What happened to the liberal spirit of the 1960s and earlier? It was so powerful and effective.

[Cal33]

As pointed out in an article by Chris Hedges, in the late '60s, the futility of the war
in Vietnam was plain for everyone to see, and Democrats all over the nation did rise
to the occasion to stop it with peaceful but determined and widespread demonstrations.
The Dems. succeeded. The war was stopped.

In the earlier '60s Dems. rose up against public segregation, and innumerable peaceful
but determined marches took place all over the country. Some heroes were killed for
demonstrating against this injustice. Again, liberals were the winners.

Liberals DID SOMETHING in those days. It's the persistent DOING SOMETHING WORTHWHILE
AND CALLED FOR that finally aroused the conscience of the nation, and gave the liberals
the power.

Today we talk about the war in Afghanistan, some even rant and rave. But we go no
further. The energy somehow manages to simply peter out. And things only get worse.

We see Corporations raking in all the money by hook and by crook. And they use this
money, which they are taking from us, as the source of power to take away still more
from us. They have bought over our politicians to enact laws favorable to the
corporations and against the oridinary citizens. We are no longer a nation of the
people, by the people and for the people. We have become a nation of the rich, by
the rich, and for the rich.

At this rate, we will soon be back to the days of feudalism, where the few rich owned
the whole nation -- including the people in it. And the people were nothing more than
serfs. They existed only to serve the purposes of the rich. Our Revolutionary War
was fought two hundred+ years ago to free us from this condition. And now are we
going back to where we were before we started?

Corporations are taking just about everything away from us -- and right before our
eyes! Perhaps they are even laughing at us. No protest movement is taking place.

And look at the incredible lies the main stream media are spreading, as well as the
omission and distortion of important information that we have a right to know. We
may complain, but basically we're taking it. Again, no protest from us.

Rupert Murdoch is trying to buy several news media in Britain. If he succeeds, he'll
be in control of half of all the news media there. The Brits are fighting him
tooth and nail right now. We in the US, of course, have a harder time than the
Brits do. Our news media are already 90% right-wing owned. This makes it so much
easier to keep the American people uninformed and ignorant. This is why they get
get away with their lies so easily. Too many of us are being brain-washed. Another
area in which we can do something.s

The less liberals do, the weaker they become. This explains how liberals gradually
lost all their power. And the right-wingers are doing their best to make liberals a
laughing stock.

Right-wingers are DOING. They have become powerful in spite of the fact that much of what
they are building on is built on lies and falsehoods. They seem to have an inexhaustible
energy. Where does this energy come from? I think it's fueled by their instinctual,
powerful, and SICK DRIVE -- their INSATIABLE GREED FOR MONEY AND POWER.

Are we going to let ourselves be ruled and governed by sick people? They've got to be stopped.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. My mom was one of those

Young, energetic liberals in the 60’s. She saw it at the rally earlier this month. She and my dad were both encouraged by the number of Gen X’s and Y’s she saw there. . . . but she thinks – just one woman turning 63 next month – that her group is fatigued. Wait – stop – this is not a ‘Bash the Boomers’ post. So no one should go there . . .

Her thought from a discussion we had this past Sunday is that her peers that have mostly remained liberal and progressive? A lot of what they have worked for was torn to shreds by Reagan and Bush, and Bush/Cheney/Rove. They are just damn tired. And who can blame them? So much of their efforts, sacrifice, arrests in some cases, beatings in some cases have been good – but then they see:

Women still don’t have equal pay.
Minorities may be disenfranchised this Tuesday.
GLBT kids are being literally ‘bullied to death’.
We still remain in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And she’s a Code Pink lady and supporter – yet even here I’ve read that some DU’ers think they are ‘crazy’. You know where that spirit is? I see it in Code Pink.


I’ll be interested to read what the members born prior to the late 60’s think. Seriously. Many had parents/grandparents that lived through the depression. They saw such dramatic change in their lives. And many of them were ‘the change they sought’. Know what I mean? We have to look to them for guidance on how to get our mojo - because I think we never had it - so no reason to get it back.

[TBF]

23. I'm probably your age - my mom was one of those liberals

in the 60's too. A generation (at least one) was skipped with Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush - those of us born in the 60's grew up under very conservative administrations (including Clinton & his NAFTA).

I was really hopeful Obama would bring back that spirit, but as I watch him privatize everything I can only think of opportunities lost.

As far as the boomers, I'm sure they're tired, but there are a good many on this website trying to at least be guides for the younger generations. When I see how rude the young Obama supporters are in return I can see why nothing is happening in terms of serious resistance.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Yes, a lot of us *are* tired . . . .

Tired of lessons not having been learned. Tired of having watch so many of our generation go so far to the right or just simply go Libertarian-insane. And then to watch so many or kids' generation do the same damned thing. Since we were also the Me generation, its not hard to see why our kids didn't follow our ideals instead of our actions.

[bobbolink]

111. I miss the spirit, the cohesiveness, the solidarity of those times.

And, no, I'm not willing to take the blame you are laying out there.

There was a lot more to it than the simplistic answers would have us believe.

[Fire1]

156. Guess you're right Stinky. I never imagined so many going

right. Maybe they felt, "if you can't beat em, join em."

[Stinky The Clown]

41. I'm your mom's age

I think your post is *very* insightful.

The 60s were complicated. The divide wasn't Dem/repub nearly so much as pro and anti war, and civil rights, although by the end of the 60s civil rights was a done deal, legally, and was just shit that some people groused about.

In 68, in many ways Nixon was the antiwar choice. Lots of Dems were actually pro war (Scoop Jackson comes to mind).

It was very much a complicated time. Lots of our peers who were on the left (or at least outwardly counterculture) grew increasingly conservative. It was also the heyday of the John Birch Society. "The Times They Are A-Changing" was a two way street.

[Cal33]

76. "The 60s were complicated. The divide wasn't Dem/repub nearly so much as pro and anti war, and civil

civil rights,..." You're right. And today someone is saying it isn't so much
Dem/repub as "Cororations vs. you and me."

[Cal33]

72. I say "Brava!" to your mother. Yes, it will take young people to try to revive the liberal spirit

of the 1960s. Best wishes to you young'uns for a huge success!

[Ginto]

2. A lot became yuppies and lost their way.

You have to stay hungry and avoid getting too fat and happy.

[Ghost Dog]

29. Very good point.

When you have next to nothing (and you know they want to take even that away from you), then you've got nothing much to lose (and much to win). So why not fight?

[Cal33]

78. Yes, especially if you agree that the problem now has become

"Corporations vs. you and me."

[Cal33]

77. It's unfortunate, but true.

[WinkyDink]

90. Sorry, but one can't stay an unencumbered college student forever.

[Cal33]

172. You are probably right. But what about their children, the younger generation?

[LiberalArkie]

3. it was just a flash in the pan.

I am old enough to remember war vets without legs rolling around on boards with dolly wheels selling pencils. I remember my parents having to cut back on food to buy used school books. I remember having to pay all sorts of fees at school for just about every class. I remember black schools without books or music instruments, and thinking I was so lucky.

I remember not voting because the polls opened and closed while I was at work, voting was for the weathly business people anyway.

And then the flash happened in the 60's and people started thinking of the poor and destitute people.

And now it is gradually going back like it was for the first couple of hundred years of out country.

BTW Born in '48 and tired

[Ghost Dog]

33. Damn.

[bobbolink]

43. Yes, assassinations do that. Damn.

All those assassinations had the intended result.

[Ghost Dog]

56. With ringing in your ears

and a great silence, as Polanski well-described in his film "The Pianist". Yes.

























Then, after a while, you can react, if still alive.

:hi:

[Cal33]

80. There are about 340 million of us today. Surely there must be

some Kennedys and MLKs among us!

[bobbolink]

106. Those of us trying to follow in those (huge) footsteps are ignored.

It takes listeners as well as speakers.

[WinkyDink]

92. Not to mention actual KILLING of COLLEGE STUDENTS.

[bobbolink]

107. Exactly. That was a very chilling message.

And, it was...

Message. Received.

It is so easy 40 years later, for people BORN 30 years ago to criticize and make judgments.

We aren't witnessing any great bravery coming from that corner.

[WinkyDink]

91. Born in '49 and likewise.

[Cal33]

174. What you say is true. A few other replies have also pointed out that

there was the draft at that time. People didn't like being drafted.
Nor did their families and friends. Protesting was for their own
welfare. There is a good deal of truth in this, too.

However, those who weren't black and took active part in marches against
the injustices of segregation, these were altruistic idealists.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. The 1968 election happened. Liberals didn't vote for Humphrey.

He was no better than Nixon, they shouted. Maybe even worse!

So we got Nixon. And thus ended the hope and change of that day. It took a while because there was real momentum behind it, real hope and energy, but in the end the bastards, helped by the voters who didn't vote, won.

But it was great while it lasted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. It was pissed away by the party at the '68 convention when they nominated Humphrey.

And, backed the cops and LBJ's war.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. That is exactly what happened

My elders- I was a kid- voted for Humphery, but they were very angry about it and about what happened at the Convention.
But what really happened to make that situation was the murder of Robert F Kennedy, who should have been the nonminee. Would have been the President.

[Cal33]

83. What some nut-job extremists wouldn't resort to!

[jberryhill]

24. I don't recall a riot at the 1972 convention

And McGovern didn't win either.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Well by then they had 'Super Delegates' and all

So the cap was on. Have you heard of Super Delegates'? That is where they came from.

[jberryhill]

40. And this affected the outcome, how, in your mind?

I see.

So if it wasn't for the superdelegates, then liberals would have rallied behind, uh, George Wallace?

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Oh please, get real

Anyone who was around at the time knows exactly what I'm talking about. The process was altered due to what happened in 68. Anyone who would even suggest George Wallace and liberals in the same post is beyond understanding. If it was supposed to be sarcasm, it failed.
Your line of thinking here is just very odd. And of course, presented with snark to lend it legitimacy. So sick of the internet sarcasm in lieu of facts crowd. A smirky remark does not replace reason.
Why do you think they put Superdelegtates in? For fun?

[jberryhill]

74. Look at the overall delegate count from '72

Here's yer choices:

* George McGovern - 1,729 (57.37%)
* Henry M. Jackson - 525 (17.42%)
* George Wallace - 382 (12.67%)
* Shirley Chisholm - 152 (5.04%)
* Terry Sanford - 78 (2.59%)
* Hubert Humphrey - 67 (2.22%)
* Wilbur Mills - 34 (1.13%)
* Edmund Muskie - 25 (0.83%)
* Ted Kennedy - 13 (0.43%)
* Wayne Hays - 5 (0.17%)
* Eugene McCarthy - 2 (0.07%)
* Ramsey Clark - 1 (0.03%)
* Walter Mondale - 1 (0.03%)

Now, you are going to tell me that the superdelegates pushed McGovern over the edge there?

You don't get to pick an imaginary nominee. Scoop Jackson is #2 and George Wallace - yes George Wallace - #3. Elsewhere in this thread, you find a significant number of others who very well remember what a large chunk of the Democratic Party looked like in the south.

Muskie was done in New Hampshire, Kennedy was damaged goods that year, thank goodness we didn't get Wilbur Mills and his amazing teflon zipper... These were the candidates running for the Democratic nomination in 1972.

Shirley Chisholm was robbed, ROBBED I tell ya!

You want to get real, you tell me who on that list was nudged out by superdelegates. For real.

[JamesA1102]

87. No they didn't

Super Delegates didn't come into being until 1984.

[WinkyDink]

94. 1. Without the charisma of a Clinton, you ain't beating an incumbent; 2. Eagleton, anyone? 3. Mid-

VietNam conflict, but "peace was around the corner." Americans fell for it, even though the murmurings of "Watergate" were in the air.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. You are ***absolutely*** right.

Nixon, in many ways, was the antiwar choice. How fucked up was *that*?

[WinkyDink]

95. Well, since BOBBY WAS DEAD..........

[bobbolink]

109. One could draw some parallels to today, couldn't one?

But, its probably against the rules.

[Greyhound]

82. Very interesting spin you got there. What happened from the perspective of dyed-in-the-wool liberals

that were very heavily involved, was that the Party Power Brokers shut them out and forced Humphrey into the slot knowing he could not win. They decided Nixon in the White House was preferable to sharing power with their DFH constituents.

The party never recovered from that disastrous decision. Carter got by them because of the new primary rules and again they chose to preserve their power over compromising with their own constituents. 12 years later Ross Perot gave them another chance and again they chose to deal with their "enemies" rather than with their natural allies.

"America has one political party with two right wings" which leads to a downward spiral and no progress.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. It was triangulated into a "if you can't beat them, join them" by the "sensible" moderates.

[Cal33]

7. What an accurate and powerful definition for "sensible" moderates!

[LWolf]

142. +1

[damntexdem]

8. Yes, there was a powerful antiwar movement, but ...

the liberal consensus that passed the Great Society reforms foundered on Vietnam, especially LBJs betrayal by escalating in Vietnam. That split the Dem Party and the liberal consensus. This in turn gave the GOP room for Nixon's "Southern Strategy," playing on the civil rights aspects of the Great Society reforms to move in on the formerly-Democratic South.

[marions ghost]

9. What the 60's-70's represented

was very scary to the Corporate PTB.

What!? :wtf: they said--LESS consumerism; MORE sharing instead of buying; MORE money for women and minimum wage earners; LESS neurotic emphasis on appearances (and long eyelashes); LESS meaningless division between social segments; MORE alternative energy (free energy from the sun & wind & waves); NO wars for profit and exploitation; MORE real justice--ie. a justice system that works...

--WHAT!?! OMG, it will be the end of "Democracy!" THIS IS VERY BAD FOR BUSINESS they decided (being stodgy and uncreative business people, not the visionary kind).

Enter the Reagan (Turn Back the Clock) Era. And we have been the victims of that Great Pushback ever since.
-----------------------

In many ways, we liberals have already lost this current battle for the hearts and minds of America--yes, thanks to the corporate media in large part. About all we can do now is stem the tide, but it is still important to stem the tide. Until something gives, something that will prove that the system we've got now is not working, we are doomed to live with the failures, the lies, the corruption, the disappointments. The rich are now in the process of extraction of resources. They are ensuring that THEIR idea of the American system remains intact, making sure that the average American is merely a cog in their Machiavellian schemes. I expect we will experience a near total societal collapse before people will actually understand what happened. And even then, will we as a society, know how to fix it?

We have been beaten by the forces of greed and corruption. At this point all we liberals/progressives (ie. intelligent people) can do is stick together for sanity, keep to the truth, keep the vigil, be a witness, and do the small things that we can to resist the enemy within. But don't expect miracles, don't over-dramatize this struggle. It's not a noble heroic fight. It's just a fight for survival.
It's just what you must do under an oppressive system.

It is a very important thing to be doing.

[LiberalArkie]

12. It really started before Reagan.. When everyone turned their backs on Carter.

"Damn that Carter, doesn't he know I need gas for my car TODAY." "I can't stand my thermostat turned back that far, I get too cold"

[marions ghost]

42. right

that's helped the installation of Reagan and the defection of the so-called "Reagan Democrats." Just choke off the gas & oil and Americans will do ANYTHING.

This country is so easy to manipulate because reasonably intelligent people believe the most obvious mythology and cannot detect spin.

[cilla4progress]

58. I really like your post. Thanks.

I am going to fight them with everything I have if they try to repeal Obama's legislative reforms. In my darker moments, I agree with you: "we will experience a near total societal collapse before people will actually understand what happened." I hope Obama isn't blamed for this.

The only hope I do have is my witness of what they did to Clinton. There did come a turning point, when they put the deposition transcript online, when finally the American public woke up and saw the BS for what it was, and the mood turned against Ken Starr (I throw up a little in my mouth when I utter his name). I'm holding onto hope that it happens this time too; especially with someone of the caliber of Pres. Obama. I believe it is the appeal, charisma, superiority of Obama, that is engendering this extreme animus from the right!

[marions ghost]

62. thanx for words

Yes we need a "moment of truth" re. Obama, something that will make people wake up to the lies and distortions about him. The Repugs are desperately trying to tear him down, even as they get compromises legislatively. They want it all and will lie, cheat, and steal to get it. Nothing for our side. Nothing. And Obama must not get a second term. Obama will be blamed for everything--just the way Clinton was/is blamed for everything. They have to have a scapegoat.

Yes we have to keep fighting just to hold the fort. Sometimes you have to settle for that, rather than big advances.

[Cal33]

69. You may be right, but it looks as though the right-wingers will

always use personal attacks on any president who isn't one of their own.
They will try to destroy him/her mercilessly, totally and completely.
It is their style.

Clinton had done nothing that was impeachable. But the right-wingers
kept on looking. That bank baron spent personal money and sent private
investigators into Arkansas in order to dig into Clinton's past personal
activities. Extra-marital relations between consenting adults is not a
crime -- but they kept it up, even using illegal means of secretly taping
a conversation that happened in Maryland. And it's against the law to do
so in that state.

4% of the general population is said to be pschopathic. You can bet your
bottom dollar that there are more than 4% of them among professionals such as
corporate executives and politicians.

That's the way psychopaths are. And they flock to the two above professions
because what attracts them is to be had there: money and power. They can't
be blamed for being the way they are, because it is a mental illness. Can
anyone be blamed for being sick? I don't think so. But psychopaths can do
a lot of harm. And we do have the right to protect ourselves from such harm.

[End Of The Road]

10. What happened to that spirit?

The most charismatic liberals were assassinated.
The Vietnam war ended.


But more importantly, the country was still in an economic boom from WWII and also the on-going Cold War. There was MONEY to spend on creating the Great Society. That money is gone, for many reasons.

We cannot recreate the booming economy of those decades. I see the current Republican movement as a desire to return to the 1950s, and even the 1960s to a degree. But they blame liberal-led social changes for the country's problems, when in fact most of our problems are economic.

[bobbolink]

11. Assassinations.

We kept going and going, but each assassination took our spirit from us.

Eventually, it broke us.

What I find very sad is that poverty and homelessness gets no activism now. None.

Look at your list of priorities..... not even a mention. Then you will turn around and badmouth poor folk for not being "active" with YOUR priorities at election time.

What a big mess.

A big, sad mess.

[Ghost Dog]

14. Ah. I'm 56 and a Brit but I've never forgotten that, and I've never forgotten this:

(End of an Era): Melanie Safka's "Leftover Wine": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEQzX4AO4X4

[truedelphi]

103. + My household. n/t

[Cal33]

146. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King have very likely contriubted

a great deal to the activation and build-up of the liberal spirit, which turned
into organized action (the protests and marches against the Vietnam War and
segregation). This frightened the conservatives. And the greater the fear, the
stronger the reaction. Assassination is usually a reaction to great fear.

Could this be an answer to the reason for the relatively timid behavior of the
liberals in the last few decades: liberals today have no leader of this type?

I've often wondered if Obama's calm, cool, ready to go more-than-halfway stress
on bi-partisanship style, might have been caused by his wish to allay the right-
wingers' fears, and thus reduce the chances of violent reaction on their part.

There is another type violent people. The nut-jobs. And the right-wing does
seem to have so many of them. Witness the throwing of a young woman to the ground
and then stomping on her head, just because she was carrying a card with a left-wing
slogan.

[county worker]

13. You are rewriting history when you say Dems did this and Liberals did that in the 60's.

The Dems controlled the South. The Dems were segregationists.

I am 64 yrs old. I am a Vietnam veteran and it really gets to me when young people today take pride in the 60's as if they are a part of the groups who fought for change back then just because they call themselves Dems and Liberals today.

You can paint the 60's with todays labels!

Freedom lovers and peaceniks did not identify with a political party! We fought against the establishment whomever and whatever it was! I worked for Gene McCarthy when I got back from Vietnam in 1968 because he was anti war. The police riot in Chicago was during the Democratic Convention.

[LiberalArkie]

15. Yep they sure were... I am 62 from South Arkansas..

I got my head bashed in some of the crap in Alabama by some of those Good 'ol Democratic boys there.

The 60's and most of the 70's were not fun times.

[LiberalArkie]

16. Yep they sure were... I am 62 from South Arkansas..

I got my head bashed in some of the crap in Alabama by some of those Good 'ol Democratic boys there.

The 60's and most of the 70's were not fun times.

[janet118]

50. I agree . . . LBJ, who escalated Vietnam, was a Democrat

Most of the protesters considered liberals as dilettantes who dabbled in the civil rights/anti-war movement, but backed off when push came to shove, i.e., not to be counted on. And, frankly, it was the draft that provoked activism for many of the men (and the women who loved them) involved in the anti-war movement. It forced a life-or-death decision for which there were immediate consequences.

What part of "dropped out" don't today's political revisionists understand? After Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were murdered, there was a sense that we were outnumbered, outgunned and could not win on their turf. It was like the curtain was fully pulled back and what it had partially hidden was powerful, scary and ugly. The Democratic Convention in Chicago verified the hopelessness of fighting them. Many political types turned to bombing, violence and bank robbery. I became part of the move-to-the-country-and-grow-your-own contingent. Contrary to popular belief, the anti-war movement was NEVER mainstream.

People seem to forget that Nixon was elected handily in '68 and again (by a landslide against an anti-war candidate) in '72. The anti-war movement was pretty much ignored by both political parties. IMHO it was the soldiers themselves, especially the draftees, who finally ended the war. They were our brothers, our friends and our lovers, who we did NOT spit on. I know that many serving in Vietnam felt the same way we did, but had either been caught in the draft or had joined up because of the faux patriotic propaganda of the day.

Check out "Sir, No Sir!" for some real history of the Vietnam Vets Against the War and other activists in the service. The returning vets made it impossible for the propaganda to continue. They grew their hair, joined the protests and no longer could the mass media portray the anti-war movement as a bunch of draft dodging wimps.

Ironically, it was the draft that made this possible. The military was made up of more of a cross section of America's middleclass and poor kids than today's volunteer military. Protesters who stood up to the draft were from the same classes but were stereotyped as hedonists or cowards. Many were forced underground, into hiding from draft boards and the police. Strange times.

[county worker]

60. I have to say I don't believe you lived what you wrote. Here's why.

I was drafted in 1966 and came home in March of 1968. I became anti war about 6 months into my tour. I stopped fighting and was put on permanent duty building a barbed wire fence around Long Binh. During Tet I was sent to fight in Ben Hoa when Ben Hoa Air Base was over run by North Vietnam regulars.

Here is a good web site with a description of what went on, http://www.historynet.com/tet-offensive-the-battles-of-bien-hoa-and-long-binh.htm

I came home on March 18, 1968. I remember this as if it were last week. We had just spent 3 days in Tan Son Nhut without food or water waiting to get on a plane but couldn't because the base was being hit with mortars. After a 24 hour flight we landed at Travis and I was processed out. I took a taxi to San Francisco with a honor guard detail on their way to a funeral.

At SFO airport I was walking in my class A uniform excited to go home finally. I saw a young couple walking toward me. They were dressed like what we later proudly called freaks. I remember telling myself that I was a civilian just like them even though I was wearing a uniform to fly standby.

The guy walked right up and spit on me. I did not do anything about it because we were warned that we were still subject to the UCMJ for 72 hours and could face military discipline for breaking the law. I also was in shock and disbelief. It was my first time experiencing the negative feelings that people then had toward Vietnam Vets.

I swear I am not making any of this up.

Just as proof that I am not making this up, I never heard about anyone else being spat on until the 90's when I heard the author of the book that says it didn't happen on KPFK. I never even gave it another thought until that day. I had never told anyone about it either. I had gotten use to not saying I was a Vietnam veteran. Naturally I was shocked to here that others reported the same thing and that they were called liars by this guy.

I heard him again years later on Mike Malloy's show and called in to the show and talked to him. I told him my story and his reply was that he could not prove a negative meaning that he could not prove it did not happen. He said that on the show to me in his own words.

I was called a baby killer and learned that I could not get hired if I put on an job application that I was a Vietnam vet. We were called walking time bombs and people were afraid we would go crazy and start killing people.

It wasn't until the Wall in Washington was built that I felt we were being treated better though even now with the people saying we are still lying about the spitting I don't feel that much better inside.

[janet118]

70. You know what . . .

You can believe what you want. I don't care.

Slate writer Jack Shafer believes your story is a debunked urban legend . . . do you care?
rhetorical question)
Neither do I.

[county worker]

81. Why did you put these words in your post?

"They were our brothers, our friends and our lovers, who we did NOT spit on."

I'd really like to know. I'm sorry if I offended you.

[Cal33]

97. If you'd go back the Abe Lincoln's time, yes, the Republicans were

more liberal than the Democrats. But that was 150 years ago. During that century
and a half, a lot of change had taken place -- in fact, a change of 180 degrees. The
Repubs. became conservative and the Dems. liberal.

So, when LBJ signed the civil rights bill, most of the conservative Dems. left the
Dem. Party and joined the Repubs, because the Repubs. were already the conservative
party and more segregationist than the Dems. Since then, the conservatives and
segregationists have been and are concentrated in the Repub. Party (now taken
over by the Neoconservatives. The latest group -- if it could be called such --
the Tea Partyers, belong there also, I presume).

"The Dems were segregationists." Yes, but that was way before Franklin Roosevelt's
time. Even Ted Roosevelt quit the Repub. Party -- and that was more than 100 years
ago.

I am intrigued by the idea someone recently wrote about: Today it's no longer
Dem/Pub, Liberal/Conservative, it's corporations vs. you and me. I think this
"you and me" applies also to the small fry who are working for the Corporatists.
These small fry don't yet know that they, also, will be skinned alive. They, too
will only be the servants of the corporatists, should these latter ever really
take over the country completely.

[pgodbold]

17. in the late '60s, the futility of the war..was.. plain to see. AND there was a Draft. Bring it back.

Nobody's ass is as important as your own ass. Draft = people fight back.
.
.
.
.
..

[county worker]

25. You are wrong. The draft did not end the war.

I was drafted in 1966. The war ended in 1975, 9 fucking years later. What ended the war was the scenes on the nightly news day after day and the Kent State massacre. Americans got sick and tired of the killing.

All the draft did was supply Johnson and Nixon with fresh young bodies to throw into the war.

Without the draft we could not have escalated the war as we did. I remember Johnson calling for 30,000 more troops month after month. He could only do that because the bodies were there to through away.

[Ghost Dog]

38. In part, journalists and cameramen with balls

(and a still relatively-free, un-monopolised media-business) ended that war, in the end, I think.

That's why they (you) shoot reporters these days. And have brought the MSM under (vicious) monopoly control.

[county worker]

48. That's why there is "pool" coverage now.

The military controls the news about the war. Thus Wikileaks.

[Cal33]

123. You do have a point there.

[Recursion]

18. Our party hardly looked very heroic in the 60s

A greater percentage of Republican reps and senators voted for the civil rights act than Democrats. And LBJ was the biggest hawk of all. Meanwhile, Irving Kristol (the original neoconservative) was an ardent civil rights supporter, and Fred Phelps (the anti-gay bigot who protests soldiers' funerals) was getting his political start organizing antiwar rallies.

Viewing the past through today's lens is usually an exercise in frustration.

[Cal33]

105. I was referring more to the spirit of the liberals, who planned,

organized and then carried out their ideals into action. They didn't mind
protesting against any politicians who were for spreading and widening the war
in Vietnam, for instance -- even if the politicians were from their own party
-- Lyndon Johnson, for instance. They were standing up for what they believed
in. Party membership didn't matter to them at all.

That was real idealism.

We are not seeing enough of that today, are we?

[the redcoat]

19. Are you sure about that?

The Vietnam war officially ended in '75. Even with protests it took about 20 years to complete. It's always been about who has the money and power. The main thing that's changed is that, 40 years later, now we have Fox news to contend with.

Liberals are quiet right now because we don't want to compete with the TeaBaggers. If we rally and protest while the TeaBaggers rally and protest, we'll be lumped in with them and considered just as radical and insane and unjustified. We're like the boxer that let's his opponent throw punches because we know he'll just tire himself out.

As far as wars today, I've been to peaceful rallies. They still exist, trust me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. STDs and fryed brain cells became a rude awakening.

I would love to see a resurgence of the sixties without the mistakes of youth being repeated.

[bobbolink]

45. Conflating hippies with the politicos. Two very different groups.

"Hippies" of the OP is being used to describe the politicos.

People who fought for Civil Rights, for Women's Rights, against poverty and racism and the war weren't "frying their brain cells".

We were done in by all the assassinations.

[marions ghost]

49. Hippies were not the political activists

++++ :thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

51. Yes, I think that's what I said. There was a big difference.

But some want to benefit from conflating.... or just their ignorance that they will staunchly defend.

[marions ghost]

57. Agreed

just dittoing what you said

[somone]

21. The liberal label got swiftboated

by the single-issue crowd: school busing, gun control, anti-abortion, etc.

[marions ghost]

31. yep

the corporate sector has sewn the seeds of division very well over the past 30 years. They know how to do it.

[andym]

27. Reagan "revolution"

Not that he actually accomplished much of the conservative agenda, but he accomplished a cultural revolution of the "government is the problem" that is corrosive for progressivism. He also stole the mantle of "freedom" for the conservatives, which they use to manipulate the American public. Any proposed big government program can be taken down by appealing to the dual bogeymen of "inefficient big government," "loss of freedom" and "no new taxes." This has immense consequences, for example, until this changes, there will be no single-payer health care (once it is taken seriously the GOP anti-dream machine will take it down).

[HuckleB]

28. I wonder if part of it was the timeliness.

The successes of that period may have been helped by people who now fight against us, but the people of that time had experienced The Great Depression and WW II, and seen how working together can work, firsthand.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Here is what happened. They shot so many leaders that as an

8 year old, I knew the dictionary definition of 'assasination' as opposed to simple murder. I was 8. I had looked it up and learned it already when they shot Dr King.

[seabeyond]

32. then we got nixon. nt

[marions ghost]

35. yeah but

Nixon self-destructed in a bad way...

So they installed a more photogenic front man, Sir Ronnie, (with Nancy's astrologer as puppeteer), and did much better!

The Reagan Era was the turning point --where you could get a frightening glimmer of the nightmare we are living today.

[jberryhill]

75. .

[Roland99]

34. decades of apathy-inducing media sensationalism

[librechik]

36. Forty years of intense, well-funded demonization n/t

[NNN0LHI]

37. Seen a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac today

[KossackRealityCheck]

39. The 60s weren't what you think they are

In many ways, they were pretty fucked up. As a number of people have pointed out, the demonstrations against the Vietnam War did not end the war. The demos peaked between 68 and 72, but the war dragged on, even though the US was trying to extricate itself. Keep that in mind when you consider how fast we've withdrawn from Iraq and the timetable for Afghanistan.

I also see a repetition of a lot of unrealistic nonsense. The 60s were tragic because they started with really, really well organized, politicized, disciplined, coherent, intellectual youth, student and minority movements, like Students for a Democratic Society, Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Winter Soldiers, Congress of Racial Equality, United Farm Workers, etc.

But working with them required rational thought and behavior, and they were not pure enough, or flamboyant or radical enough and they were replaced by the Yippies, Weathermen and Black Panthers. Contrary to what many believe the Panthers and Yippies were jokes in terms of getting stuff done, and they turned the traditional left against the left -- leading to the rise of neo-liberals and neo-conservatives. Like, really, taking shotguns to Oakland city hall or making bombs in the east village is going to change anything. When the Latino organization, Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers started getting less press than the Panther/gang wannabes Young Lords, you could tell which way the wind was blowing. Remember who was the spokesperson for the Young Lords? Oh yeah, Geraldo Rivera. Can you guess what he was really about all along? Rivera and Juan Gonzales, who is now Amy Goodman's number 2 and works for the NY Daily News. The UFW stayed in the fields and the Young Lords all got media contracts.

The Hippies were pure bullshit. That was Madison Avenue and Tim Leary marketing a youth lifestyle back to the youth in order to depoliticize it, while making a buck on it. I liked Abbie Hoffman's theatrics at the time, but really, was "Steal This Book," a serious political analysis or a guide for scamming free lunches from diners and orchestrating your own "suicide by cop"? And on top of everything he probably plagarized it.

In the 60s, the left got played big time. That gigantic con is what has shaped the mentalities of people like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As the Who said, "Won't Get Fooled Again."

[marions ghost]

47. Regardless of the fates of the left organizations--

the principles of the 60's liberals --were influential enough to be threatening. To name a few:

LESS consumerism; MORE sharing instead of buying; MORE money for women and minimum wage earners; LESS neurotic emphasis on appearances (and long eyelashes); LESS meaningless division between social segments; MORE alternative energy (free energy from the sun & wind & waves); NO wars for profit and exploitation; MORE real justice--ie. a justice system that works...etc etc

These dreams and visions of a better society were never realized but they did SELL at the time, and they did influence a generation. And this is what the rabid, UNprincipled Corporate PTB were deathly afraid of and have been working against ever since.

[KossackRealityCheck]

53. You're describing lifestyle over politics

That was what happened in the 70s. The first half of the 60s was about policy and political power. It was the real thing -- desegregating the south, emancipation of women from really old fashioned rules, ending the war, changing the way universities ran, getting progressives elected, enacting national, state and local laws.

You're describing the "feel good" post 68 and 70s, when the yippies, hippies, Leary, Pepsi, Laugh-In, EST took over. They took a political movement and turned it into a lifestyle movement. Sure consume less artificial food by buying Swanson NATURAL Frozen Dinners. Less neurotic concern with appearance by purchasing Breck Girl Natural Shampoo. The corporations didn't fear the 60s because they were able to sell it back to the apolitical from the day the Beatles got off the plane at JFK airport.

[marions ghost]

55. lifestyle is no less real to people....

After the political organizations of the 60's got some gains and then imploded or were scared out of existence, the dream remained for awhile--the dream that it was possible to have a better society. The dream of a healthy society where people are not pitted against each other.

This vision sold very well to younger people of the late 60's and 70's, under whatever label you like to give it. Sure, the corporations pretended to go along...but they were scheming the reversals that came about under Reagan--they (the WW2 generation then) were working to turn back the clock. And they managed it.

[KossackRealityCheck]

59. The organizations didn't implode

That's my point. My point is that people on the left can be just as stupid as people on the right. These organizations declined because potential "troops" found stupid shit more attractive. Read some of the memoires from that period. Macho men thinking with their third leg realized you got more booty dressed as a Panther carrying a shotgun than wearing respectable khakis, a white shirt, tie and nerdy civil rights sun glasses.

Same with SDS, etc. These guys had been organizing for years, had purple stained mimeograph ink fingers, long reading lists, and debates in policy magazines. Along come the hippies in torn jeans, blotters of acid and a "plan" to levitate the Pentagon through Bhuddist chants, and all the weak minded fools followed them.

There were assassinations and repression, but nothing most other revolutionary movements didn't face in the world. The 60s failed because Americans on the left at the time were self-indulgent, not very bright, attracted to bright shiny objects, easily distracted, and they wanted to get laid. The survivors basically said, "never again." But we're basically going through the same thing all over again. Obama hasn't fixed everything in 2 years, so what's the next shiny object?

[marions ghost]

61. We wont agree

You're not seeing the point that-- beyond ideology and organizational failures--a large part of the liberal American public actually believed that the war was over and better days would come--ie. that a better society WAS possible--until Reagan. And then reality set in....

We're "going through the same thing again"--what BS. If you don't have ANY respect for the liberal legacy--shredded and tattered and disrespected as it is...whatcha doin' here? :shrug:

[KossackRealityCheck]

63. You are confusing liberal legacy with lifestyle

That's what my posts are about -- the way the liberal legacy was abandoned for lifestyle.

The liberal legacy, which I have great respect for, included the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, state laws emancipating women, etc. That legacy is represented by the likes of Bill, Hillary, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, John Conyers, people who were young at that time but saw show shit got done. Now, they're taking crap from the people who are the successors of the yippies who say, fuck the political process.

That's why I'm here.

[marions ghost]

66. Eh?

"...crap from the people who are the successors of the yippies who say, fuck the political process."

WHO ARe you talking about?
:silly:

I don't see too many yippies running around...& what is their crap? So educate me, all-knowing one.

[deutsey]

88. Your comment about corporations selling back an apolitical '60s

is one of the reasons I wonder if we'll ever be able to have genuine grassroots movements (artistic, political, whatever) again.

It seems any time something real starts to emerge from "the underground" (I'm thinking about the late '80s and early '90s as perhaps the last time a signficant example of this happened), corporations siphon off the lifestyle image, water down the underlying philosophy into treacle, and sell it back to us.

The '60s had "hippie" styles and the early '90s had "grunge" styles.

[Radical Activist]

99. That's getting hard to do.

The internet is now widespread enough that young people don't have to rely on corporate information outlets.

[deutsey]

145. Yes, but the internet culture doesn't necessarily foster real face-to-face culture

and in many feeds into the lifestyle identities you're talking about.

Don't get me wrong...without the internet since the 2000 election, I'd probably be crazy by now. However, while it's been a good source of info and for connecting online with people who share my politics/interests, it can be an isolating factor, too (i.e., sitting at the computer instead of interacting in the real world in community with others).

[Radical Activist]

100. And those who retreated to a commune

to reduce their impact on the planet found out that the planet kept getting worse while they ignored politics. It was self-indulgent, self-imposed political exile.

[Radical Activist]

98. Great comment. Thanks.

It helps to be realistic about the 60's instead of buying the mythology brought to us by Time/Life.

[ProudDad]

166. There hasn't been a "left" in this country

since Wilson started jailing and killing them and...

FDR finally put the nail in the coffin...

What we saw in the 60s were youngsters afraid of the draft -- trying to save their asses...

And the survivors of the Old Left trying to continue to survive...

All marginalized by the incredibly effective USamerican propaganda machine...

As I say below it was Watergate, the final proof that all pResidents lie and lie and lie, that ended the Vietnam slaughter...

And that once nixon was gone, Ford could admit it was "un-winnable" although it cost him the election of '76...

-----------------------

Although "hippie, freelove and music" was a HELL OF A LOT OF FUN!!!! Especially compared to the anal-repressive 50s!

Especially the Free Love part!!! :evilgrin:

[LostInAnomie]

52. The Repukes wed themselves to the Religious Right.

A lot of dumb "faithful" got duped.

[Cal33]

150. The Repukes would wed anybody, including the devil himself,

in order to get their votes. Profit (in whatever form) and power are their only interests.

[dmosh42]

54. What happened is we have 'fake' progressives.....

The people were ready for a progressive movement, but we picked leaders who were corporation lappers. The major attempts at legislation like health insurance, financial reform, etc., is always written by the industry, and then they give their approval. Any efforts to get justice and convictions in the financial scandals or the fake war in Iraq, are quickly set aside by the present leadership under the 'We don't have time for this' explanation. I was born when FDR was in office, and did military service in the early 60s(6 yrs), so I remember all that turmoil, and it was a great education for me about how the wealth and corporations lead the rest of us down the road to more wealth and power for them.

[raccoon]

65. While "conventional wisdom" says that the protests ended the Vietnam War, there are other theories.

One is that the army in Vietnam was about to mutiny--fragging officers, etc.

See:


THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES
By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr.
North American Newspaper Alliance
Armed Forces Journal, 7 June, 1971


THE MORALE, DISCIPLINE and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.

By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having _refused_ combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous.
…

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html

[EFerrari]

68. "Sir, No, Sir!" is a great film. The two efforts were too hard

to fight at the same time, imo.

[raccoon]

141. I'll have to look into that film. nt

[EFerrari]

154. Netflix has it. Free Speech TV plays it occasionally. Here's the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDk6Qal2DCI

[EFerrari]

155. I think I found it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6778006324418913071#

[treestar]

67. When you are a college student, you are different from when you

are in your sixties. They got older.

And they did succeed quite a bit. A lot was accomplished. Look at the current wars. even the Repukes did not dare start a draft.

[marions ghost]

71. I don't look at

the current wars as a success. You do?

[TheKentuckian]

73. The OP seems romanticized and over simplified though I wasn't there

The action levels of the rank and file right is also greatly exaggerated. The reality is there is more activism on the left by far it just doesn't get the corporate platform and funding.

The biggest real impact is they have shitloads of kept women and retired folks with a lot of time on their hands to takeover school boards, that I'll grant, but protest, marches, knocking on door, and such is mostly an illusion brought to you by your friendly neighborhood corporate media.

[xchrom]

79. No draft. Nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. The grownups of the 60's had just defeated fascism.

They knew that corporate power combined with mob rule was a huge threat.

Essentially, Reagan happened and made people comfortable with their greed and bigotry.

[WinkyDink]

96. "Reagan Democrats" were from "the Greatest Generation." Getting back at their Hippie kids.

Or was that just MY father?

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. Yes. Just yours. n/t

[WinkyDink]

147. It was a joke. Who do YOU think became "Reagan Democrats", then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-pinkerton/reagan-democrats-will-cha_b_34216.html

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20101012reagan_dems_take_notice/

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. On balance, I think the greatest generation did more good...

... than any other before or since.

I think it is unfair to blame them for Reagan, without crediting them with FDR, JFK, LBJ, Truman, Carter... even Eisenhower. Hell, even Nixon is a policy improvement to any of the Republicans that subsequent generations have produced.

[JamesA1102]

85. Didn't Nixon win the Presidency in the late '60s? nt

[WinkyDink]

93. What's your point? The 1968 Democratic Convention was declared "a police riot., "

but it worked to have Nixon barely defeat Humphrey.

[DailyGrind51]

115. I was in Chicago in 1968 when conservaDem Richard J. Daley turned CPD loose on "The Left"!

Even Dan Rather and Hugh Hefner got roughed up!

[JamesA1102]

117. My point is that the '60s was not the liberal uptopia

that the OP is claiming.

[Cal33]

120. I don't think there ever was any utopia anywhere. But the liberal

spirit was more alive and active in the 1960s than it is today -- much more so.

[JamesA1102]

125. More alive in the 60s? Which is why Nixon got elected? nt

[WinkyDink]

148. The two are not mutually exclusive. And the Nixon-HHH race was very close at the end, with MANY

pundits opining that another week or two would have meant victory for Humphrey.

[DailyGrind51]

173. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern split the Progressive vote,

giving Moderate Hubert Humphrey the nomination. The treatment of the Left by Democratic Mayor Richard J. Daley alienated Progressive young people from enthusiastically supporting Humphrey, who was endorsed by the Daley Machine. Humphrey also supported LBJ's Viet Nam policy which was similar to Rumsfeld's "We'll know what victory is, when we achieve it" policy in Iraq.

You really need to study the period to comment on it.

[MrSlayer]

86. Vietnam didn't end until 1975. The protests did nothing to stop it.

But that is beside the point. What happened was that the right started buying up all the media outlets, tv stations, newspapers, radio stations and magazines. They then began a propaganda blitz that has been so successful that they have now convinced fully half of the country that the things that are good for them are bad for them. When you own the message you own the people. Goebells knew this better than anyone and the right wing have adapted his tactics to great effect.

[Cal33]

108. I think the protests did their part. Johnson became too unpopular ,

and he knew it. He didn't run again. And, if I remember correctly, Nixon
ran his campaign on stopping the war -- among other things. He sure took
his time, though.

[WinkyDink]

89. Don't you remember? The Boomers didn't accomplish anything, and now we're responsible for today's

mess.

[truedelphi]

104. That says it all.

I'll never forget the day at the local printers, when this twenty something started screeching at me about how screwed up we Boomers are.

Here is this guy, with piercings almost all over, tatts wherever a free bit of flesh wasn't pierced,
and he is telling me we accomplished nothing.

I asked him if he had to wear a three piece suit to interview for his job, and he looked at me like I was nuts.

When I entered the work force, 1969, I had the "audacity" to not wear little white gloves to my interview at a major ad firm's accounting department. Though I did wear make up, hose, heels, a skirt with fancy blouse and jacket. All for a job that paid $ 520 a month!

And now there is often no dress code.

But yet, now we are told we accomplished nothing but deserve all the blame.

[Cal33]

110. Well, in the 1960s many boomers were in their late teens and

early twenties. I personally know of some who were idealistically taking part
in those protests.

[truedelphi]

102. Wall Street did not own Congress and the Oval Office.

That is the major difference.

[Cal33]

112. I'm still having my fingers crossed that Wall Street does not

own the Oval Office, but it sure does own too much of Congress.

I'm so intrigued by the idea I recently read, that I am repeating myself
here again:

"It's no longer Dem/Repub, Liberal/Conservative. Today it's Corporations vs.
you and me."

[DailyGrind51]

113. We didn't have access to the internet back then, so we knew that the only way to be heard was

to get off our sorry asses and into the streets! We also had the military draft and Vietnam, understanding that our lives and those of our brothers and friends were at stake.

[Cal33]

116. Yes, we all tend to think of our own safety. These sure played a role.

[RagAss]

114. It ended when the American Football League did.

[Hydra]

118. Would you really like to know what happened to us?(Liberal next gens)

You told us to go away.

I've been advocating against Bush, wars, torture, poverty, injustice, spying, environmental crimes and everything else we've had on our plate for more than 10 years now.

Do you know what I hear back?

"I don't want to talk about it."

"You're exaggerating."

"Leave it to people who know the world better than you do."

"Vote someone else in."

"Election fraud didn't happen...twice...it was Nader!"

"We can't prove there was torture."

"Impeachment would be bad for the country."

"Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, etc. wouldn't order torturing."

"If the Democrats sat they need to spy on us, then it's all right."

"There are no poor people in America(only lazy people)."

You want to know where we went? You asked us to be silent and trust that things would fix themselves. Now, you are saying that we should have been there for you all along and fixed things.

Two words: "Hell No." Reap what you sow

[Cal33]

119. And who is this "you" who told you all these things? Republicans?

If so, did you believe them and follow what they suggested,
or did you answer back with opinions of your own?

[Hydra]

130. I told the members of DU these things

And since I considered DU some of the best of the best at the time, I was more than a little shocked.

I've also talked to plenty of good-seeming dems IRL trying to get things moving in the last 10 years, and what I posted above was the response.

My best answer is that I "disbelieved" what they were saying. I really couldn't believe people would tepidly condone all of this crap. The fact that this pervasive culture of "It's the fault of the young ones" when the people in charge making the mess won't ever retire from power is kind of amusing.

I'm done though. If we can accept what we do from our country and make excuses for it, I'm not accomplishing anything by asking where our collective soul is- because apparently I got caught up in the myth too, rather than the reality of where our nation's soul is.

Money.

[boppers]

136. Don't give up just yet.

There's a species change we're waiting for.

We occasionally have huge threads about it.

[Shireling]

121. For whatever reason

people went to sleep. The 1980s were devastating and people gave up. Some decided it was easier to become greedy and shallow. But most still have the same values, but they are older and don't know what to do now. I think they were hoping that the younger generations would pick up where they left off, but that didn't happen.

There is an interesting book called "The Fourth Turning" that looks at historical cycles and generations and how certain themes seem to repeat themselves every 80 to 100 years or so. It is good reading and explains a lot of what is happening now.

PEACE :hippie:

[Cal33]

126. Do you mean that Reagan was a messiah for the Pubs, but the Dems.

found him too much to take and turned themselves off and out? :o)

[ProudDad]

165. No, the Dems voted for him (n/t)

[JI7]

122. Hubert Humphrey would have been a great President

but i see many of the same ones who complain about Dems continually today were doing the same back then.

i guess their feelings of moral superiority of voting their "conscience" or whatever the fuck let them get through shit like Reagan and Bush.

[KoKo]

124. Simple Answer? "BIG MONEY CORPORATISM" and Supreme Court's Recent Decision..

to allow as MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN..to FLOOD ELECTIONS...and NO ACCOUNTABILITY OR DISCLOSURE.

It threw out ALL FAIR PLAYING FIELD in ELECTIONS FOR AMERICANS...

There you have it!

[Cal33]

128. The Pubs. have nominated 5 justices in the Supreme Court.

Thomas is in trouble with new disclosures from his former lady-friend that he did lie during his confirmation hearings,
and a congressman is considering impeaching Roberts for also having lied. Hopefully one of them will stick. One Neocon
Supreme Court justice fewer would make a lot of difference.

Corporations have been around for a long time. Teddy Roosevelt was fighting them a hundred years ago.

[guitar man]

127. What happened to that spirit?

IMO we have spent the last 30 years putting a proverbial boot to the face of that spirit. Somehow about the time Reagan got elected all of a sudden that kind of progressive drive and spirit became "bad" somehow. In the ensuing 30 years the screamers, howlers and shit-throwers have created the notion of " liberal bad, conservative good". They've made it a damn hard row to hoe for those of is on the progressive side of the equation.

I don't know how we will ever gain the upper hand again, it just seems impossible at times :(

[Cal33]

131. "I don't know how we will ever gain the upper hand again, it just seems impossible at times

The only thing to do is to begin planning and organizing a resistance movement.
The corporations have had a long start, and it will be a long pull to dethrone
them. When they overcharge for their goods, we could persuade the Congress to
enact laws allowing us to buy similar goods from abroad at a cheaper rate, or
we could boycott them...etc...

[Cal33]

132. "I don't know how we will ever gain the upper hand again, it just seems impossible at times

The only thing to do is to begin planning and organizing a resistance movement.
The corporations have had a long start, and it will be a long pull to dethrone
them. When they overcharge for their goods, we could persuade the Congress to
enact laws allowing us to buy similar goods from abroad at a cheaper rate, or
we could boycott them...etc... How's that for a start? :o)

[boppers]

129. "It was so powerful and effective."

Right. Women got equal pay, schools were desegregated, war stopped, poverty was eliminated, and unicorns frolicked in the hills pooping rainbows. In the 60's.

:eyes:

What happened was that people realized that all the marching, grandstanding, and self-important manifestos weren't making change, and that the changes had to come from actual actions.

Vietnam: 1975
Desegregation: Ongoing (still!)
Wars of opportunity: Ongoing (still!)

The rosy view of change happing in the 60's is simply a matter of wistful nostalgia, not a reflection of substantial change having happened.

[Cal33]

133. And Lyndon Johnson did not run again because he knew he

couldn't win. He prolonged the war and he had to step down for it, because he did not have enough support from
his own party members.

[boppers]

135. How was that "powerful and effective"?

Because we got Nixon?

[Cal33]

138. They played a big role in Lyndon Johnson's not running again,

and in helping the civil rights become law. Johnson became so unpopular he'd have lost to Nixon or
any other Republican anyway.

[bettyellen]

139. yeah, america in the 70s was just like the fifties because nothing happened.

just "grandstanding and self important manifestos.
kid what are you watching, anti hippe movies? your post is hilaroius.

[moondust]

134. Maybe some of it will show up this weekend at a certain rally.

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

137. Sorry, you lost me at "Chris Hedges". nt

[Cal33]

140. Am sending you a copy of a post I wrote earlier: " Writer said that

Liberal's present impotent state is caused by the liberals themselves."

You'll have to paste it.



Cal33 (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-27-10 11:27 PM
Original message
Writer states liberals' present impotent state was created by the liberal elites themselves.
Edited on Wed Oct-27-10 11:31 PM by Cal33
And he backs up his assertion with impressive arguments.




The World Liberal Opportunists Made

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_world_liberal_o... /

Posted on Oct 25, 2010
By Chris Hedges

[Le Taz Hot]

143. Hoo boy!

Where to begin?

First off, the "Dems" did none of the things you enumerate in your first and subsequent paragraphs. ALL MOVEMENTS STARTED WITH THE POPULACE AND THE POLITICOS HAD TO BE DRUG, KICKING AND SCREAMING, THE ENTIRE WAY. Sorry to yell, but you REALLY need to read that sentence at least 37 times. (OK, I'm making that up but the emphasis cannot be overstated.)

Civil Rights: The fact is that JFK was VERY reluctant to take on the issue for fear of losing the Southern vote in 1964 presidential election. (As it turns out, he was right.) The Democratic Party was nowhere near Rosa Parks. Dr. King tried like hell to get the Democratic Party to take on the issue but they wouldn't touch it. (Any of this sounding familiar?) What the "go slow" factions didn't bargain for was the slow-burn turning into a bonfire due mostly to just everyday people TAKING A STAND AT A CRUCIAL TIME AND REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO ANY LONGER (There's that yelling again. Sorry.) It was ONLY with JFK's murder, and the fact that Johnson was, well, Johnson, who still cast a large shadow in the House and worked like hell to get it through, was Civil Rights and Voting Rights (connected) legislation passed and Amendments to the Constitution were added. The Dems came in at the END. They were nowhere to be found at the beginning.

Viet Nam: Early on, there were few anti-war protesters. Then the first wave of draftees started returning home from Viet Nam and we began learning what was REALLY happening. Johnson, a Democrat, ESCALATED the war due to his chicken-hawk advisers and LACK OF SUPPORT FROM DEMOCRATS in the House and Senate. Those stories led to investigations, Cronkite turned against the war and later everything came belching out about the Gulf of Tonkin and a whole lot more via the Pentagon Papers. Slow burn to bonfire. Rinse and repeat. The war was ended under Nixon's watch.

Now, about liberals you claim are not doing anything. I think we need to understand the terminology. Liberals (progressives) are out here doing what we've always done: Volunteering at the homeless shelter, STILL fighting for Civil Rights (at the moment, its on behalf of the GBLTQIA* community), fighting for workers rights/unions, continuing/resurrecting the Green Movement, ensuring we're kept informed and monitoring our representatives. That's at the top of my head.

Democrats are not liberals/progressives. They're Democrats. They owe their loyalty to the Democratic Party, no matter how far backwards they have to turn their heads to ignore a MOUNTAIN of injustices perpetuated by their own organization. Jefferson warned us about political parties. So did Franklin and Lincoln. These were not stupid men and they were trying to tell us something.

OK, let me sum this up. Quit looking to "others" to do the work for you. The Democrats arent' going to fix a broken system -- they benefit too much from it. The Republicans aren't going to rock the boat for the same reason. The ONLY way change comes is through the populace making that change and the way you do that is to organize around a CAUSE, not a party, but a CAUSE. Slow burn to bonfire to the politicos having no choice but to do the Will of the People.

[greymattermom]

144. next generation

I was a politico then, marching, sign carrying antiwar protester. Now, my daughter is canvassing in Ohio every day for Working America, and I'm struggling to maintain a research program in traumatic brain injury that should help returning vets. With the payline at NIH in single digits, that takes almost all my energy. These days I fight with contributions and occasional protests, but I'm still there and am in my 60s. We're still here, just sending money instead of face time.

[WinkyDink]

149. "We got Nixon. We got Nixon." Look. MLK was murdered. Bobby was murdered. VietNam was "LBJ's War."

And Humphrey did not seem capable of expressing the mood of Liberals in this context, even though he himself WAS a Liberal. Hence, the "Clean for Gene (McCarthy)" movement, Bobby's entry, etc., to the police riot in Chicago (and eventually to the circus known as the Trial of the Chicago Seven).

AND EVEN WITH ALL THIS, NIXON BARELY WON (which led to his re-election paranoia known as "Watergate"). "The election on November 5, 1968, proved to be extremely close, and it was not until the following morning that the television news networks were able to call Nixon the winner."**

And the government violence, both here (Kent and Jackson State U's) and in VietNam (and Cambodia, illegally), during the first Nixon term further demoralized the young.

The real question is not where are the now-60+ year-old Liberals; it is where are the YOUNG Liberals?

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

[Cal33]

151. "The real question is not where are the now-60+ year-old Liberals; it is where are the YOUNG

Liberals?"

Yes, I should have been more explicit. Why are the young Liberals not
carrying on the Liberal spirit of their parents? What happened?

[WinkyDink]

159. MAD Magazine predicted it 40 years ago: Hippies would have Conservative kids.

[Cal33]

161. Yes, some of them do. I think that the number of liberals still

outnumber the conservatives, even among the young. But numbers don't
matter so much. How come the liberal spirit is not as strong among the
younger generation today? Is it because they don't have inspiring leaders?

[AmandaRuth]

152. what happened was is the illuminati or whatever

word is appropriate saw what was happening in the 60's, and it scared the shit out of them. Decided to start working multi-generationally, by taking over the media, the schools the military and the language. You know, snarl, sneer LIBERALS, snarl sneer DEMOCRATS....

There are a million small examples of this - such as the DJ at the drive time hard rock station my brother listens to, he hates unions and is completely right-wing libertarian - No other opinion allowed.


Also having the media make gross amounts of money by distorting our election process is a factor too, which is why public financing of elections is never mentioned.

I am feeling overwhelmed this morning.

[Cal33]

153. Hold off on feeling overwhelmed a bit longer. :o) We've got to make

sure that as many people as possible will vote, and then the honesty
of the counting of the votes must be ascertained. Since this election
is expected to be such a close one, fraud by even one-tenth of one
percent could make all the difference in the world.

[Cal33]

157. Here's some very cheerful news from another thread on DU - Info from the horse's mouth.

Polling has been a hot topic around here...

<>

Edited on Fri Oct-29-10 03:52 PM by Deadgnome

I'm an avid reader of Democratic Underground, and have been for years. I may not post often and I don't reply too much, but I appreciate what is discussed in this forum and the way people go about debate. I've noticed recently that there have been many topics about polling, specifically mentioning Gallup seeing how they have been mentioned in the news. I, myself have worked for Gallup for a little over a year now doing interviews and I have tried to offer some of my insights into how things go on at this company. Granted, I in a low level position (being and interviewer peon and all) but I do get to notice some trends I see and I hope I can offer a more in-depth perspective on how things work around here.

What I wanted to bring to light here today was something very interesting I experienced here last night while doing our final election poll.

First, there has been much to be made about how the cell phone only households are vastly under-represented, which is entirely true. But last night I saw Gallup doing something that I have never seen before. We were actually screening for cell-phone only households. While we do call cell-phones in our daily tracking polls, we never screen for cell-phone only. The reason that we can't do so many, or so I've been told by management here, is because the ways the laws are set up we can't put those numbers on an automatic speed dialer. What that dialer does is weed out the bad numbers, disconnects, and mis-dials by working ahead of the interviewer 20 or so calls and dumping the good numbers to the interviewer for a higher contact rate. Apparently when it comes to cell-phones we are only allowed to hand dial.

Last night though, I did 20 surveys on the USA Today upcoming election poll. Of those 20, I did 10 surveys on cell-phone only. And each one of those surveys I made sure to thank them specifically for doing the poll on their cell phone and discussing the changes in our habits when it comes to cell-phone usage versus land line usage. Every one of those people were extremely grateful we were starting to do this.

Second, we obviously know that we have been inundated with this constructed narrative from the Right about how they are going to wipe the floor on the 2nd. The polls have supposedly shown this, including Gallup's, which have been very skewed from my perspective and from the perspective of many others. I wanted to say though, and this is simply from my experience last night (the first night of the USA Today Upcoming Election Poll) I talked to 20 respondents. Of those 20, I only polled 2 people that were planning to vote Republican, the rest, Democrat. That was 18-2 in favor of the Democrats and these were people from all over the country, North, South, East, and West.

Now, the other interesting thing I saw, and this is when I asked about the Tea Party, and the question stated: Do you or do you not support the Tea Party? I received 20 respondents saying the did NOT. I even had one of the Republican respondents and a handful of Democratic respondents expound upon their utter distaste for the group.

So, make what you will of what I have mentioned here, I thought it would be an interesting insight, seeing what is going on in this country. And if you have any questions, please ask them, I would love to discuss what I do and what I see from my position here.

Good day.

[AmandaRuth]

162. Thank you Cal

:thumbsup: :hi: :hi: :hug: :applause:

And tons more of that stuff.

[Cal33]

163. You're welcome. I'm keeping my options open about whether or not

to believe that the Illuminati are a reality. Suffice it to say that corporations are.
I came across an article claiming that Dems/Pubs and Lib/Cons. are not so much the
question anymore, but "It's the corporatiions vs. you and me" is.

[McCamy Taylor]

158. Way to rewrite history. Nixon re-elected by a landslide in 1972 after giving us "4 more years"

of an (escalated) war.

I lived the 60's. There were no negative consequences for Nixon for his war crimes. He was impeached for putting VIPs on an enemies list.

[ProudDad]

167. And he was "not one of us"

according to the ruling elite...

He was a schlumpy looking, foul mouthed working class dweeb...

Who took advantage of a dearth of viable republican or democratic candidates in '68 and the genesis of the racist "Southern Strategy"...

And they finally took him down...

and quickly replaced him with this piece of shit:

[ProudDad]

164. Please don't get suckered in by revisionist "history"

I've had a lot of time to think about this since then. I resigned from the Navy in early 1964 in part because I discovered that I was a pacifist...that I did NOT want to kill anyone for Lyndon Johnson or anyone else.

Then I was glad to hear Johnson say that he wanted no wider war in Indochina during the '64 election...

Then I found he lied, the scales fell from my eyes, so I became solidly and unalterably anti-war - for every reason from moral to pragmatic...

--------------------------------

The war was NOT ended by the peace movement...

The war was NOT ended by "public opinion" (the majority was FOR the war - or some kind of "victory" right up till the end)...

The war was NOT ended for moral reasons...

The beginning of the end was when the "most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite essentially said on national news after the Tet offensive in '68 that the war was "un-winnable".

Then Nixon came in saying he would get a "peace with honor" and proceeded to preside over more Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian and USAmerican deaths than Johnson had...

And widened the war in his monomaniacal desire not to be the "first pResident to lose a war"...

And our protests were impotent...

And the Congress was solidly for blasting Vietnam into the stone age...

And then Watergate!

A good argument could be made that Spiro Agnew's resignation followed by Watergate and wimpy Gerald Ford becoming pResident finally ended the Vietnam "war" in '75...

Most of those whose ass was up for grabs in the draft then went on to become a big part of the global problems...fat, dumb and happy keeping up with the Jones's...and participating in the infinite growth paradigm on a finite planet...

And most of us radicals were briefly (until ray-gun) somewhat lulled into a false sense of security by the removal of Nixon...

Now we are watching the resurgence of a Fifth Reich -- the final push toward the Corporate States of USAmerica...

We're arriving at the destination that the rapacious Europeans (and their fellow travelers) have been aiming for since the terrorist occupation if this continent began over 500 years ago...

Welcome to the Long Emergency in the belly of the USAmerican Empire...

[janet118]

175. Excellent summary . . . Proud Dad

I went to many protests in the late sixties/early seventies. It was not so much forcing the powers that be "up against the wall" as banging your own head against the wall. The voting age was 21 back then, meaning that a lot of the draftees couldn't even vote for the leaders that sent them to war. The first presidential election I could actually vote in was '72. I think the youth vote did get McGovern the Democratic nomination only to face Nixon's landslide win. That was the last straw for me. I lost my urban political fervor and laid low in the country for nearly a decade. Watergate seemed to come out of nowhere, like it was happening in spite of all those years of us raging against the machine, not because of it.

[Cal33]

176. A terrific post, Proud Dad! Your summary of the Vietnam War and

its aftermath have me convinced. Yes, so many of our people are mainly materially oriented, and
from way back. I remember having read a long time ago that a French nobleman, after having made
an extensive visit to the USA in the 1860s, came to the conclusion that Americans were among the
foremost of the peoples whose main interest was running after wealth. This was 150 years ago!
We haven't changed much since.

Your mention of Walter Cronkite is most appropriate. Just look at the state of journalism in
America today. There is no one of his stature. Media bigwigs like Rupert Murdoch are brain-
washing and dumbing down the American people with deliberate lies, falsehoods, omissions and
distortions of important information that Americans have the right to know - all for the sake
of corporate interests. And there is no end in sight.

About Murdoch, I recently read that he is attempting to buy several companies that aren't
doing very well in England. And if he should succeed, he'd be owning half of the news media
in that country. Just imagine the dishonest information he'd be spreading over there too!
But the Brits are aware of this, and they are fighting him tooth and nail. I hope the British
people will win. It's much harder to fight him and others like him here in America, since 90%
of the news media are already Republican-owned. The brain-washing of our people will continue.
Who will take Cronkite's place? We lack good leaders.

I would like to make mention of those heroic young people, both black and white, who took
part in marches and protests of the 1960s against the injustices of segregation - and some of
whom have been killed by racists - they were undeniably among the most altruistic idealists.
They responded to Martin Luther King's appeal to the conscience of our nation, and paid the
great price.

[cbc5g]

168. Search for "baby boomers" and George Carlin on google

That should let you know what happened

[Cal33]

170. Thanks for the info. Will google "baby boomers" and "George Carlin."

[Recursion]

169. The sixties were when union employment levels started dropping

We started to feel the squeeze of the end of the post WWII boom, which I think is now pretty much officially over (though we are still the #1 manufacturing company in the world, surprisingly enough).

You can talk ideology and laziness and whatever else all you want. The real difference is there are less resources to go around now than there used to be, and nothing will ever be like it was before. Which is not to say it will necessarily be worse.

[felix_numinous]

171. Neocons also got their start in early 60s

which often goes unnoticed when referring to this era. They formed their opinions and strategies and sharpened their teeth observing the left during those days.

An interesting documentary on this subject if you haven't seen it, called The Power of Nightmares.

here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOlwbaPe2os