Another Reminder On Why I Don't Like Hippies (or the 60s)

Today's front page story in The New York Times is for me another reminder of why I can't stand boomers and romanticizing of the anti-war movement of the 1960s.  

Bill Ayers is an interesting guy, and I've read part of his book. I was fascinated by the Weathermen in that they honestly, and stupidly, thought they could use violence to change American society and government.  I didn't finish the book for the reasons I don't like the boomers - it's written with a self-important and self-indulgent smugness that even 30 years after the fact sounded at best naive and at worst incredibly stupid.   

Not to sound like a neo-con, but that entire generation loves to romanticize but never seems to admit to their mistakes, mistakes that include: helping Richard Nixon get elected twice, prolonging the Vietnam War for five years as a result (half the names on the Vietnam Memorial are from after 1968); spawning groups like the Weathermen and other violent crack pots that in turn fueled working class disgust that morphed into working class ethnics rejecting liberalism and becoming Reagan Democrats; and finally, the music sucked, going from Motown and rock music you could dance to to music meant for getting high, feeling sorry for yourself, and most importantly never getting your dope-smoking-moron self off the couch to change the things about society - or yourself - you don't like.  

And now, Obama is paying for it with ads linking him to Ayers (ads that thankfully won't work). 

Contrast the boomers and the anti-war movement with the civil rights movement.  That movement was motivated by ending legal segregation, and challenged America to live up to it's creed.   Much like Lincoln did a hundred years earlier, when he challenged the nation to live up the Declaration of Independence as part of the logic behind the Civil War and ending slavery, the leaders of the civil rights movement did the same thing.  They called on America to do better.  It was a big, non-violent, selfless movement with a big ask that challenged every American to think about what it meant to be a citizen of this country.

Instead of being about we, the anti-war movement was narcissistic - keep me out of Vietnam.  

Besides the calling, there are other contrasts.  The civil rights movement was organized, sober, and led by guys in suits and ties.  Leaders were eloquent and rallied around American symbols like the flag, the Declaration of Independence, voting, etc.   In the end, the American public was sympathetic and supportive, and within 8 years of Martin Luther King's 'I Have A Dream' speech the civil rights movement had overturned every legal impediment to equality and outlawed segregation.

 

Obviously, racism still remains in the US, but 45 years ago it was LEGAL.  And in my opinion, the biggest set back to the advancement of civil rights post-1968 was Ronald Reagan.  Reagan launched his campaign for president in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights workers were infamously murdered.   Who helped get Reagan elected?  Working class whites who until the late 60s were reliable Democratic voters.  

Thanks again hippies! First Nixon, then Reagan!  

And musically, who would you rather listen to?  Al Green or Led Zeppelin?  Pink Floyd or James Brown? Aretha Franklin or The Who?  It's no question - the civil rights movement had a far better soundtrack than the dope smoking narcissists did.  The only good thing about 1970s rock is that it was so bad it spawned punk rock in 1977.

Finally, the civil rights movement understood something the anti-war movement was too self-absorbed to notice: that the United States in the 60s and early 70s was incredibly liberal.  Vietnam was a huge mistake, and it's hard to overlook something that bad, but even with that war Lyndon Johnson is easily one of the five most liberal presidents of all time. Look at the laws Congress passed between 1964 and 1974: the civil rights act, the fair housing act, the voting rights act, the wilderness act, the endangered species act, the clean air act, the clean water act, etc. etc.   Again, this was guys in ties and jackets - not a bunch of hippies - making America a better place.

Those bills would never pass today.  Even many Democrats would oppose the environmental ones.  And the baby boomer president, Bill Clinton, did Republican things like end welfare as we know it and pass NAFTA.

Anyway, I wish those guys - starting with John McCain - would finally recede into the background of American politics and society.  One of the appealing things about Obama is that he is a post-boomer politician.  And I think he'll weather these pending attacks from the McCain camp. 

One last thing, there would be no Obama for President without the civil rights movement.

So speaking of self-indulgent, thanks for reading this blog!