of the military. I thought that was an excellent argument. Although there are some films from 1980 I wish you had discussed. Speaking of gender issues, Brian De Palma's politically incorrect masterpiece, Dressed to Kill with Michael Caine and then. And then some others. But nonetheless, I think the discussion was, yeah, go.
- [22:00]
Jim Cullen
Yeah, no, that's fair enough. And I think you're right to sort of bring that up. And again, in the context of its time. Time. I mean, I think that a lot of people today would regard that movie as problematic and dated, but in the context of its time, giving that much airspace, as it were, to a powerful woman is itself a kind of a statement.
- [22:24]
Jackson Reinhardt
Exactly. So moving on to television, which it seems the 1980s was one of the most popular of these four mediums, especially the show Dallas and its popular decade defining episode, who Shot jr? Tell us a little bit about what Dallas was, because I think a lot of listeners probably either were a little too young to understand the importance and gravity of this show. So tell us a little bit about Dallas and how this episode, but also the show's kind of implicit ideology signified a cultural change concerning things of power and business and greed.
- [23:07]
Jim Cullen
Yeah, well, I think the first thing that I need to point out or admit or concede or whatever acknowledge is that Dallas was not a new show in 1980. He had already been on the air for a few years, and as such, it was sort of a little bit of ahead of its time in terms of what we're talking about here. Because what we're talking about here is a group of sort of filthy rich capitalists who we love to hate, or hate to love, whatever the case may be. And that sort of storyline was, you know, was sort of, you know, gathering momentum by 1980. It's really actually interesting when you look at the first few episodes, you know, that the female characters really had much more presence or were more of a focus of the episodes. But, you know, J.R. you know, played by Larry Hagman, ends up sort of coming to steal the show. And by 1980, you know, the show has become the top show on television. And Hagman himself has become a, you know, a major sort of television icon. And he ultimately is the prototype for the sort of the swashbuckling, you know, amoral capitalist who we, you know, again, we say we many Americans, you know, implicitly or explicitly deplored but nevertheless couldn't take our eyes off of, you know, and, you know, he was, you know, again, you know, a forerunner of, say, someone like Gordon Gekko, you know, Wall street sort of toward. Toward the end of the decade and, you know, this whole notion. There's a cliffhanger episode at the end of. I guess it's season three of Dallas, which takes place in the spring of 1980, and Junior gets shot, and they purposely leave it unclear who shot him. And that remains unclear until well into season four. So basically, for about eight months in 1980, we're sort of in a state of suspense about, you know, who. Who shot this character. And, you know, this is, you know, you know, again, you know, comparatively speaking, I. I can't think of a television. We have. We certainly have, you know, I mean, we have, you know, someone like a TED Lasso, you know, character who, you know, has a meme like status, but it's simply dwarfed by, you know, by the. The intrigue surrounding a character like Junior, you know. I mean, the Queen of England, you know, wants to know, you know, and not even for you, ma', am, you know, Larry Hagman tells her when he meets her at Buckingham Palace, God rest her soul.
- [25:37]
Apple Watch Narrator
This is a real good story about Bronx and his dad, Ryan, real United Airlines customers.
- [25:42]
Jim Cullen
We were returning home, and one of the flight attendants asked Bronx if he wanted to see the flight deck and meet Kathy and Andrew.
- [25:48]
Ryan Reynolds
I got to sit in the driver's seat. I grew up in an aviation family, and seeing Bronx kind of reminded me of myself when I was that age.
- [25:55]
Jim Cullen
That's Andrew, a real United pilot.
- [25:57]
Ryan Reynolds
These small interactions can shape a kid's future. It felt like I was the captain.
- [26:02]
Jim Cullen
Allowing my son to see the flight deck will stick with us forever.
- [26:05]
Ryan Reynolds
That's how good leads the way.
- [26:07]
Chevron Narrator
Every leap in American history has needed breakthrough energy.
- [26:12]
Jim Cullen
Ignition, liftoff.
- [26:15]
Chevron Narrator
Now AI is here, and Chevron is working to power it. We're aiming to develop multi gigawatt power plants near data centers designed with future pathways to lower carbon intensity. AI gets the power it needs, communities get the jobs, and the grid stays strong. Powering AI Today builds America's next superpower.
- [26:37]
Jackson Reinhardt
Yes, we're connecting. We're connecting 1980 to the contemporary. So, so seamlessly. I know this episode primarily not from Dallas, but from the amazing Simpsons parody who shot Mr. Burns? Which to a young kid, was just as suspenseful and just as intriguing as the show. You mention in the book that TV shows usually didn't start in 1980. Usually a show, especially the big shows of 1980, as with Dallas, had started a few years prior. What were some of the big ratings hits of 1980?
- [27:08]
Jim Cullen
Well, you know, it's interesting because again, you know. Yeah, I mean, to that point, I mean, you know, there are some media that sort of just move a lot faster. You know, you. You record an album in a few weeks and it goes through its sort of commercial life over a period of months. You know, the same could be. The same could really be said of movies and even publishing, although publishing is a little bit slower. But, you know, the television is more like an aircraft carrier. It's sort of slower to get to roll up and slower because it takes many months, you know, to make, to make a season's worth of shows and then it goes into reruns and so on. So all this is sort of a preface of saying, and again, I think, you know, 1980 is interesting in this regard because it is still the 1970s. You know, all in the Family is finishing up its run, but Archie Bunker is getting his show. You know, so that character is continuing. And a lot of the Norman Lear. Norman Lear is still going strong, you know, in terms of the Jeffersons, you know, in terms of One day at a time. I mean, this sort of, this sort of, you know, working class oriented, sort of subversive leftist humor, you know, is still, you know, a very alive and well sort of in television. But, but there, there are signs of change in the air. As we, as we talked, we talked about Dallas, we, you know, we have a show like Three, you know, which was, you know, you know, a kind of jingle show, as they were called. And what's, what's relevant here is that shows like that, and there were a number of them, you know, are more avowedly escapist. They are implicitly or explicitly rejecting, you know, the sort of socio political overtones that marked what we consider quality television in the golden age of the sitcom. And shows like MASH and the Mary Tyler Moore show and again, all in the Family. I mean, part of what made those shows so beloved to audiences was the idea that they were funny, but they were also topical and they had some kind of sort of artistic value. And some of these newer shows are again, if not rejecting such a premise, not necessarily embracing it wholeheartedly or sidestepping or avoiding the kind of political topicality that had characterized so much of 70s culture.
- [29:28]
Jackson Reinhardt
So political topicality plays a big role in the debate between John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman, who have in 1980, dueling. Well, not in the 70s, dueling documentaries. And then in 1980, Milton Friedman comes out with a book that was also co. Written by his wife. Tell us a little bit about Milton Friedman's journey to making this documentary and writing this book and you know, what it, what it says about publishing and writing and politics generally in 1980.
- [30:08]
Jim Cullen
You know, again, this is one of those things where, you know, someone like Milton Friedman is a very well known figure and you know, it is for anybody who either lived through the period or was a student of the period, is sort of aware of his vast influence on economics and economic policy and so on and so forth. And again, we can certainly talk about that. But you know, the aspect of this story that interests me is the way in which, you know, Friedman becomes a pop culture phenomenon. And it's really worth pointing out again, in terms of large argument sort of how this happens. It happens on public television, you know, and, you know, pbs. You know, it was part of a larger, you know, a larger Anglo American consortium. And there were a number of successful sort of, you know, documentary sort of style shows that had, that had been, you know, successful. And you know, John Kenneth Galbraith, you know, had been tapped to do an economic show. And Galbraith again represented the kind of the, in the, you know, the Harvard educated, you know, Brahmin inflected voice, you know, the voice of common sense, you know, of sort of mid century American liberalism. And his show is, is widely regarded as a flop because even though he is a, you know, a gifted writer who has a real feel for, you know, a popular audience, his Persona is, is a little bit considered, a little bit stuffy or maybe a little bit self involved and so on. And you know, Milton Friedman, by contrast, is sort of this elfin character whose sunny optimism again, is sort of a forerunner of what Reagan would do, you know. You know, Friedman is sort of irrepressibly cheerful and jocular and is very happy to engage his skeptics. And this unfolds on public television, which. Not the networks, not a sort of. And there are wrinkles in this. I mean, Friedman's success on NPR is funded by private corporate sort of, not enterprise, well enterprises, but sort of think tanks or organizations that put up the money for this. So you can see the sort of creeping, you know, neoliberalism on the one hand, infecting, if you want to use that term, you know, public television. But on the other hand, you see that Friedman could not be who he was unless he got that springboard from, you know, what we think of. And we still, even then we thought of, I mean, you know, PBS is part of what gave us the Watergate hearings. You know, it was the sort of. It was never explicitly a leftist, you know, organ or medium, but by virtue of being a public service, it was presumably not beholden to private interests and therefore reflected a larger liberal perspective on the world. And yet here is Milton Friedman driving a truck through that door and establishing a new paradigm for common sense that we've come to know as neoliberalism or sort of free market. A new emphasis on free market economics.
- [33:16]
Jackson Reinhardt
Yeah, I think it's easy to determine who won that debate based on. Just stay within the publishing discourse. Who you can still find at a bookstore. I mean, when I was young and finding books in politics and economics, I couldn't find a John Kenneth Galbraith book at a new bookstore. But almost all of Milton Friedman's popular works, like Free to Choose, as we're talking about, or his earlier work, Capitalism, Freedom, you could find any Barnes and Nobles or Borders.
- [33:45]
Jim Cullen
And just to finish your anecdote, I mean, I needed to get myself a copy of that to write this chapter. And so I ordered it and you know, it was like in its 40 something printing. I mean, it's become a, it's become an evergreen. Yeah, yeah.
- [33:57]
Jackson Reinhardt
And speaking of books buying books, Borders, Barnes and Nobles book selling was a bit different. You go into that in your chapter. I find this a really fascinating piece of like social history. How would an average Middle American individual buy a book in 1980?
- [34:11]
Jim Cullen
Well, the short answer is at the mall. This was, this was the golden age of the. Of course, some would regard this as a contradiction terms, but this was the golden age of the, of the chain bookstore store. And it is a little bit of a, you know, a kind of parable of sorts, you know, because, you know, once upon a time, you know, book selling, you know, you know, was sort of a relatively small, decentralized business. I mean, we today speak of independent bookstores. You know, until about the early 1970s, all bookstores were independent bookstores, with a couple of, couple of exceptions. But you know, you have, by the 1970s, you have a few, some gigantic corporate, you know, colossi, you know, like, like Walden Books or B. Dalton or Borders, who begin sort of appearing, you know, in shopping malls, which are also sort of at their height. And they are an interesting feature of the, of the sort of commercial landscape indeed, you know, mall owners or mall managers like having bookstores as part of the, as part of the sort of the commercial mix and so you can usually find one at any given, in any given mall. And, you know, they quickly become a phenomenon and quickly, quickly become an 800 pound gorilla in terms of their ability to determine, you know, what, what is going to be a hit. And they, and in the book I describe some of the techniques they use to sort of accomplish this. I just, you know, there is a kind of rye quality to this as far as I'm concerned, because, you know, in the, in the 1970s and 1980s, you know, many literary people regarded chain bookstores as sort of Darth Vader, the incarnation of evil in the publishing business. And of course, they now are the embattled underdogs in the face of online book selling from people from like, Amazon. And indeed, many of these chains no longer exist.
- [36:10]
Jackson Reinhardt
Yeah, my parents, when they would buy books, speaking of independent bookstores, I don't think they knew bookstores. They would always say they got them at drugstore stores. Right? Drugstores would have the racks of spinning books and you'd buy, you know, pulp paperbacks for like 25. This was like the 60s, 70s, that era, as you mentioned, the book, the era of like paperbacks, of paperback technology, of reprints. So continuing, as a penultimate question, you finish your book with a discussion on Reagan's victory, on his 1980 landslide. He wins by about nine points in the popular vote, takes over 400 electoral votes, and you focus squarely on the inauguration. How did this inauguration signify, as you mentioned earlier in the podcast, a political realignment in the United States? You mentioned the, the kind of pageantry of it all was symbolic of deep zeitgeist, like change.
- [37:07]
Jim Cullen
Yeah, well, that's right. And I think to understand just how striking that inauguration was, you have to go back to 1976 in terms of Jimmy Carter being elected. And early in this conversation about, you know, Carter was considered a breath of fresh air and was meant to be a kind of implicit or explicit rejection of the imperial presidency. And in this, and it's notable in this context that, you know, that Carter walks to his inauguration, you know, a very pointed sort of rejection of the sort of, the pomp, you know, that had characterized sort of the presidency. I think he was very self consciously sort of invoking Thomas Jefferson, who, you know, even though he was every inch the gentleman, you know, Jefferson tried to sort of positioned himself as sort of a man of the people. And, you know, Carter, you know, wore the cardigan sweaters in the White House and turned the thermostat down and sort of was meant to be a Kind of, you know, embodiment of sort of, you know, sensibility, you know, and so when Reagan comes in in 1980 and has this, you know, has this sort of spectacular inauguration filled with private jets and limousines and expensive gowns and, you know, it's a. It's very much a sort of a goodbye to all that. And I, And I do think that, that, you know, you know, with the inauguration In January of nineteen 1981, I think there was a very widespread recognition in the culture at large, like, wow, things really are changing. We have. We have entered a new moment. I do think that probably 20, the election of 2016 and Donald Trump's inaugural, however you may feel about it in 2017, like him or hate him, I think many of us recognize that, like, oh, you know, we are going into unchartered waters here. And that's how I think people felt in 1981 as well.
- [38:54]
Jackson Reinhardt
Fantastic. Great. Well, Jim, thank you so much for talking about your book. I have run through my questions. You've answered them magnificently. Thank you. Before we go, though, I just want to ask, what current projects are you working on? And are you going to work in or publish anything in the field similar to 1980 pop culture periodization? I would say.
- [39:17]
Jim Cullen
Well, as a matter of fact, yes. I'm still telling this particular field. I am currently finishing the draft or getting ready to finish a. A book that compares the musical careers of Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen. You know, two, again, who were. Right. Right. Who. Both of whom figure in this story, in this book. But I'm interested in the very striking parallels in terms of the way their careers unfold, as well as the sort of differences. And of course, the working title for this is Bridge and Tunnel Boys. I mean, I'm interested in them as sort of suburbanites, you know, one east of New York, the other west or south of New York, and their position, literally and figuratively, as sort of marginal figures in the great metropolis and their musical success being premised on a kind of late 20th century, kind of suburban sort of framework, and specifically New York, metropolitan New York framework, which makes me make a journey back to people like Irving Berlin and Frank Sinatra, but really sort of Centers on the 1970s and 80s.
- [40:20]
Jackson Reinhardt
Yeah, I can already see so many similarities. Not only are they both kind of liberal democratic individuals, but even though Bruce Springsteen does release albums at a regular basis, especially recently, they both seem to be very oriented towards the concert. I know that Billy Joel does his residency at Madison Square Garden, and I know there's this big hullabaloo about Bruce Springsteen's concert tickets recently, how expensive they were. So I think, Jim, that's a fascinating comparison. I'm looking forward to that work. Again, thank you so much, Jim, for coming on the podcast and speaking about your new book, 1980.
- [40:59]
Jim Cullen
Thank you, Jackson.
- [41:00]
Jackson Reinhardt
Great. Well, you've been listening to New Books in American Studies, a channel of the New Books Network, talking about Jim Cullen's new book, 1980America's Pivotal Year, published by Rutgers University Press 2022. I've been your host. Jackson Reinhardt. Thank you so much for listening and have a great rest of your day.
- [41:24]
Jim Cullen
Foreign.
- [41:29]
Ryan Reynolds
Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half the price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means half day. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.
- [41:53]
Chevron Narrator
Of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.