Heather Thompson reviewed The Suburban Warriors in Reviews in American History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun 2002). (Available on JSTOR) Thompson is generally favorable to the book but looks at the data provided by McGirr and says that a completely different conclusion is possible. According to Thompson, McGirr implies that after the Goldwater debacle, the grassroots movement realized that needed to reform themselves and eliminate their fringe element and extremist views. (Thompson 328, McGirr 196) However, Thompson says that data from McGirr and from other studies show that many Democrats were dissatisfied with Johnson and changed parties. Thompson posits that it was the influx of these Democrats and other moderates that changed the conservative movement and not the kitchen-table activists McGirr proposed.
The easy answer for historians is "they are both right, it is too complex to accept one group over the other for the change of a national movement." However, since McGirr's main thesis is that these kitchen-table activists shaped the movement this critique directly contradicts her main premise. I think McGirr should have acknowledged the influx of these people and investigated their influence on the party. Did the new people take over the leading of neighborhood get-togethers, or were the same people still driving the train?
From the data presented I would have to side with McGirr. She quotes contemporary letters showing internal dissension and I believe the people she interviewed would have mentioned a wholesale change of leadership. Looking at Thompson's critique and McGirr's data, which conclusion do you think is better supported?
Comments