Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
HAVE YOUR DONATION DOUBLED!

If you are able to donate $100 or more for our Annual Fund Drive, your donation will be matched by another generous CounterPuncher! These are tough times. Regardless of the political rhetoric bantered about the airwaves, the recession hasn’t ended for most of us. We know that money is tight for many of you. But we also know that tens of thousands of daily readers of CounterPunch depend on us to slice through the smokescreen and tell it like is. Please, donate if you can!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Blaming the Sixties

by BOB SOMMER

THE SIXTIES. That’s where the trouble began. Just ask Rush Limbaugh or David Brooks or Bill Bennett, or just about any right-wing pundit. THE SIXTIES is the problem. Of course, they don’t mean the decade but rather THE SIXTIES, a casserole of selected ingredients that includes the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, the chaos of the ’68 Democratic National Convention, and the myths of Woodstock and Haight. This familiar, even clichéd, stew excludes far more than it includes and always paints these events in the brush strokes of mindless anarchy, somehow implying that COINTELPRO and bombing Cambodia maybe weren’t so bad, after all.

Consider this recent comment by Washington Times columnist Victor Davis Hanson: “Those who protested 40 years ago often still congratulate themselves that their loud zeal alone brought needed ‘change’ to America in civil rights, the environment, women’s liberation and world peace. Maybe. But critics counter that the larger culture that followed was the most self-absorbed in memory.”

Why is change in quotes? Is it too distasteful a word? And what’s the logic here? That separate drinking fountains were better than the perceived solipsism of a generation? That lattés and organic food stores were too high a price to pay for recognizing the environmental havoc of industrialization? That every baby born from 1945 to 1955 turned up in Chicago in 1968, or would have if he or she could?

Or that segregation would somehow have faded away and the Vietnam War would have been “won” without the zeal of activists who had run out of options in the face of a recalcitrant administration (an all-too familiar problem)? What would it take to get the attention of all those nuclear families eating their TV dinners on TV trays in front of their TVs?

The narrative of how THE SIXTIES doomed America is familiar: An over-indulged generation of suburban babies born into the postwar boom became The Me-Generation. Pass the first dose of blame to Dr. Spock. Then move on to television, birth-control, Elvis (or the Rolling Stones, according to Alan Bloom), Timothy Leary, Earth Day, marijuana, acid, Abbie Hoffman, and lately (because of a loose Chicago connection, déjà-vu-all-over-again) Bill Ayers. Gordon Gecko, it’s fair to assume, would have stopped off at Yasgar’s farm on his way to Wall Street. The Port Huron Statement, the 1962 manifesto of the SDS, presciently anticipated the argument, opening with these words: “We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.”

Why this obsession? For one, it suits well the Rovian tactics that have become the trademark of right-wing discourse: Strawman and ad hominem attacks have replaced actual debate. You can demonize anyone by attributing this mythologized heritage to them. You can add dirty words like socialism and communism and welfare state. You can invent ties between Obama and the Weather Underground. Best of all, you can make him responsible for losing another war, even though every major strategic assessment he’s made has turned out to be right—and some, like the Iraq timeline and negotiating with unfriendly nations, have been enacted by the Bush administration.

But THE SIXTIES is flexible. You can blame it for anything—national debt, high oil prices (we could drill, if it weren’t for those hippie tree-huggers and their obsession with caribou in the ANWR), Janet Jackson’s malfunctioning wardrobe (oops, what about Foley, Craig, Vitter, and company?), and godlessness (which has infinite possibilities).

This revisionism, of course, discounts (or mangles) the other historical and cultural influences of the postwar era, including McCarthyism, the growth of the suburbs and our ensuing reliance on the automobile, the application of scientific and medical discoveries to our increasing affluence and improving health, the expanding ties of American (and foreign) corporations to our expanding military (and its expanding presence around the globe), the mobility of Americans, and the explosion of the entertainment industry. It dismisses the rejection of consumerism by the anti-establishment movements of the Vietnam era, as capitalism, like the Borg, assimilated everything it touched, creating a need for endless growth and expansion—with consequences that have now begun to manifest themselves in the housing collapse, the debt crisis, and the international turmoil and environmental disasters we’ve created.

Notably absent (or grudgingly mentioned) in most accounts of THE SIXTIES (like Hanson’s) is civil rights, which somehow, we are to assume, would have resolved itself, given time, if only THE NEGROES had been more patient. Lynard Skynard summed up this complacency in its defense of “the southland” against Neil Young’s “Southern Man”: “Now we all did what we could do.” And that’s it. What more do you want? Whatever happens happens. Why stir up trouble?

As to Vietnam, according to the narrative, we “lost.” That is, we could have “won” if it weren’t for the traitors on the homefront. This narrative has been often retold in recent years. Of course, it leaves out “the most trusted man in America,” Walter Cronkite, muttering about Vietnam, “What the hell is going on?” which, granted, is more temperate than “UP AGAINST THE WALL, MOTHERFUCKER!” but still landed him on the same side of the divide. He finally went to Vietnam to see for himself—and now the nuclear families began to listen.

Whether stated or implied, THE SIXTIES is very much a part of the current presidential debate. Sturgis, South Dakota, echoed recently with a thunderous roar that seemed to come all the way from 1965, when the Hell’s Angels rolled headlong through an antiwar protest march in Berkeley. Thousands of bikers in Sturgis revved up their support for John McCain in a Harley hallelujah chorus that resounded with both their endorsement of the Bush-McCain non-strategy for Iraq and their disdain for the environment. And their hooting and cheers also mocked a half century of progress by women when McCain offered his wife up for the Miss Buffalo Chip contest as 100,000 leering eyes envisioned a topless Cindy McCain (and probably a banana). But you do have to wonder if McCain knew what a buffalo chip actually is, though the look on Cindy’s face suggested that she did.

BOB SOMMER’s novel, Where the Wind Blew, which tells the story how the past eventually caught up with one former member of a 60s radical group, was released in June 2008 by The Wessex Collective.

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

More articles by:
October 17, 2017
Suzanne Gordon – Ian Hoffmann
Trumpcare for Veterans? VA Outsourcing Will Create Healthcare Industry Bonanza
Patrick Cockburn
The Real Destabilizer in the Middle East is Not Iran But Trump
Jonathan Cook
The Real Reasons Trump is Quitting UNESCO
Murtaza Shibli
My Friend From ISIS in Raqqa
Kathy Kelly
Wrongful Rhetoric and Trump’s Strategy on Iran
David Bonner
Beyond Taking a Knee: Duane Thomas, Where are You When We Need You?
Tom Gill
Austerity, Macron-Style
Liaquat Ali Khan
Pakistan Faces a Life-Threatening Military Coup
Jeff Mackler
Is Trump a ‘Moron?’
Amena Elashkar
If You Work for Justice in Palestine, Why Won’t You Let Palestinians Speak?
John Feffer
Trump’s Unprecedented Right-Turn on Foreign Policy
Ariel Dorfman
Trump’s War on the Mind
Dean Baker
The Republican Tax Plan to Slow Growth
Gerry Brown
The Return of One-Man Rule in China?
Binoy Kampmark
Climate Change Insurgent: Tony Abbott’s Crusade
Kent Paterson
Assassination in Guerrero: the Murder of Ranferi Hernandez Acevedo
Rob Okun
Men and Sexual Assault in the Age of Trump
October 16, 2017
Vijay Prashad
A Tale of Two Islands
Ben Dangl
Profiting from America’s Longest War: Trump Seeks to Exploit Mineral Wealth of Afghanistan
Jan Oberg
Trump is Moving Toward War With Iran
Thomas S. Harrington
The Baseless Myth of the Poor, Propagandized Catalans
Steve Brown
When a Radio Host Interviews a War Criminal, Is It Churlish to Ask About His War Crimes?
Howard Lisnoff
Capturing the Flag
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS is Facing Near Total Defeat, But It Has Been Beaten and Come Back Before
Julian Vigo
The Fall of Harvey Weinstein and the Sexual Blindspot of Misogyny
James Munson
The Rich Can’t Achieve Plurality, But the Poor Can
Amitai Ben-Abba
The NIMPE Critique of Antifa
Robert Fisk
We Will Soon See What the Word “Unity” Means for the Palestinian People
Alice Donovan
Civil War in Venezuela: a US Joint Operation with Colombia?
Jimmy Centeno
The De-Mexicanization of Duranguito Barrio, El Paso, Texas
Martin Billheimer
The Phantom of Justice in Indian Country
Uri Avnery
The Terrible Problem
Binoy Kampmark
Dirty Ties: the University of New Haven and Saudi Arabia
Ted Rall
Imagine a Brand-New USA
Weekend Edition
October 13, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
The Political Economy of Obama/Trump
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Man in the Soundproof Booth
Becky Grant
My History With Alexander Cockburn and the Financial Future of CounterPunch
Paul Street
Orange Thing: Should It Stay or Should It Go?
Ellen Brown
How to Wipe Out Puerto Rico’s Debt Without Hurting Bondholders
Andrew Levine
Loyalty to the Don
Patrick Cockburn
Underground in Raqqa
Linda Pentz Gunter
Could Trump be About to Kill U.S. Solar Industry Jobs?
Conn Hallinan
Of Leprechauns, Nazis, and Truncheons
Mike Whitney
Cowboy’s Boss Draws a Line in Sand: “Stand for Anthem or Else”
Geoff Dutton
Harvard, the CIA, and All That
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail