Back to Our Future

Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now--Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything by David Sirota
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

As someone whose formative years (13-22) occurred during the 80s, I was really looking forward to this book. It was chosen by my book club, but think that I would have picked it anyway, as its topic is so interesting to me.

However, when I read the book, I was very disappointed. It really isn't a history of the 80s at all, nor is it about the time period from 1980-1989. The author is quite liberal, and the whole point of the book is to make his points about politics, some of which I agree with (presidents have too much power, the US has become too militaristic), and some I don't (republicans are evil). He tries to show how pop culture illustrates and reinforces these points.

I'm not going to argue for or against his political positions. My problem with the book is that the author makes frequent factual mistakes about these pop culture references.

For example, he says that the name of the robotic character on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-81) was Twiggy. It was Twiki. You might say this is a small point, but a simple visit to Wikipedia would have pointed it out.

He claims that culture only started to view "government is evil or incompetent" in the 80s with movies like First Blood. Hardly. This view was quite common in films of 60s and especially 70s (e.g. Jaws, the mayor refuses to close the beaches). Nearly all CIA agents or local law enforcement in films of that era were walking evil.

He approvingly quotes the Baltimore Sun as saying that Family Ties was about "rejecting the counterculture of the 1960s and embracing the wealth and power that came to define the ’80s". This is so wrong. The show (created by an ex-hippie) was about the reversal of the normal generation gap, with the parents as the focus. But audiences loved the kids, especially Michael J. Fox, so the shows focus changed. But the writers still made Fox's character and his opinions the butt of most of the jokes, and the parents' views were never mocked in the same way. President Reagan loved the show and offered to appear on it; the writers and creator hated him and refused to include him. (http://www.museum.tv/eotv/familyties.htm)

He says that the marketing of the 50s generation as a concept was new to the 80s. What about Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, American Graffiti, the novels of S.E. Hinton or Sha Na Na?

He says that Animal House is a celebration of 50s values. Has he ever seen the movie?

He says that Witness is about the contrast of the dangers of the racially diverse inner-city contrasted with the virtues of the all white Amish community. For the record, Witness had three villians, two were white and one was black.

He claims that Superman was fighting feminism in Superman II, because one of the villains was emblematic of women's empowerment.

He claims that prior to the album An Innocent Man, Billy Joel was a folk singer.

He claims that during the 1992 presidental election, Saturday Night Live was "quite literally, satirizing [Bill Clinton] as a tie-dyed hippie". You can see this skit for yourself here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQdDi.... It seems obvious that the point is that this is how Bush sees Clinton and Bush is being mocked for doing so.

He says that "Since the 1980s, our politics have focused solely on the president, and both parties have vested more and more power in the executive branch...", which is true, as far as it goes, but this process started long before the 80s. The term "imperial presidency" was first used in the 60s, and the increasing power of the presidency in comparison to the other branches has been ongoing since at least World War I, if not longer.

He says that militarism has increased because of the "martial messaging [that] was aided and abetted by Hollywood hits such as An Officer and a Gentleman, Stripes, and Spies Like Us". I have no idea how one can say that Stripes is a pro-military movie. Spies Like Us isn't about the military, but spies. An Officer and a Gentleman is, I'd argue, pretty well-balanced about the good and the bad of military life.

He says that the self-improvement genre started in the 1982 with M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled. Hardly. De Tocqueville noted the American penchant for self-improvement. The biggest self-improvement book of all time is probably How to Win Friends and Influence People, from 1936. The 70s were filled with pop-psychology books like I'm Ok, You're Ok, as well as programs like EST that were so ubiquitous that they were being mocked in movies like North Dallas Forty.

He says that He-Man and Star Wars are militaristic. That is nuts.

He claims that Andre the Giant was a "lumbering Eastern Bloc monster". He was French.

He says that "the wild-eyed Egyptian cult" of Young Sherlock Holmes is an example of Islamophobia. This cult is lead by a white Englishman and worships a pre-Islamic deity.

He says that in the Star Trek films of the 80s , the Klingons are Arab effigies. I literally have no idea what he is talking about. I've been a ST fan since 1973, and I've never heard anyone ever suggest an Arab-Klingon connection. The only other time I have seen this argument made was at the satire page of Landover Baptist Church.

He says that the view of Magic Johnson was one of an "angry, showy-but-undisciplined, overtalented-but-underachieving" player. Magic Johnson angry? What is this guy talking about?

This book reminded me of a Ann Coulter book. If you already share the author's opinions, you'll probably like it. If not, then it will only make you think that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

View all my reviews