Travis, You made a good point about the end of the draft having a lot to do with the loss of activism among young liberals. But, really, the contexts are entirely different and I don't think it's valid to valorize the '60s generation or come down on millennials. The '60s were exceptional in a variety of ways: a booming economy, a liberal…
Travis, You made a good point about the end of the draft having a lot to do with the loss of activism among young liberals. But, really, the contexts are entirely different and I don't think it's valid to valorize the '60s generation or come down on millennials. The '60s were exceptional in a variety of ways: a booming economy, a liberal political wave, a uniquely charismatic civil rights leader, a keen feeling of impending nuclear danger, and the dissonance of a failing war that was at that time unprecedented (we've had Iraq and Afghanistan since, so its strangeness may no longer carry the same wonder). There was rising momentum for activism in serial fashion (war protesters first were marching to ban the bomb, then to support MLK), and, most important, political theater of that style was something new that captured headlines and people's imaginations. Impact was easy and full of rewards. Moreover, once things reached a pitch in early 1968, there seemed to be the real opportunity to nominate a winning presidential candidate to implement all this idealism in RFK or McCarthy.
And what did young '60s liberals do when they hit real roadblocks: assassinations and the nomination of the "establishment" Democratic candidate? They sat out the 1968 election and let the new alliance of the GOP and the Dixiecrats become a new majority. Turnout in the climactic year of 1968, a neck-and-neck race, was *lower* than in the blowout election of 1964. The new reality that this clever choice produced led some to move off to the sidelines, while the others made the brilliant choice to go further Left and start the pattern of getting played for generations by strategic and attentive Right. By the time of Watergate, the '60s activists were mostly bystanders. That was when the rise of the militias began--not on your watch: by the mid-1980s the militia movement was full blown and tied to a resurgent Klan. (Domestic terrorism actually rose first on the Left, but all it did was discredit the non-violent Left.) The antiwar liberals were still in their 30s and 40s, but did very little. I think by that time, it wasn't at all clear what could be done. Contexts determine most of what activism means, and the clarity of the '60s context was gone--you can't recreate a time like that: you have to take good advantage of it if it appears on your watch.
I'll grant you that my generation excelled in double-tasking political activism and drugs, but I don't recall that as being very demanding. I'm sure your generation would have managed it with equal skill had you been born at the same time.
But there is one lesson I think we should all learn. In the '60s, many idealists were disciplined by ideas that were captured in Saul Alinsky's writings (which had been waiting for their moment for twenty years). These days, the people who seem to me to be reading Alinsky are generally part of the Alt-Right, and they've been beating the pants off everyone else.
True, Max (assuming you meant to add another 'n' here and there). But the Alt-Right and Insurrectionists are not one group. I'm thinking of the AFPAC, Turning Point, Project Veritas crowd, not the Proud Boys, Three Percenter, or Q types. I think the former group is a rough Right-wing reverse-counterpart to the non-violent young Left circa '68 (SDS, SNCC, Clean For Gene, etc.).
Travis, You made a good point about the end of the draft having a lot to do with the loss of activism among young liberals. But, really, the contexts are entirely different and I don't think it's valid to valorize the '60s generation or come down on millennials. The '60s were exceptional in a variety of ways: a booming economy, a liberal political wave, a uniquely charismatic civil rights leader, a keen feeling of impending nuclear danger, and the dissonance of a failing war that was at that time unprecedented (we've had Iraq and Afghanistan since, so its strangeness may no longer carry the same wonder). There was rising momentum for activism in serial fashion (war protesters first were marching to ban the bomb, then to support MLK), and, most important, political theater of that style was something new that captured headlines and people's imaginations. Impact was easy and full of rewards. Moreover, once things reached a pitch in early 1968, there seemed to be the real opportunity to nominate a winning presidential candidate to implement all this idealism in RFK or McCarthy.
And what did young '60s liberals do when they hit real roadblocks: assassinations and the nomination of the "establishment" Democratic candidate? They sat out the 1968 election and let the new alliance of the GOP and the Dixiecrats become a new majority. Turnout in the climactic year of 1968, a neck-and-neck race, was *lower* than in the blowout election of 1964. The new reality that this clever choice produced led some to move off to the sidelines, while the others made the brilliant choice to go further Left and start the pattern of getting played for generations by strategic and attentive Right. By the time of Watergate, the '60s activists were mostly bystanders. That was when the rise of the militias began--not on your watch: by the mid-1980s the militia movement was full blown and tied to a resurgent Klan. (Domestic terrorism actually rose first on the Left, but all it did was discredit the non-violent Left.) The antiwar liberals were still in their 30s and 40s, but did very little. I think by that time, it wasn't at all clear what could be done. Contexts determine most of what activism means, and the clarity of the '60s context was gone--you can't recreate a time like that: you have to take good advantage of it if it appears on your watch.
I'll grant you that my generation excelled in double-tasking political activism and drugs, but I don't recall that as being very demanding. I'm sure your generation would have managed it with equal skill had you been born at the same time.
But there is one lesson I think we should all learn. In the '60s, many idealists were disciplined by ideas that were captured in Saul Alinsky's writings (which had been waiting for their moment for twenty years). These days, the people who seem to me to be reading Alinsky are generally part of the Alt-Right, and they've been beating the pants off everyone else.
True, Max (assuming you meant to add another 'n' here and there). But the Alt-Right and Insurrectionists are not one group. I'm thinking of the AFPAC, Turning Point, Project Veritas crowd, not the Proud Boys, Three Percenter, or Q types. I think the former group is a rough Right-wing reverse-counterpart to the non-violent young Left circa '68 (SDS, SNCC, Clean For Gene, etc.).