When did ‘the sixties’ begin? The obvious moment to choose would be January 1961, when John F. Kennedy, aged forty-four, became President of the United States. But definitions of decades can only be ragged, and in a sense the sixties began in 1956. That year launched Elvis Presley; the London theatre was assailed by ‘angry young men’, especially John Osborne; Hollywood was stunned by James Dean, the ‘rebel without a cause’ who starred for sullen teenagers, was rated sixth most sexually attractive film star ever, but had died in a car crash the year before, aged twenty-four. On an altogether different plane, 1955 had been the last year in which world prices fell generally, as, from time to time, classical economics expected to happen: thereafter, prices just went up, overall. There was a mysterious sea-change, in other words, away from the old world. In the short run, it had obviously enough to do with the prosperity that was spreading so extraordinarily fast, as domestic tools made life much easier, food and energy became cheaper, television spread and spread. In another perspective, the sea-change had to do with a ‘youth culture’ which reflected the rise in population in the Anglo-Saxon West, where, in place of the sometimes negative growth rates of the troubled interwar years, it became normal again for families to produce three or four children. They were growing up and, because the necessities of life were costing less, they had money to spend. Youth, at least in the media world, had its decade in the sixties. Student revolts occupied the headlines; student thoughts were taken seriously; the vote was given to people aged eighteen, though in many places they were forbidden to buy alcohol until they reached the age of twenty-one. All of this was emerging in Eisenhower’s second period, and the elderly golfing President, with his occasional troubles with long words, was not the man of the hour. Deeply honourable, in defence of the dollar, Eisenhower accepted three recessions, one of which in effect cost Nixon his succession. John F. Kennedy succeeded him in January 1961, and seemed indeed to be the man of the hour. He too had to defend the dollar, but it was characteristic of him and indeed the sixties as a whole that he imagined it could be done without pain.
Chateaubriand had remarked of Talleyrand that he was ‘a nineteenth-century parvenu’s idea of an eighteenth-century great nobleman’. In the same way, Kennedy, with his fairy-tale looks, money and wife, was a hairdresser’s Harvard man. He was easily adaptable to a television age that older men had found uncomfortable. Next to the glowering, charmless, permanently unshaven-looking Richard Nixon, his election opponent, he shone, and especially entranced the intelligentsia of the East Coast. They, culturally still overshadowed by Europe, were often embarrassed by their own country, in some ways still very naive and simple. A visiting English grandee, Harold Nicolson, had gone on a coast-to-coast lecture tour in the USA to rescue his finances, had addressed Midwest ladies in cherried hats as to how the two democracies stood shoulder to shoulder facing the foe to the east, had taken yet another train to yet more ladies offering tea and cookies, and had gone back to London and told his friends that it had been ‘like a month at a servants’ ball’. The New York intelligentsia in their way agreed. They had not much cared for Eisenhower, who played the golfing Republican buffoon; and Norman Mailer set the tone for many writers to come when he dismissed the fifties as ‘the worst decade in the history of mankind’. Most writers really respond to conditions a generation before, did not feel at home in mass prosperity, and made fools of themselves when they pronounced on politics. But pronounce they did, and the sniggering or resentment of the intelligentsia had effect. Kennedy appeared. He was less well-read and was certainly less musical than Truman (who was a good pianist) or even Eisenhower, but the image was far better: he could pretend, and perhaps even believe in the pretence. Kennedy, a Catholic, and sprig of a corrupt Boston-Irish dynasty, was not by nature a convinced friend of the left-wing intelligentsia, and he had even, for a time, gone along with Joe McCarthy’s persecution of the crypto-Communists among them. That had helped Kennedy’s father, notoriously crooked, in effect to buy a Massachusetts Senate seat, which was retained by the longest-surviving Kennedy brother, Edward, for decades, despite a reputation that included manslaughter. Kennedy’s own electoral victory came only with a tiny margin, which he owed to the slippery practices of the man whom he chose as Vice-President, Lyndon B. Johnson, who had managed Congress for Roosevelt and understood how Texas worked. Almost everything to do with Kennedy was, in other words, false. In practice, as Johnson said, he ‘never did a thing… It was the goddamnedest thing… his growing hold on the American people was a mystery to me.’ However, he was the man for the decade to come.
Kennedy proclaimed a ‘New Frontier’. The reference to Roosevelt’s New Deal was obvious, and Kennedy took office with a promise of new energy. Fashion clothes and concert pianists appeared in the White House, and clever academics made up a good part of the new presidential team. Was there any substance? ‘New’ is not generally a word to use in politics. It is exhausted before it even begins: it generally means that the user of it has no ideas of any depth, and runs out of steam early on. However, when he began, Kennedy symbolized quite well what were to be the great makers of the decades to come. Apart from anything else, he was the first, and very, televisual politician. That instrument was to give politics an altogether new shape, or, rather, it vastly spread what had already been a vice of the cinema, to oversimplify to the point of caricature. William Blake had prophesied this a century and more before, and in their way the medieval iconoclasts had done so, as well. ‘They ever will believe a lie who see not with but through the eye’, said Blake, and St Bonaventura had announced that ‘the ears communicate faith and the eyes, fervour’. But there were other inventions that shaped the sixties and beyond.
The 1960s were indeed a new age. In 1958 the world economy was revolutionized, because the main currencies became convertible one into another: that created a true world economy, almost independent of national governments or at any rate putting a great strain upon them, because money would just move out if they defied its rules. But other things of revolutionary importance were coming about. Most ages are marked by some invention or other: as Orwell wrote in a ten-second summary of world history, the castle defeated the knight, gunpowder defeated the castle, and the chequebook defeated gunpowder (he went on that the machine-gun defeated the chequebook). In 1960 such inventions came onto the mass market — the fax machine and the contraceptive pill. The first sent money round the world far faster than ever before. It had long and disputed origins, but came into its own because the Japanese could use it. Their language was almost impossible to type, for there were a great many characters, each needing a different combination of many pen strokes. These could now be quickly scribbled by felt pen, and sent by fax, not typewriter, and as Japan started on her long economic boom, towards the middle of the 1950s, faxes to banks and importers made it possible. She developed into a world economic power, second or third in weight. That example was followed, later on, by Taiwan, a desperately poor country that became fourteenth trading nation in two decades, and by South Korea, devastated by the war. Now, the money exchanges became very busy, no longer dependent on mail, and the amounts of money that went round the world made trade itself of less and less apparent weight. The later effects of the computer have been just a continuation of that process, though on a much greater scale.