Getting Past the 60's

[KensPen]

The world needed to be shaken up in the 60s.
Maybe it needs a good shaking now.

But there are beliefs and images that are tied tightly to the image of a "liberal" that are dragging us down and threaten to drown us.

The Anti Establishment movement that was so needed in the 60s is now a big target painted on our backs. And conservatives are using it quite effectively.

Liberals are seen as anti national defense, anti cop, anti religion, anti capitalism. While all these areas were rife with problems in the 60s they are still areas we can't let the Right Control.

We NEED an army, an effective police force, a healthy economy, and frankly the instructions of most churches aren't bad morals to adhere to.

But Republican have wrapped themselves with Flag burning laws, and supporting school prayer and monuments in Court houses, and have painted us into a corner of appearing to be against "values"

It's worked!!!

We need to reclaim the center, prove we aren't AGAINST these things,
just the misuse of them.

[SoCalDem]

1. Agreed.....BUT... and it's a BIG one..

The MEDIA is and always HAS been a driving force in what the public perceives.. They portrayed my generation as a bunch of pot-smoking,sexually free,draft-dodging, cop-hating,long haired hippies who hated ANY form of civil discourse or control.. The movies did it, the magazines did it, and TV,radio & newspapers did it..

The ones who DID fit that image were NOT the majority, but they grabbed headlines and they became the focus and the icon..

The same way that the fundamentalist Christians "seem" to be the majority of the republican party now, yet they are NOT.. There are probably 3 to 1 republicans that are actually "liberal" except for ONE pet issue that weighs so strongly on their minds, that they are blinded to the rest of the nonsense...

We are a nation of labelers.. Every group MUST be labeled, even if they represent only a tiny sliver of their larger group..

Until we can finally get a toehold with the media, our "image" will never change.

[KensPen]

5. Totally agree with you

It is "perception" that I am saying we need to fight.

Republicans have kept alive the image of Democrats being "hippies" spitting on returning combat vets.

That is what we need to work on. The perception many hold that Democrats of today are still the drop outs of yesterday.

After 9-11 I heard a lot of moderates issue "thank god we have a republican in the white house" sentiments. We need to win back the moderates we need to show that we are the holders of middle class values.

the sentiment expressed should be " oh crap we have a hawkish war mongering Republican in office".


We need to be able to fight for the core values of the ACLU without being seen as Anti american and anti god.

we need to show our beliefs are just and "common sense".

[jimbo fett]

2. A 30-something viewpoint.

The problem I always had with the sixties was that there was rebellion without solutions (practical solutions). And as soon as the people who did the shaking back then grew up a little they bought into the very things they rebelled against. The 80s were the fifties redux.

You're right about making the country see that liberals are the real mantle keepers of the American ideals. We fight for the Constitution as a way to empower people not control them.

[CWebster]

6. Almost 50

and there were damn solutions. That is where the civil rights, women's rights, gay rights and environmental consciousness movements were instituted. People just take these things for granted and there was a long and hard historical struggle just to break gound. This abhorent ignorance which frames everything as part of the Republican worldview is a destructive force in our own party which values these hardwon issues.

[onecitizen]

26. You're right CWebster..........

I grew up in the 60's. I'm glad I did. The young people have NO idea what it was like back then. It is almost unimaginable even to me and I lived through it.

I watch "American Dreams" every Sunday and spend the rest of the evening crying over it. It stirs emotions in me I had forgotten. Sometimes because I'm happy. But most of the time because I cannot believe what America was like then. I try to explain it to my 20 something child and I think, for the most part, it goes right over his head. Not that he doesn't care. It's just that he cannot imagine. By the end of this war(if ever there is an end)I suspect he and his generation will know only too well. Perhaps this is the shake-up the poster is referring to. We are on the brink of a fascist state. If bush gets 4 more years, we will live in a full-blown fascist country.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

73. kick

[KoKo]

34. The Democratic Party needs to be Reformed. Forget trashing the 60's

Build on our successes and cut out the Dems who got on the dole of Corporate money who, like Daschle are "sell outs."

[highlonesome]

43. agree

Please check out my rather long post below where I talk about how the hippies have changed.

The difference that a 30 something sees and what you experienced, I think anyway, is that the left of the sixties still held liberty to its highest value whereas now many on the left hold "virtual" equality to the highest value. To them -- since you didn't actually strive toward this "virtual" equality, you were decadent and rebelling just to rebel.

But the hippies in the sixties were rebelling because th values of the Constitution were either not open to all or had been suverted in some way. Those in the sixties were fighting for equality under the law -- equality in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness -- the right to self determination. This right in those days was denied to women and minorities through segregation or for sociocultural epectations.

But today I think many see the new left as as much a threat to the Constitution as the hippies saw the Right in the sixties. Liberty is not held in high esteem anymore.

[SoCalDem]

13. EVERYBODY grows up.... eventually

It's easier to "rebel" when you are living with Mommy & Daddy, and you are going to college.. BUT eventtually, most people marry or form relationships.. They get jobs to earn money to LIVE.. They have families.. Priorities change.. They MUST.. If you have 3 llittle kids and a job, you are waaaay less likely to be out protesting every day.. (there are exceptions, to be sure, but protest is fluid..it requires NEW people picking up the baton.. It's not for the ones who start it, to carry the baton their whole lives..)

The truth is, that once the civil rights bills passed, and the war ended, a lot of the outrage subsided, and people got on with their lives.. They did not do anything that every other generation before them did not do..

People who were teens & 20 somethings in the 50's were just starting to have access to their own vehicles (in a large way) and they were the PARENTS of the boomers... There were not as many of them, and they did not have to compete as fiercely as we did.. Their lives were pretty static.. They grew up in the towns that they were born in..their moms did not work, Dad made enough to guarantee them a comfy life..They did not travel, ... Grandma & Grandpa either lived with them or very near..Lots did not even HAVE TV..

The kids who came of age in the 60's were different in every way.. They were a generation removed from their depression era grandparents.. They never knew the hardships that their parents remembered from their own childhood.. They had access to cars from the time they were 16..They had more freedom..They were marketd to l,ike no other generation before them..

The 60's were a watershed era, and the kids back them grabbed EVERYTHING..because they COULD.. BUT even they had to grow up..

[CivilRightsNow]

36. Nobody said they had to be on the picket lines everyday

You can make changes in your life and what you buy, what companies you support.. what you accept.. who you vote for. That is part of being a citizen. Making conscious choices.

Not grabbing at everything you can, just because you can.

And the children of the 80s are unlike any generation that came before as well, replace the 60's with 80's and the paragraph is equally applicable.. just like the children of the 30s were, and so on and so forth.

All this nostalgia and excuses...

Im not saying anyone is immune from this. Im just saying, nobody is that damn special or unique and everything can be and constantly is outdone.

[LeahMira]

37. I haven't grown up!

It's easier to "rebel" when you are living with Mommy & Daddy, and you are going to college.. BUT eventtually, most people marry or form relationships.. They get jobs to earn money to LIVE.. They have families.. Priorities change.. They MUST.. If you have 3 llittle kids and a job, you are waaaay less likely to be out protesting every day.. (there are exceptions, to be sure, but protest is fluid..it requires NEW people picking up the baton.. It's not for the ones who start it, to carry the baton their whole lives..)

People don't forget their ideals when they get caught up in the busy-ness of life. They are less likely to be out protesting because they realize that what they do could result in harm to their families. It's not a coincidence that in February of 1979, AIM leader John Trudell's mother-in-law, wife and three children were killed in a fire of "unknown origin"... shortly after he had publicly burned the American flag.

I agree that anyone involved in a cause needs to train his or her replacement... along with all the rest that person has to do. We who remember the 1960s haven't told our stories to our own children as well as we should have, I'm afraid. The young women on campus today can't imagine a time when emergency contraception was not available, not to mention a time when women needed to bring their marriage license to the doctor to get a diaphragm! That time was only 50 years ago. I remember that time. I don't think I've ever really told my daughter about it though.

The kids who came of age in the 60's were different in every way.. They were a generation removed from their depression era grandparents.. They never knew the hardships that their parents remembered from their own childhood.. They had access to cars from the time they were 16..They had more freedom..They were marketd to l,ike no other generation before them..

And you don't think it's sort of strange that we and our children are now grubbing for second and third jobs to make ends meet and we're worried about our social security and pensions? When the powers that be want to control, they keep people busy focusing on themselves and their own needs, like food, clothing, and shelter. Yes, we in the 60s did have more free time. Why do you think we can't get a 35 hour work week with the same pay now that corporations are doing so well and so many of us are unemployed? Think of the jobs that could be created.

We haven't "grown up" in the sense that we have abandoned our idealism. We are oppressed so we don't have time and energy for idealism. We can't afford it. And that's sad.

[IrateCitizen]

40. Well, I didn't discover "radicalism" until my late 20's...

And considering that I'm going back to school for a career that will result in a significant pay cut but greater sense of "meaning" (I'm working to start teaching by age 33), I would hardly say that your description applies across the board.

Everyone picks and chooses their lot in life. Some allow themselves to become addicted to the consumerism that festers like a cancer throughout our society. Some of us, however, learn to reject that course in favor of one that seeks to live a fuller life. Not just for us, but for our children as well.

[Paschall]

3. If it feels good, do it

"We must reject the old cultures which said, if it feels good, just go ahead and do it; and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else. " - President George W. Bush

"I feel good." - President George W. Bush, shaking his fist, immediately before announcing the invasion of Iraq

[msmcghee]

4. Yes, of course. If we can just . .

. . all become nice right-leaning Dems - willing to go along to get along with the war on drugs, inserting southern style evangelical religion into our government and wear more current hair styles - they will love us again and welcome us back into the halls of power.

We'll all be one happy family of 'Murkins again. Are they still selling those flag decals?

Insert "thumbs-down" emoticon here - which I can't find in the table.

[KensPen]

9. Are you so afraid to "sell out"?

The war on drugs is a sham.
it's a waste of money time and effort,
we are fighting a demand side problem by attacking the supply.

The republican answer is WRONG....

Yet if the Liberal position is seen as "legalize everything" we are seen as the greater threat.

I am not suggesting a move to Conservative values in a donkey print wrapping paper.

I am saying we need to articulate what our positions are more effectively, and stop letting the Right paint us as extremists.

[msmcghee]

17. Articulate positions more effectively?

First, I think you are a well-meaning person. I am only disagreeing with your ideas - not your motives. So please excuse any heat you feel from words. They aren't directed at you personally.

Compromise, dialogue, reasonable debate - those are all wonderful ways to approach democracy - government by the people. But for those to work, it has to be a two way street. If one side decides to use our love for calm discourse as a weapon against us - then democratic process becomes just a bad joke - to played on the left in this case.

KensPen - we are way past the point that reasonable dialogue about these things will change anyone's mind. We are in a war of values - and because of ideas like your's, we are losing, We are the chumps my friend - saying "Let's all just be nice to each other and show them how reasonable we are, how willing we are to admit that they might be partially right about some of those things, and they will come around to our side." They certainly must have some great laughs over their scotch and waters after the congress goes home for the evening.

Our values are the right values - I am willing to fight for those values - head held high - and pity any RW bastard who tries that bullshit on me.

[KensPen]

21. agreed....

I am failing miserably to articulate my position.

and in essense it's ironic, because that is what I was trying to say the Left is doing in general.

Conservatives have done a good job painting us as extremists because we haven't done a good job articulating our positions.

The topic "Getting Past the 60s" was not meant to imply that we should give up the ideals of the 60s. Merely that today the media is driven by sound bites and perception is greater than reality. Much of the 60s movement was made by naive Idealits, by people fighting against all forms of authority and all institutions.

I tried to convey that we need to show that the Democrats are the ones who should be wielding the authority.

Oh well.....
I am over explaining and maybe I should just take said lumps and move on.

[BurtWorm]

7. New Democrat-ism is Republicanism lite.

We don't need to apologize for our positions if they're misunderstood. We need to foster an environment that is open to debate and discussion, sensitive (but not hypersensitive) to subtlety. Everything--including the uses of the military, the meanings of "crime" and "punishment," the delineation of state and religion--should be open to debate, dialogue, questioning.

If there was one fault of the New Left, it's that it was all criticism and little action. It was not a popular, let alone populist, movement. What is required in the US is a renewed kind of leftism that is populist, democratic, vigorous and attractive.

But we should not go where the Republicans want us to go to have the debate. We have to frame the debate on our own terms and make the Republicans come onto our turf. That's how you move the center.

[Anaxamander]

8. I agree...

The Republicans have somehow co-opted labels like "normal" and "common sense" and used them to their fullest advantage. They've pulled a sleight of hand to make it seem like conservative Republican is the default, and the only reason you'd be a liberal Democrat is if you've been corrupted by the "liberal" media or else you've been hitting the bong too often. More recently, the media has had great fun with the whole concept of being "PC," largely to the detriment of liberals. I'm sure we've all heard or seen jokes that go something like, "The dead prefer to be called 'living-impaired,'" and so on. The end result is that liberals get branded as crybabies, whiners, or extremists who do more harm than good.

It's a war of words. We just have to take back the perception of common sense and normal.

[BurtWorm]

12. Ignore the rubes who don't and can't get it.

Appeal to the open-minded, good-hearted democrats of all persuasions who can see through the plutocrats' lies. But above all, don't fight the war on their terms. That's how to lose ground to the right.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Anaxamander!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Anaxamander]

30. Thank you very much...

It's been a great experience so far in your wonderful forums.:kick:

[maxanne]

10. sorry KenPen

It sounds to me as if you're suggesting that to make the Democratic Party palatable, we must emulate Republicans.

Wrong.

Liberals are responsible for all of the positive social change that's occured in this country in the last 30+ years. We have nothing to apologize for. We've done some damn good work - and we should be proud of it.

I am so tired of the line of thinking that suggests we should cower, cringe, and bow our heads in shame - and wave flags, and rah rah. Maybe to make ourselves more palatable we could strip women of the right to vote? While we're at it - let's segregate schools again, and take the right to vote from blacks. As for gays - hell - shove 'em all back in the closet and deny we ever thought civil rights for all were a good idea. We could become anti-choice, and urge Roy Moore to stick his rock back in the courthouse. :eyes:

Yup, let's turn our backs on everything that this party is supposed to stand for. Hell - why reinvent the wheel? We could just become Republicans.

[KensPen]

16. Sorry Maxanne

maybe you could get off your soap box for a moment and listen to me.

I don't want prayer in schools or Roy Moores rock in the court house.
But not because I am anti god.
Yet that is how Democrats are being portrayed.

I didn't want the ivasion of Iraq.
But not because I am anti National Defense,
Yet that is how we are being portrayed.

It is the perception that Democrats are a bunch of kooks we need to fight. You seem to revel in it.

Your attack of me about desegragating schools etc. is the type of rant that allows Republicans to roll their eyes at us...
Cue Reagans "There you go again".

The Republicans position is WRONG on these issues but they are using a perception of Democratic values to make their positions seem right in contrast.

WE MUST FIGHT this.
if we are to regain the hearts of most americans,
much less congress or the white house.

[maxanne]

33. I'll stay on my soapbox

thanks very much. :eyes:

What we need to do is stop allowing the right wing to frame the discussion and define the terms. We need to reclaim our terms, and make the debate ours again. This means thinking ahead - long term. We need to think about 30 years from now, not just victories in 2004.

Ever since Reagan I've watched the Democrats cower, beg, and attempt to be more like the right wing in an effort to win.

IT HASN'T WORKED!!

What part of that don't you get?

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Hasn't worked in the past. Won't work now

It is because of the media! Also the more you try and look like a republican the more you are helping to foster the image that there is something wrong with being a democrat.

[msmcghee]

14. This is disgusting.

The pukes wage a multi-year effort to label the left as un-American hippies who care only about smoking dope and wearing long hair. They spend millions to get this crap spread throughout the mainstream media - to create this destructive image of us in the minds of Americans.

And your response is to agree that they are probably right, and apologize for it.

Well, I was there in the sixties. I saw thousand on the left put their lives and futures on the line to change things in this country for the better. We marched in the south and got our heads beat in and some were seriously injured and killed. We demonstrated against the war - and got our heads beat in and some were seriously injured and killed. We refused to let them carry on with politics as usual - and we made this a better country and world because of that.

Where is your spine? We should be making monuments to those heroes of the sixties who made it possible for millions of Americans of all races and sexual orientations to have better lives today than they would have.

Any thinking person who has any understanding of basic American values would agree wholeheartedly with what the sixties actually represented in America's history. We should be carrying that banner proudly - not apologizing for it.

To see the left apologize for the false picture the RW has painted of sixties activists would be the most perverse, disgusting thing I could imagine. Sentiments like this are why many Americans see the left as a joke - not for what we did in the sixties.

[9215]

65. Good post

Dems have nothing to apologize for.

[onecitizen]

88. Amen. I wish I was as........

articulate as you!! You are absolutely right!!:toast:

[JanMichael]

92. You said it better than I ever could. Thank you.

I'm so sick of wimped out "Liberals"...

[Terwilliger]

15. what was wrong with the 60's?

you mean the decade when people woke up to the subtle power trips carried out by our government in the name of the people? the decade when people started to realize that something was horribly wrong with the established order? the decade that saw the most populist and progressive leaders of recent memory killed? the decade where blacks were finally given true access to the freedoms granted them 100 years earlier by civil war? the decade where women started to assert themselves and stopped being the willing ovens to the next generation? the decade where gays finally stepped out of the dark and asserted themselves as equal as anybody else? the decade where we stepped to the real about what American foreign policy was actually producing? the decade that saw the introduction of the Moon as a close neighbor?

I know that you're focusing on the negative attributes of the rebellion that started back then, but not everyone is happy with things the way they are.

[KensPen]

18. There was NOTHING wrong with the 60s

and I do applaud the actions taken by those who fought the many injustices.

But the 60 lie 40 years in the past.

I read a post in another thread that basically said cops only exist to keep people down.

If that is the message Democrats are trying to sell, we deserve to lose.

The heros of the 60s won many wars, and injustices were corrected. To act like there hasn't been much reformation is to deny their wins.

We need to move forward attacking those who corrupt the system, not in attacking the system itself.

[Terwilliger]

20. those who corrupt are part of the system

we need a new system...a system that rewards positive advances would be a start

[Padraig18]

19. We need to get past the 70's and 80's, too.

As regards the working machinery of the Democratic party, those who 'held the whip' for 2 decades following the '68 Convention in Chicago, and the subsequent rules' changes, need to understand that the tail no longer wags the dog of the Democratic party; the party NOW more closely reflects the true ideological makeup of its membership than it did in those two decades, and the usual suspects need to quit whining about that fact.

Just MHO... :hi:

[starroute]

22. We need to reclaim the left -- the real left

When I was little, the essence of the left was the belief that things could always be better. That new and superior ways of addressing social problems could be worked out and applied. That wars could be avoided, crime and violence could be greatly diminished, poverty and hunger could be eliminated. And that although none of these things could be done all at once, every change in public policy should be judged in reference to those goals.

In contrast, the right seemed to believe that nothing could ever get better, that people were naturally sinful, that crime and vice and corruption and warfare were inevitable, and that all the government could do was protect relatively peaceful citizens from scary outsiders.

These days, the right still believes that, but the left has lost its faith in progress. Somewhere between 1965 and 1970, there was a great disillusionment in old-fashioned liberalism, which even the left shared. Instead of seeking to make things better all-round, the new left turned to identity politics -- finding the most excluded groups in our society and bringing them up to the relatively mediocre level of privileges enjoyed by the rest of us.

There's no way we can go back to the old, naive faith in progress. It was based on 18th/19th century ideas about reason and highly selective readings of Western history. But there are new philosophical tools that could provide an equivalent basis -- ideas about non-zero-sum games and emergent systems which suggest that cooperation will always give rise to novel institutions which provide more for everyone than those based on competition.

The military, the police, and organized religion are right-wing causes precisely because they are founded on a belief that the primary function of government is to control human sinfulness. There's no reason at all for the left to rally around them. Capitalism is a more subtle issue, but the form of capitalism prevalent in the US today seems to be based on the somewhat peculiar idea that greed and corruption are inevitable, but can be channeled to productive ends.

There are certain traditional values which do have a place in a renewed liberalism -- community is a good one, and so is honesty. But nothing which smacks of fear, oppression, or a willingness to hand over all problems to higher authority should ever be endorsed by the left.

[msmcghee]

24. I like your whole post.

But "Capitalism is a more subtle issue, but the form of capitalism prevalent in the US today seems to be based on the somewhat peculiar idea that greed and corruption are inevitable, but can be channeled to productive ends." jumped out at me.

Rather, I'd say that today's capitalism is based on the somewhat peculiar idea that greed and corruption is really OK - and we shouldn't get so excited about it. I think they believe that vast sums of money flowing into the accounts of fat cats - will ultimately benefit everyone because they're bound to spend some of that money - and just think of the money we'll save on embarrasing SEC investigations.


:toast:

[IrateCitizen]

28. Starroute -- ever read "The Politics of Meaning"?

I'd suspect you did, because much of your post describes some of the overriding thrust of that book by Rabbi Michael Lerner (founder of Tikkun).

If not, I'd suggest you pick it up -- because you're sure to find much in it with which you'd identify.

BTW -- I agree 100% with your post. Very well stated -- much moreso than I could have said it.

[highlonesome]

45. Yes!

Please check out my other two posts on this thread -- I think we're trying to say the same thing.

[jiacinto]

85. I take exception with this part of your mesasge

"The military, the police, and organized religion are right-wing causes precisely because they are founded on a belief that the primary function of government is to control human sinfulness. There's no reason at all for the left to rally around them. "

I am sorry but I am religious. I don't understand the hostility on the left toward the military, police, and people of faith. It's attitudes like that that have cost us.

I go to church and considerate it an important part of my life. Now I am not a right wing religious fundamentalist. I am against that type of religion, but why must you generalize against all of those men and women of faith in this country? I know a woman who told me that she is a "Democrat" because she is a "Christian". I don't see reilgion as being necessarily bad.

Same thing regarding the military and the police. Not everyone in the armed forces or in the police is a "baby killer". Those who serve this country and work in law enforcement put their lives on the line to protect us. I never understood why those on the left have to have this knee-jerk hatred of both the police and the military. They aren't all bad and many of them are suffering under policies of the Bush administration. I don't understand why too many folks on the left look down on them and their issues.

The problem that I see is what Kevin Phillips wrote thirty years ago in the Emerging Republican Majority when he wrote that "the focus changed from taxing the few for the benefit of the many in favor of taknig the many for the benefit of the few".

[G_j]

23. no apologies

besides our time has come around again. We were on the side of compassion, justice and equality and we still are.

(BTW, They'd like to drive gays back into the closet also, but it aint gonna happen.)
--------------
Going Forward
Liberals Finding their Voice
by Kathy Kiely
 

<snip>
Not since Richard Nixon left the White House have liberals felt so free to be feisty. After decades of being shushed and shooed aside by centrist Democrats who feared the party's left-wing image was turning off voters, liberals have kicked their way out of the political closet. They are loud. They are angry. And they've got a whole new attitude.

"We have been too nice. We have been too polite," says Ann Lewis, a veteran strategist with the Democratic National Committee, where the official party weblog is called "Kicking Ass."

The sudden emergence of an outspoken left wing may be the most surprising political development of the year. Until recently, liberalism could not have been more out of vogue. But in the six months since Bush appeared under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on a Navy aircraft carrier, the political dynamic has changed. Some indicators:

Five books attacking the president have been on the USA TODAY bestseller list since August: Dude, Where's My Country by Michael Moore; Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken; Bushwhacked by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose; The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman, and The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn. Their prominence has matched, at least for now, similarly angry tomes by conservatives. "There's a rising tide of liberal ideas," says Joe Conason, whose book about conservatives, Big Lies, was held back until Baghdad fell.
...more..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1201-09.htm
---------------------------

[IrateCitizen]

27. We need to get past the 80's and 90's more than the 60's

I grew up in the 1980's, and set out into the work force in the 1990's. One trait that I can definitely say that this experience impressed on me is CYNICISM. This was the time that greed was exhalted as a noble trait. This was the time that the culture of consumerism seemed like it really took hold. This was the time of the solidification of conservative backlash against the liberalism of the 1960's.

But I think that your impressions of the 1960's are based a little too much on the caricatures created by the RW. The things you seem to cite -- war protestors spitting on vets, an "everything goes" culture, etc. -- were, IMHO, the minority during the 1960's. A huge part of what happened in the 1960's was the result of disillusionment of people who grew up in the preceding generations with the society they found themselves part of. They found themselves increasingly isolated from a society that seemed to place little value on the ideals of creating a more compassionate society. They did not see a world around them that seeked to affirm the idea of caring for one another -- so they set out to try and change the world rather than to simply accept it as it was.

Did the period have its excesses and bad judgements? Certainly. But if you focus on the underlying reason behind WHY everything happened, it's not a bad thing. In fact, it's the BEST of things, a certainty and conviction that comes with young, wild-eyed idealism -- and something we would do well to emulate in these cynical times.

[SoCalDem]

29. Reagan's Golden Reign...crushed the boomers..

I was 31 when Reagan was elected, and his dismantlement of government started .. As firt time homebuyers , it was brutal.. The tax benefits that small timers like us USED to have were all taken away.. We had a hard time getting started, and lots of us never got over all the hurdles..:(

[BGAL1965]

31. Look around you sport

This is the SIXTIES all over again. Revolutionary music( Rap and Hip Hop) revolutionary Lifestyles( Hiphop) revolutionary language(Hiphop). A MASSIVE generation gap. The reactionary right in control of the country. Daily assaults on our civil rights. A government totally insulated from the public. A war wanted only by the pentagon and the president. Law enforcement spying on ordinary citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Undercover agentprovacatures subverting peaceful protests. The Death of Liberal politicians in unexplainable accidents. Total control of the media by ultra conservatives who use it to further their political agendas and allow for no dissent. Unpredicented assaults on the enviornment producing general degredation to our planet. It goes on and on but i think you get the picture now We don`t need to get over the sixties we need to REEMBRACE the political tactics that forced a president out of office stopped a war and overcame 100 years of racism to finally insure the political rights of ALL americans. We aren`t going to force the republicans to do ANYTHING by pretending to be them. Neither are we going to obtain the public support we need to repair the destruction wrought by the republican neo-conservatives by espousing watered down versions of their philosophy. This is a LIBERAL party and has won on its LIBERAL tradition. We FAIL when we immulate the republicans. Worse, when we immulate republicans we BECOME republicans.

[Faygo Kid]

32. We opposed the war. We fought for civil rights. YOU get over it.

We supported Medicare and Medicaid. We went to church, and believed in a message of love and forgiveness. We grew up with our grandparents (often immigrants through Ellis Island) and our parents (children of the Depression and World War II - weak on defense? Hah). And they supported FDR and his vision for this country. The Republicans (no longer Conservatives, by any means) are the ones who have corrupted and twisted the meaning of America. And you criticize the '60s? You have bought the GOP corruption of our history hook, line and sinker. Save it. I remember it, and it was NOTHING like they portray it to be. I oppose the flag burning amendment; it is unconstitutional, and unnecessary. I oppose school prayer; it is a private matter. I oppose Ten Commandments monuments in court houses as an unconstitutional state endorsement of a particular religion. I believe these to be truly American values, and I will not back off, even when they come for me in a second Bush term. You will never win trying to outdo the Tom DeLays of this world. The 2002 election proved this. Yes, we need to reclaim the "center." And to do it by stressing values that Americans have stood for, not the neo-cons' twisted vision of this nation.

[DeepModem Mom]

35. There is a generational context to this, I think....

I was at a campaign event recently, and the speaker gave a talk that would have gone over well in the Sixties, but was not well received that night. One thing we who lived in the Sixties have to realize is that younger people may agree with our ideas, but have a different context and language. I have a Generation Y daughter who is seriously alarmed by what is going on today, but she uses a different language, and has a different approach, to activism.

I think her generation has real potential. I may be wrong about them, but I have observed some thoughtful ones among them at close range. They circumvent the press by getting their information from the net, or straight from the source (like the young guy who kept Al Gore from conceding, because he was looking at raw data from Florida). They are cynical, and like to make up their own minds. They don't particularly like confrontation, and argument -- they just want straight answers to their questions. I think there was a study that showed that one of the first defining characteristics to emerge re. Generation Y is that they tend to be blind to race and color. They think globally. They are particularly concerned with the continent of Africa. They could be "greener" than we were.

Growing up in a major city, policemen were my daughter's friends (if not the friends of some in poorer neighborhoods). She cried seeing soldiers her age on an airplane the other day, home on leave from Iraq; it wouldn't occur to her to be anti-military. She's not a fundie, but she finds comfort in the church she grew up in. She skipped a political meeting last night to get ready for exams, saying better that she do well and get a job that makes money she could use to support causes she believes in.

I don't think political parties are as important to Gen Y as they are to us. Thinking globally, they think beyond party politics, and even beyond American politics. Their activism may take a different form. There are more Generation Yers than there were Baby Boomers. They will change the world somehow, and I have hope that it will be for the better. But we do not move them with the rhetoric of the Sixties -- and on that, I agree with KensPen.

[CivilRightsNow]

38. As a generation Xer- Thank you

You are spot on and very observant. The democratic party is winning no hearts and minds on this board with their mire in the 60s and all that was done for "us".

We see all the struggles that we face, in the real world today being ignored and subdued by all the "great" struggles that were overcome by the 60s.

Our way is a different way and until the democratic party embraces that vigor for new options we will never become involved in the current political conditions. You see that in voter turn out.. you see that in political outrage at what is currently happening in our government.

We will work on the fringe and hope some day to come into our own.

[IrateCitizen]

39. The struggles are not separate...

The struggles are ongoing. The constant struggle is the one between those who wish to exploit the earth and others for their own selfish ends, and those who dare to dream of a world in which caring for each other is the rule, rather than the exception.

BTW, I'm a GenXer, too -- born in 1973. And believe me, I share in your cynicism and lack of faith in political parties. But perhaps the one thing that we CAN take from the 1960's is the spirit of those times -- a wild-eyed idealism based in the steadfast belief that we CAN change the world, despite all evidence to the contrary.

You're right -- we lose sight of our current state when we spend too much time reminiscing about the gains that were made by the boomer generation in the 1960's. But at the same time, we should be cognizant of the lessons to be learned from those struggles, namely the belief that there is a cause out there that is bigger than ourselves -- and we need to come together in order to champion that cause.

[msmcghee]

41. I make no claim for heroism.

I only see the struggle. I am blind to age difference. I don't know how to say what I believe to make it more palatable to other age groups.

Perhaps that creates a problem. Maybe that's just another expression of the ages-old generation gap. Maybe there is no way to communicate across that void.

Or, maybe it is the result of a percieved envy - in both directions. Old folks wish we were young again and had your youth - and might discount your opinions because of that. And the young perhaps, wish they didn't have yet to build a legasy - and resent those who already have one - and may denigrate that legasy.

I don't think I have those feelings - and I don't think I've felt much of that from others here.

All I know is we have to be brutally honest about what we feel and what we know and what we have seen in life - because we have a very powerful enemy who is out to destroy us. We need to combine all our resources. I respect the opinion of anyone who is on the side of justice and democracy - and that includes almost every person I've ever posted to/with here at DU - except for the occasional troll.

I may disagree with others here about how we should go about this battle that confronts us - but I respect your opinion and believe it is equal to mine in terms of honesty and motive.

And CivilRightsNow - Let me say this once more. The future is in your hands. No-one is going to give you control of that future. There is no "Waiting on the fringe until someone gives us control". You must take it. You must take control. That's what we learned. It's a heavy responsibility and every generation faces that wall. But I have great confidence in your intelligence and dedication and ability to make your's the next truly "greatest generation". In fact - that's about the only hope we have right now that my grandchildren will have a decent and happy future. Go for it girl.

Peace

[CivilRightsNow]

51. Im not waiting till someone gives me control..

We're just waiting for the strategically right time to take it :) During the 60s the government conducted so many experiments in media, in mind control, in subjugation of the masses... I feel like we must take the lessons learned by the movements of the 60s, the successfull and not successfull to build the framework, the infrastructure... but why lay all your cards on the table to be dashed and infiltrated? Cointelpro is already grinding it's gears back up.. look what it did, look at how much we are now finding out 40 years later, it was capable of destroying. I think there was something to be learned in the element of surprise as well as the power of the people when push truly does come to shove.

That being said, it could all backfire grandly, because we arent organized across groups like we truly need to be, I can only hope that will come.

Strap into your rocker, wonderful lady. It's gonna be a bumpy ride. :)

[CivilRightsNow]

49. Agreed..

And I do whole heartedly agree that the 60s gave us idealism. IMHO, it was the greatest thing they did give us.

But I look at the world and honestly, I just dont know... maybe we can change it.. maybe we cant. My views are different then most on this board as they are tempered with Christianity. I believe that however we come out of this, it will be for the best.. but that the window of time is closing on our power to truly effect real change.

That's why I think it is so imperative that we find the words to reach every demographic, especially those that did not experience the 60s, but are simply running on fumes at this point.

We need to refill our tanks with something tangible and real. I feel that the elitism of looking too hard at the past is really detrimental toward that cause. Way more detrimental then any Dean/clark bashing. I think alot of us that didnt experience the 60s are looking to it for answers that arent to be found, we must make our own answers. And therein lies the bane, another fracture in whatever unification that we have achieved.

[IrateCitizen]

66. Perhaps we're more alike than we might've realized...

My views are different then most on this board as they are tempered with Christianity.

Nope, you're not that different in that regard from a lot of people here -- myself included in that bunch. Even though I'm a UU, I feel that I have arrived at a greater understanding of Christianity -- and how to be a better Christian -- through my involvement in that particular faith. And much of what I draw upon as my moral reasoning is founded in the basic teachings of Christianity as outlined in the gospels.

Additionally, we're in the same age grouping, as I'm only 30. But you're a woman and I'm a man -- so that's a pretty big difference in perspective. ;-)

We need to refill our tanks with something tangible and real. I feel that the elitism of looking too hard at the past is really detrimental toward that cause. Way more detrimental then any Dean/clark bashing.

Personally, I view the Dean/Clark bashing as indicative of groups who mistakenly believe that our problems can be ultimately solved through the ballot box. History has taught us something very different, IMHO. And there are PLENTY of issues that are "tangible and real" with which we can refill our tanks. Global trade is a big one -- it's where I initially became politically aware and involved.

I think alot of us that didnt experience the 60s are looking to it for answers that arent to be found, we must make our own answers. And therein lies the bane, another fracture in whatever unification that we have achieved.

Perhaps we aren't looking at the 60's as a source for answers, as much as we are looking for examples of good AND bad things to do. Likewise, we should look at the labor movement, the abolitionist movement, etc. -- and take away from them anything of worth. That way, we can capitalize on how they achieved their successes while, at the same time, avoiding some of their mistakes.

It is going to be a bumpy ride, that much is for certain. The global order is changing. Personally, I believe that what we are seeing right now is a last, mad grab for unilateralist power by the neocon (meaning old rich white guys) establishment. The reason the right is so nasty is because they know that their time is limited, that their ideas are worthless. But that isn't to say that they will give up power or control easily. We will have to wrest it from them. But I think that some of that is already occurring, with the worst of it yet to come.

[DeepModem Mom]

67. I've wondered, too, if "a last, mad grab...for power"...

is what is responsible for much that is happening around the world today, from the outrages of Bush and the neocons in the face of steadily increasing globalism, to the fundamentalism of Muslims facing modernity. That's why I'm fascinated by the latest generations -- they give clues to the future as they emerge into these really dark times, and they do give me hope.

[CivilRightsNow]

68. Perhaps....

"Nope, you're not that different in that regard from a lot of people here "

Well, gentleman, it sure does feel like it. :) It seems like every thread I open regarding religion is salted and peppered with all kinds of stereotypes and hatred. I was very surprised to see it when I first started coming here.. now, Im very surprised when I dont see it venom.

"Global trade is a big one -- it's where I initially became politically aware and involved."

You got me there too, brother. :) Global trade was the trendy thing to do. I lived in the bay area, was young.. had came to california looking for the hippie dream of free ideas and new perspectives. It was the perfect entrance for someone who wanted to rebel.. and off of it, sprang interested in so many things. My main concern is that we really must "Think Globally, Act Locally." So, although yes, I want to heal the world and I realize that IMF, WTO and Worldbank are some bad juju.. I keep coming back to.. what can we do here, in America?

How can we get the twentysomethings and early 30 somethings involved in things that effect them here at home? Then I think about what the common ground is with the people that are in the older generations.. cause we do need their support and their knowledge and perspective. We also need to impress upon them the importance of trying to talk to the youth.. about how the youth really are the future, they are the ones with the strong backs and unbroken spirits.. they are the ones that carry the seed of ideals within them and this movement must find a way to mobilize them, to effectively pass on the torch.

Those of us that are out protesting FTAA, the School of the Americas, WTO, IMF, Worldbank, etc.. we are the ones that picked up the torch willingly, we went looking for a fire. We are the ones that are hearing the 60s rhetoric and getting jazzed up. But we are small, in comparison to what could happen, if we tried to find the right words.

I want to sit down with Noam Chomsky, Jello Biafra, Hunter S Thompson, Starhawk, Amy Goodman, etc and try to somehow find the words, to reclaim the power of our united voice. Not a bunch of voices trying to scream over one another.

"That way, we can capitalize on how they achieved their successes while, at the same time, avoiding some of their mistakes."

I completely agree with this. Im a big documenter.. I have thousands of links to antiwar groups, 60s activism.. speeches, mission statements, MLK archives, the 60s project, etc... but there are alot of gaps that need to be filled in. When the 60s ended, alot didnt get passed down. Sometimes when I talk to people that experienced it, I feel their pain of old wounds and disillusionment.. we need to break past that and develop a dialogue. We must fill in the blanks.

"It is going to be a bumpy ride, that much is for certain. The global order is changing. Personally, I believe that what we are seeing right now is a last, mad grab for unilateralist power by the neocon (meaning old rich white guys) establishment. The reason the right is so nasty is because they know that their time is limited, that their ideas are worthless. But that isn't to say that they will give up power or control easily. We will have to wrest it from them. But I think that some of that is already occurring, with the worst of it yet to come."

I have a different take on it, everyone says Im a cynic.. and maybe I am. I think that the global order is changing and we are seeing a last mad grab... but that if we as people go quietly into this bad night for much longer, we will remain stuck in it. The right is just showing it's true self, without all the guises and gimmicks that we have become accustomed to. So, because we cant believe it.. we cant believe that this is it's true face, instead, we create our own filters to make things more palatable. Their time is not limited unless we as a collective world decide to step up and sound the alarm.

I just really cant say what we will do yet...

[IrateCitizen]

69. ALL of our time is quite limited...

I think that the global order is changing and we are seeing a last mad grab... but that if we as people go quietly into this bad night for much longer, we will remain stuck in it. The right is just showing it's true self, without all the guises and gimmicks that we have become accustomed to. So, because we cant believe it.. we cant believe that this is it's true face, instead, we create our own filters to make things more palatable. Their time is not limited unless we as a collective world decide to step up and sound the alarm.

I'm getting a bit off track here, but it's something that needs addressed in the context of this statement. Unless we DRASTICALLY change our ways over the next one or two generations, I fear that we could actually become the first species in the history of the earth to actually cause our own extinction. We are causing a mass extinction across the globe the likes of which has not been seen since the end of the dinosaurs. We are currently using 133% of the resources that the planet is able to replenish on a yearly basis (soil, air and clean water). If every nation used the amount of resources that the USA uses, that figure would jump to 500%! It is clear that we are not merely damaging the intricate web of life here on earth -- we are ripping it asunder as we flail about madly like some sort of ancient cyclops in a fit of madness.

In the face of realities like these, it becomes clear that we must not only slow down the juggernaught -- but completely reverse it. We know that the American people will not be ready to do this anytime soon, at least not without being forced to -- and even then they'll fight it tooth and nail. But if we don't make the sacrifices that are necessary and start treading on the earth a helluva lot more lightly, then a dark future is ahead of ALL of us. No matter what the right wing does.... :scared:

NOTE -- most of the figures here are taken from The Sacred Balance by David Suzuki and Affluenza by DeGraff, et.al.

[highlonesome]

42. funny you should mention it

I've been thinking somewhat about this subject for the last few days -- since I caught a run of "Alice's Restaurant" on the tube last week. Oh how the hippies have changed (not the originals, but the new ones). It also struck me on a trip to Ireland a few years ago. For those who've never been, travel around that little country some and you'll find that it is in fact a very hippie country -- especially for a semi-theocracy. Everywhere I went, people's favorite evening activity was casual jamming in a pub and the conversation was lively. In Galway City it looked like there was maybe a Dead show in town.

But the hippies from Alice's Restaurant and the hippies in Ireland are different from the hippies in America today. Their value system is different. In the America of the 60's and the Ireland of today, the top value is one of liberty with equality running second. To them, the equality of concern is equality under the law -- equality in their rights to self-determination -- to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To the new American hippies, the value system has turned upside down with the ideal of equality running much higher than the value of liberty. And this , to me, is the current failing of the left in the US.

I turned 18 during the Reagan era when registering for the draft in order to get financial aid for college (for the guys anyway) was a fresh new law. I was different for my age -- already a long hair and pretty left leaning. On my 18th birthday, I registered for the draft and then registered with the Liberal party. But being liberal in 1983 was much different than being liberal in 2003. In my opinion, the left has failed by adopting the model of intellectual Marxism as a paradigm for dealing with the issues of today. It focuses too much on oppression and oppressors, stretching a metaphor that simply doesn't work across the board.

Sometimes I break down the failings of the left and the right in terms of liberty and determinism. The right values economic liberty and sociocultural determinism. The left values economic determinism and sociocultural liberty. The system doesn't work because these value systems compete with one another and problem is -- the overt consciousness of these systems is not really part of public debate.

[msmcghee]

47. I was sitting here . .

. . trying to learn a lead to "President Garfield's Hornpipe" and up pops a post from highlonesome.

Your post shows some pretty deep political philosophy - and I'm not sure I totally get it. Have you written more about this? Is it posted somewhere? I see some intersting idea kernels in there and I'd like to understand it better.

Back to that left hand . .



:hi:

[IrateCitizen]

48. Personally, I think what you're describing is libertarianism

And the question at the heart of the matter really isn't even one about "liberty" or "equality". The question at the heart of the matter is, quite simply, what kind of society do we want to create?

See, if we are able to create a society that values caring and compassion AHEAD OF selfishness and amassing of fortunes, then there is no need for "Marxist rhetoric" -- because the general thrust of his school of thought will have been achieved. And such a society will not be achieved at the point of a gun, but through a wholesale revolution of the spirit.

Liberty can have different meanings. For some, it is the freedom to live their lives free from the interference of others. For others, it is the freedom to amass as much personal wealth and power as possible -- no matter whose liberty they must infringe upon in order to do so.

Don't like rhetoric about oppression and oppressors? Well, I've got news for you -- so long as we are as stark of a class-stratified society as we have become over the past 25 years, oppression will be a harsh reality. Of course, you can ignore it if you wish -- but doing so will guarantee "liberty" for only those with enough capital or power to buy it. Everyone else will lose their "liberty" in the process.

[highlonesome]

55. liberterian today, liberal yesterday

Yes today it may be considered liberterian, however 20 years ago it may very well have been considered simply liberal.

As an example of the change in value system I'd like to use the concept of "hate crimes."
I think, though may be mistaken, that most states have hate or bias crimes type legislation. These laws as I understand it result in a distinct classification of crime and punishment when it can be proven that bias or hate of a certain group as the motive of the crime can be demonstrated. So assaulting someone say in anger is a distinctly different crime than assaulting someone because of their race.

Now the constitution guarantees us the right to free speech which implies freedom of opinion. So as disdainful as it may be, the right to frredom of opinion allows us to be as hateful as we'd like. So in the context of hate crimes legislation we take a constitutionally protected right to the freedom of opinion and when it's a motive, creating a distinct form of crime, is then criminalized. So in a case like this, we've now changed our value system from one of liberty as our top priority to one of equality or safety from bias as our top priority.

[proud patriot]

44. Many mistakes were made in the 60s

It's our job to remember them learn from them
and not repeat them .

[noiretextatique]

46. how do you "prove" something that is completely false?

without falling into the trap set by the rw? we need a well-managed army, managed by sane people. we need an effective police force...one that follows the laws they are charged with upholding. we need a healthy economy (notice we rarely have one when republicans are in power). the instructions of most chruches are fine for those who choose to adhere to them. frankly...i don't see a problem with liberal positions. as to how to counter the LIES...start by not buying into them :eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

83. I agree, it is not a matter of left vrs right so much as right and wrong

There is nothing wrong with most liberal positions, people just need to be educated. Of course we must also accept that not everyone has to agree.

[Q]

50. Perhaps you're suffering from an over-saturation of Fox News?

- You're describing what the RWing Pundits SAY about Liberals...which is not a reflection of the truth. Don't you know propaganda when you see it?

- It 'worked' because they control the corporations that control the media. The media perpetuates the lies and then claim everyone is in agreement.

- You seem to be blaming the victim of the lies instead of the liars.

[KensPen]

52. Perception is Reality

and it is up to us to change the perception...

but on this board I have read threads dedicated to the assumption that ALL Christians are evil, and all cops are bad. That type of extremism is NOT helping to alter perceptions.

[msmcghee]

53. Yes but . .

. . when a significant number of Christian organizations take millions and turn it against democratic values of separation of church and state - and when singinificant numbers of cops are caught on video shooting, raping and maiming and killing defenseless prisoners - and when the "good" Christians and "good" cops stand by the side and watch all this happening - then in some sense all cops are bad and all Christians are undemocratic - and they are my enemies.

When "good" Christian churches and "good" cop organizations make a serious effort to oppose the bad guys, take out ads, sue them, pressure their legislators to rein them in and punish them for their crimes, and anything else necessary to keep the bad guys from taking over our nation, then I'll start believeing otherwise.

Until then, I'll assume they are my enemy . . because I don't have time to question the subtleties of their belief systems, while my rights are being taken away.

[G_j]

54. I don't believe

I've ever seen a post stating that "ALL Christians are evil, and all cops are bad"

sorry, I don't believe it

[msmcghee]

56. I never saw one either.

What I said was " . . then in some sense all cops are bad and all Christians are undemocratic . . "

[highlonesome]

58. with all due respect...

...to my new friend and fellow fan of traditional music....

The best remedy for that is to make friends with a few cops and christians. In the end you'll find that most of them are just people and the best of them may sometimes be better than you and me.

And to add to that while many of us may see the religious right as threatening separation of church and state (myself included) there are also many of us that see the new left as threatening many other Constitutional guarantees -- freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, even sometimes liberty.

[CivilRightsNow]

59. :)

"there are also many of us that see the new left as threatening many other Constitutional guarantees -- freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, even sometimes liberty." (myself included)

[G_j]

70. the new left?

never heard of it. Maybe that's why I'm unaware of threats from the left to Constitutional guarantees -- freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, even sometimes liberty.

Aside from the gun issue, what the heck are you talking about? Is someone's pursuit of happiness being threatened because they can't kill off endangered species or sexually harrass people in the work place or something? :shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

71. From reply #42, same poster...

But the hippies from Alice's Restaurant and the hippies in Ireland are different from the hippies in America today. Their value system is different. In the America of the 60's and the Ireland of today, the top value is one of liberty with equality running second. To them, the equality of concern is equality under the law -- equality in their rights to self-determination -- to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To the new American hippies, the value system has turned upside down with the ideal of equality running much higher than the value of liberty. And this , to me, is the current failing of the left in the US.

Now, I could be wrong, but what I am inferring from this is the age-old equation of the right to earn however much money you can -- no matter who you step on in the process -- with the definition of "liberty". If I am off-base on this, then perhaps the poster could set me straight.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that we live in a society in which the divine right of capital is given too much consideration, especially as it treads on the basic rights of dignity of other human beings, all in the false invocation of the word "liberty". I am of the belief that you cannot truly have "liberty" among all human beings so long as a few are exploiting many others. But I guess that makes me a member of the "new left" and advocate of Marxism, in light of the definition of liberty that I have derived from this poster.

[G_j]

74. thanks IC

so it's "new hippies"? I always have a problem with such blanket assumptions about whole groups of people. As far as I know being a 'hippie' is not like joining a club with rules, and the term itself is nebulous at best.
Now the term "new left" sounds like a RW concoction. It's certainly NEW to me.


I completely agree with you:"I am of the belief that you cannot truly have "liberty" among all human beings so long as a few are exploiting many others."

I also think the term "liberty" is being hijacked as an 'excuse for abuse', rationalising greed and unsustainable practices.

[CivilRightsNow]

76. Dictionary.com says

Hippie-
A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles.


Not that I care what dictionary.com says nessecarily, only that it is an indicator of what society has branded upon a word or stereotype.

[highlonesome]

80. My term...

I guess i just sort of used a little literary license there to indicate that I see a difference in what is considered left now and what was considered left when I was an 18 year old youngster.

But to give an example of what I'm talking about, I'd like to use the concept of "hate crimes."

I think that most states now have some form of hate crimes legislation. To simplify, I think most of these laws are enacted to the effect that if a crime is committed with bias against a historically oppressed group of people as its motive, it has become a distinct crime with a distinct guideline for punishment. So if you assault someone because of their race, the crime is distinguished from assault if racism can be identified as its motive.

Now the Constitution guarantees us the right to free speech which implies the right to freedom of opinion. So as disdainful as it may be, everyone of us is free to hate just as much as we are free to love. That applies whether it's a certain race one hates or a certain political party. So in effect, hate crimes legislation takes a constitutionally protected right to the freedom of opinion and criminalizes it by creating a distinct crime.

So sure it's pretty tough to defend one's right to hate entire groups of people and it can also be difficult to argue how hate crimes legislation hinders my right to legitimate free speech, but my main point is that it indicates a change in the value system of the left from when I was young. It indicates that equality and safety from bias are held to a higher value than the right to free speech -- which to me is an inherent erosion of the value of free speech.

[highlonesome]

82. on sexual harrassement

I see sexual harassment legislation and guidelines as another significant change in value system. The whole problem, for me, stems from the whole "reasonable person" benchmark as setting the standard for when sexual harrassment has occurred.

Going all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi, the powerful aspect of civilization and written law has been the fact that it's been based on objective circumstances. By that I mean, it's written into law that doing thing A is illegal and that there is an objective description of what thing A is. The "reasonable person" standard ignores this foundation of civilized law and creates an entirely subjective set of criteria for defining sexual harrassment.

To me, this is a threat to the value of liberty if liberty is defined as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control." So the value of having safety from offensive language is held to a higher degree than the value of liberty.

[KensPen]

57. but there was just such a post.....

In a thread explaining why Christians ARE the enemy,
granted the person who posted it did receive some heat,
BUT I have seen posts such as that one.

Likewise some pretty intense posts about the motives of Cops in the threads about the incident in Cinncinati.

[CivilRightsNow]

60. As a Christian...

... I hear you loud and clear. I dont agree with everything you are saying. However, this board is really full of alot of self proclaimed openminded and enlightened people that do alot of the shit that they accuse Christians of doing in the reverse. It always boggles my mind, the amount of negativity that is portrayed here by the overwhelming majority... towards a group of diverse people, simply because they believe in the same idea of God.

This always threatens to drive a serious wedge in between me and the Democratic party and DU does nothing but pick at those wounds.

[lancemurdoch]

61. who needs it

I am anti-cop, anti-religion and anti-capitalism though. As far as national "defense", where is the US "defending" itself right now? Half-way around the world in Iraq, or Vietnam, or wherever? I am against US imperialism, and I refuse to use the doublespeak of saying being against pre-emptive wars is "anti national defense".

Then you say we need an army...what, we need an army multiples the size of any other country? We need military bases on over half the countries on earth? We needed US troops to march into Los Angeles in 1992 to put down the oppressed population there? I don't need this army. I don't need an "effective police force"...effective at what, pulling over black drivers and killing them? Evicting families who can't pay their landlords?

I predict the US (and world) economy will get worse and worse for working people, for US imperialism to become more and more bold and the rest of the world seeing the US as more and more of the world's greatest threat. Someone predicting these things 30 years ago would have been correct, I just see the trend continuing. I don't have the same need for pigs, popes and parasite heirs that you seem to have.

[KensPen]

62. keep preaching that lance.....

then we can all scratch our heads and wonder how a somewhat literate moron got re-elected in '04

[lancemurdoch]

63. It matters little

In worldwide historical terms, it matters very little who is elected president of the USA in 2004. Whoever gets elected is just a reflection of who wields power in the society. If what we have to embrace is police killing motorists when they're not evicting people from their homes, an imperialist army and capitalist heirs like Paris Hilton, in order to "win", I'd rather "lose". Wars and economic crises (e.g. recessions and depressions) can have radicalizing effects on people. In World War I, American doughboys went over to France to fight Germans. In 1932, these veterans were in the streets of Washington DC being killed by the US army which had been ordered to march out and disperse them. The American middle class has mostly been destroyed, and soon will be non-existent. This leaves only the extremes of capital and labor who will struggle with one another without the sort of pacifying middle ground that existed in say the early 1960's.

[KensPen]

64. Yes it does matter.....

How can you say it doesn't matter...

Look what Bush has done since he's been in office.

You don't think the course of world history has been greatly effected? Do you think we would be on the same path if Gore was in office?

Bush will be naming judges which effect our laws and their interpretation for years to come.

Bush has generated a huge deficit which threatens to strangle us down the road.

Bush has been involved in empire building in the Middle East.

Bush has signed a law banning late term abortion, with utter contempt for the health of the mother.

Yes it matters....

your attitude is a pitiful as the survival nuts on the far right.

[IrateCitizen]

79. It's the difference between flying off a cliff at 130 mph...

versus slowing down to a more "reasonable" 55 mph. While that 55 mph may provide more time to change course, it isn't going to solve the problems on its own.

That's the problem with electoral politics -- it reflects the interests of the "establishment". All change starts at the fringes and is initially discredited, until it eventually drags the politicians, kicking and screaming, to the point at which they have to address it.

[KensPen]

81. Yes

I hate the two party system,
because they do have us by the balls, and we vote the lesser of two evils because of it.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

72. ah here we are still letting the Rove machine dictate what we should be!!!

anything but the fucking"liberal" label tsk tsk .....it makes me fucking crazy!!!

the bad bad 60's...fuckers made it easy for blacks to drink out of my water fountian and use my bathrooms and sit on the god damn bus next to me!

gave them protection with the god damn "civil rights act" now they can even vote!

womens lib sucks ...fuck equal pay!

and that god damn fucking minimium wage thing is just downright evil i tell ya!
and ending the vietnam war was spawned from satan himself!

bad 60's get behind me Satan!
:eyes:

[G_j]

75. makes me crazy also!!

how about when a certain race of people are thought of by many in a society to be "inferior" How are they going to change their "image"? It reminds me of how they used to wash out the mouths of American Indian children with soap for speaking their own language and of how they cut off their "Indian" hair. :-(

[CivilRightsNow]

77. Equal pay?

You think that battle is won? It sure as hell hasnt been won in the technology field by any stretch of imagination. It's the only one I can comment on, as its the only one I am involved in.

Can you tell me where you work so I may go work there too?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. The '60s were a replay of the '30s that were a replay of the '90s

that were a replay of all the struggles that people have made against the established powers of the wealthy, the racists, the warmongers, the greedy and the totalitarians.

"We need to reclaim the center". Who is "we"? The "pragmatic" politicians who will do anything, say anything, sacrifice all of their priciples, for the opportunity to get into, or stay in office? Or, the people who cry that everything is negotiable just so "we" win?

As someone who took part in the '60s revolution, I never thought of it as anything but a continuance of the struggle that his been going on between the powerful and the people.

[jiacinto]

84. The Democrats still find themselves haunted by 1968

Although Clinton and Gore changed the perception of the Democrats significantly, enough of it remained--ie, that the Democrats are "hostile" to mainstream values--to enable Bush to eke out a win. I do think that the Democrats still have a problem regarding values, with the embers of 1968 still flaming.

[IrateCitizen]

86. (SNORE!)

Honestly, Carlos -- can you wake me up when you have something new to say, something worth taking the time to read? :eyes:

[jiacinto]

87. how rude

really, how rude. I do think I have valid points. You just take issue with them because you don't agree with them.

How am I wrong then?

[IrateCitizen]

89. I take issue with your oversimplified generalizations...

and outright mischaracterizations.

For example:

You cite "religion" as a mainstream value, and then chastise people on these boards for being hostile to it. It certainly has a bit of credence, because I have found myself shouted down by some of the more militant atheists and agnostics here. But I also belong to a Unitarian Universalist fellowship, and I could almost guarantee to you that the overwhelming majority of people who are members at our church are either Democrats, Greens, or even socialist/communist!

Secondly, you equate opposition to the current US occupation of Iraq, along with denouncement of the military as an institution (which is to be differentiated from denouncing individual members of the military), as calling all military folks "baby killers". But, once again, how is calling out militarism and imperialism as wrong somehow going against "mainstream values"? Most people I know -- especially those outside of the military -- wouldn't be too fond of such actions. The problem is that most just don't know what exactly is being done in their names.

Thirdly, you equate opposing the death penalty with being "pro criminal". Don't even try to deny it, you've done it repeatedly. Personally, I find the death penalty morally repugnant -- it is nothing less than state-sanctioned premeditated murder. And as a "religious" person, I find it odd as to how you could reconcile support of it with the teachings of Christ. But that's yours to figure out. The reality of it is, if people are asked if they support the death penalty, KNOWING THAT THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT AND INNOCENT PERSON COULD BE PUT TO DEATH, support for it drops immensely. Please tell me how that is opposing "mainstream values".

Fourthly, your constant invocation of 1968 and 1972 grow tiresome. They have no application to today. Do you not realize the immense changes that society went through during less than 10 years prior to 1972? Just try and picture it, if you can -- and think back to a similar amount of change taking place since 1992. The entire country was in a state of immense turmoil between the 1950's and 1970's -- on that is almost inconceivable to those of us who didn't live through it.

In conclusion, Carlos -- of course you think you have valid points. We all think we have valid points. But the problem that you display repeatedly is that you are not willing to even CONSIDER another viewpoint that somehow challenges your own.

And therein lies the problem. I've tried to get through to you on it -- as have many others here -- but we all have just failed spectacularly.

[CivilRightsNow]

90. Im sorry... but I have a question..

I know nothing about jacinto...

However, if he wished to be called Carlos, why exactly is that not his registered member name?

We all pick pseudonyms for a reason...

Excuse me if I missed his thread on calling him carlos.

Or if this is some witty joke thing everyone has going on.

I just think that although one should not use the internet to sheild them while they spout hatred, they also should not have their identity exposed without their choice. I dont like real names as leverage tools used by people in online debate.

Again, perhaps this is not my place, but as an observer of all this, Im just curious.

[jiacinto]

91. Carlos is the name I go by

Jiacinto is my last name, which is my DU handle.