Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bring the Sixties Out of the Closet

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted March 23, 2006.


We need to resurrect the good '60s -- a time when acting, despite being messy and imperfect, made a lot of good things happen.
032306_storya
Photo courtesy of David Fenton, from his book Shots, published by Ten Speed Press.
Advertisement

Late into Dana Spiotta's brilliant new novel, "Eat the Document," the protagonist, a woman who has lived "underground" for years, hiding from the consequences of a 1960s political protest gone badly awry, flashes back to the moment of choice:

"The question is, do we want to leave action to the brutes of the world? … There are some inherent problems built into acting. It lacks perfection. But I believe we must fight back, or we will feel shame all our lives. We, the privileged, are more obligated. It is a moral duty to do something, however imperfect. … If we don't do something, all our lives we will feel regret."

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the '60s (actually the period from '67 to '73) -- that political era so filled with possibility, so much a part of the blood and souls of millions of aging baby boomers like myself. The period was profoundly effective in the changes it provoked, yet is so persistently pilloried for its exaggerated excesses. One reason I find myself looking back is the pervasive feeling of political impotence so many of us feel at this moment in history, and our seeming inability to act -- to be noticed, to make a difference.

There are some present-day chilling parallels to the repression of the Nixon era -- and of course many differences -- but there is a feeling in the air that smells like the '60s, that sends paranoid vibes through the body politic. The events taking place -- warrantless wiretapping, political corruption, torture, the war in Iraq with its disgusting profiteering while tens of thousands of people die -- demand a response equal to the situation, Yet we sit without a clear path showing us our step.

A short time ago, in a funding appeal to the AlterNet community, I wrote: "I haven't felt this angry, frightened or radical in a long time. We can no longer just do what we have been doing. In my several decades working in politics and media, the present feels dire."

Those were my emotions; however, I didn't offer an action plan. The best I could do was ask for support so AlterNet could continue being a thorn in the side of the Bush administration. Important, but not sufficient.

In the first draft of my appeal letter, I had also written: "Not since John Mitchell was attorney general and a paranoid, anti-Semitic Richard Nixon at the helm, have we been under an assault close to what we have today. And we don't have a Watergate to get Bush out of office." My editor suggested I take those sentences out -- "No need to go back to the past, and younger readers probably won't relate to this piece of history," she said. So I did.

But my memory of that time is still so powerful, because many of us did act -- sometimes wildly, sometimes irresponsibly -- and we couldn't be ignored. And who can say that the Bush administration isn't shockingly irresponsible every day?

I remember so clearly the May Day 1971 protests in Washington, D.C., glaring at Attorney General John Mitchell as he stood on the roof of the Justice Department, puffing his ever-present pipe and pretending to ignore the thousands of screaming, chanting masses in the street. The WikiPedia describes May 3, 1971, as "one of the most disruptive actions of the Vietnam War era."

The threat caused by the May Day Protests forced the Nixon administration to create a virtual state of siege in the nation's capital. Thousands of federal and National Guard troops, along with local police, suppressed the disorder, and by the time it was over several days later, over 10,000 would be arrested. It would be the largest mass arrest in U.S. history.

That's not a typo: More than 10,000 people were arrested, jammed into jails that resembled crowded elevators and bused out to RFK Stadium. It was crazy, anarchistic and perhaps politically naive, but it was action. It made an impression. We were noticed. And it was exhilarating to bond with so many in a cause that felt so just. Critics may suggest that the protest made things worse, that it played into the hands of the Republicans. But I don't think so. Resistance is important. (There is a parallel today, with some critics charging that talk of impeaching Bush and Sen. Russ Feingold's motion to censure are also counterproductive.)

The '60s era was a profoundly energetic mix of culture and politics. That decade has been distorted, caricatured and turned into a black-and-white cartoon -- when not appropriated to sell cars with Jimmy Hendrix music and pricey clothing like the Miss Sixty line.

It is time to resurrect the good '60s and help many people understand much of what has been hidden. It was an era when millions of people were clear about their values -- especially nonmaterial aspirations, and sharing, and ways of living simply that have long since been steamrollered by the nonstop tsunami of global consumer culture. Today, with the looming threat of diminishing oil supply (often referred to as peak oil), some people are already revisiting and experimenting with the best of the "back to the land movement," in anticipation of harder times down the road.


Digg!

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Revolution Devours It's Own Children - Old Proverb
Posted by: Cardinal Spellman on Mar 23, 2006 3:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Warning this is me typing off the top of my head... sorry for any typos]
It is depressing to see the world hold huge protests this week and the US holding such small ones ... I was waiting to see when at least some group was going to stand up and shout something as radical as ""Revolutions Begun -- Off the Pig -- Pick up a Gun !!"" These lines were used by the Black Panthers at Cornell in May '68 and later adopted by the Weatherman in their Days of Rage in Chicago, October '69 .... but it GOT THE MEDIA's ATTENTION -for bad or worse

One should also keep in mind that the 60's anti-war movement was a direct off-shoot of the civil rights movement and the collegiate free speech. Other movements sprouted; womens lib, environmental, black power, AIM American Indian and even gay rights movements all blossomed out of the late 60's. Not only are we lacking leaders in today's minority communities --people like MLK and even radicals like Bobby Seale and Fred Hamilton .. The anti war movement lacks leaders the likes of Abbie Hoffman of the Yippies (well, not "leader" but damn sure spokesperson) and Tom Hayden of SDS. The one contribution that Abbie Hoffman did was take the anti-war movement and at LEAST GET IT ON TV through agitation propaganda and guerrilla theater. With his antics, AND LARGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, he was able to get middle America to see that there was at least an anti-war movement going on through "put on's" such as Levitating the Pentagon in '67 - throwing money at the stock exchange in New York. Even the actions of the Weather Underground would be an interesting question to debate today about -- what is truly defined as terrorism?

I think either the American public has become too complacent .. or even worse .. those that want to protest -- are reading articles in the paper about such issues as the FBI infiltrating the anti- war movement -- just like the COINTELPRO operations in the 60's and 70's. The media is keeping the anti war movement out of the papers. And of course when it is mentioned, such as all the protests this past week, AROUND THE WORLD... all they could talk about were the number of people "Expected" to show up against who did.

I feel that 9/11 has changed alot of the perception in that it has transformed a large amount of our society into an unified acceptance of these various wars (Iraq, Terror, Afghanistan... and Iran?? ) with little or no rhyme or reason or evidence. The bottom line is that 9/11 has placed our society into a division similar to the sixties. In the 60's it was the coldwar "parent" generation vs. the counterculture "kids" generation. a division based on the old adage of 18 years and no liberal - noheart - over 30 and still liberal - no brains. The simple problem is there is not really a counterculture movement today that has any cohesion to form a strong unified movement. Which is sad considering that the sixties counterculture "communicated" through millions of underground magazines and newspapers.... Today, we have the internet -- but has so much information it is in "information overload" and unfortunately dilutes any cohesive movement.

So, overall, getting the media's attention with strong leadership and adequate and unadulterated means of communication to get the message across is they key. This not only goes for the anti-war movement but also the 2006 congressional and 2008 presidential election. It is time to take this country back from the corporatocracy and get back to grass roots McCarthyism like in 1968 (That's Eugene [not Joseph] McCarthy for you youngsters).

By the way, I am 31 years old. So I am a Gen Xer that is neither from the sixties nor "under 30" (but still proud to be liberal as hell!!, therefore I have no brains) but Oh hell -- Like they used to say in the 60's FREE SPEECH IS THE ABILITY TO SHOUT THEATER IN A CROWDED FIRE!!!.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yes! keep it up! Posted by: alterhead
One strategy might be...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Mar 23, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
denying funding to the war machine here in the US in the same way investors/investment funds put pressure on South Africa to end it's racist ways.
Organize a movement of telling our reps in Congress that we don't support the war and it's time for Congress to close the wallet. of course there are those in Congress who are profiting from the war and they will have to be exposed and voted out.
Retirement/pension funds should be lobbied and told to divest their holdings in any publicly traded co. that profit from the war effort. tell them to invest in something like renewable energy or in some co.'s that have a sustainable business model.
Personal investments should also be examined for where they could effect change in a positive way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One strategy might be... Posted by: LeonDion
» Fund positive change by Charging it! Posted by: common intelligence
spurts
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 23, 2006 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Activity against injustice seems to come in spurts after many people learn they have been lied to, propagandized, conned and otherwise brainwashed. Most people today have learned that they were conned by the Bushies but there is a big bunch of people (most Republicans) who still haven't realized that they were conned too. But a growing mass of Republicans/independents are now feeling resentment against being conned. The final spurt to justice is near to being ready. Activity now can push toward the desired results: censure, impeachment and really free elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It`s Time People!
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Mar 23, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You all may have read and are bored by now of `ol Marvy`s
constant barage of "We Gotta March"! Well thank you Don
Hazen for an artical that suggests that "hey,maybe we NEED
to do this soon and on a grand scale"!! SOON! This is the most
imediate way to spread truth to people and start nudging the
entrenched legislators to look at us.A peaceful way for old and young to alike to most importantly..UNITE and protest all the wrongs we the people are currently being dealt.Oh and
Don...think we could talk Cindy into leading it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It`s Time People! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: It`s Time People! Posted by: starvinmarvy
Maybe left is stupid and insincere
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 23, 2006 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the left is a bit stupid. I say this coming from the left. I distinctly remember arguing with people about what the neocons were planning, but nobody took them seriously. They were all too busy starting petsonline.com and other self-serving attempts to get rich. I guess it is a BIG lesson in life; that you can't just cuddle up with a glass of red wine and a copy of The Nation (or No Logo) and think your clear-headed thinking is going to make the world better. I think the left lost its integrity in the 1990s. People on the left in the 60s, 70s, 80s were far more sociable, friendly, open to people of all classes (instead of looking down their noses at anybody who doesn't have a university degree). They are now generally caught up in the shallow game playing best exemplified by that green room, capucciano 'socialist' Naomi Klein. It is why there isn't any deep unity on the left and why the neo-cons and conservatives in general can run circles around you. To change the power dynamic in the world will take more than a clever/clever little media hit with nice graphics and design. But then that would take hard work and sincerity, and that's something most on the left these days don't do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I disagree Posted by: Allison
Why do we have to look back
Posted by: oldsmobile on Mar 23, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about we oppose ressurecting the 60's! Sure, we should learn from the 60's just as we should learn from any other decade, but I for one oppose ressurecting anything from the past. Instead, we should build the future and think up new things to go for. Now we have the internet, we have international travel, we have technology and numeorus other things. Build on that, not the past. So forget the past, there is nothing to see there, because we can't go back. It was fun while it lasted, keep those memories close. Now move along.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why do we have to look back Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Why do we have to look back Posted by: AlienSlave
» Yuck Posted by: LeonDion
I confess
Posted by: DrC on Mar 23, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I confess to being one of those GenXers (technically at least, born 1966) who has grown somewhat tired of hearing baby boomers prattle on about the glories of the 60s (in part because so many of them turned around to become Reaganites and contemporary neocons). But I see and agree with the point that it would be nice if some sort of political action could counteract this feeling of helplessness that so many of us are experiencing. But my one big gripe about this article (and correct me if I've misread it), is that I don't see a single reference to the Draft! What annoys many liberals of my era is the false sense that this sixties social activism grew out of a different set of "values," and a sense of inherent commitment to fighting injustice that later generations just haven't had. Well, sorry, but had there been an all volunteer military during Vietnam, one would have to be pretty naive to think that 10,000 people would have been arrested in a massive staged protest. The injustice of the draft hit far closer to home among a typical high school senior in 1968 than the injustice of the war. Having scores of friends shipped off to fight a hopeless war in Southeast Asia, and the fear (among men at least) that you'd be there soon too was what got baby boomers off their cans and into the streets. Not their more profound value system or inherent commitment to justice. Self-interest played a role that it simply doesn't play as loudly in the present age, for better or for worse.

I agree with the premise of the essay, but without the draft I'm not sure what the tipping point would be to engage the left-leaning public so actively. I enjoyed the essay, but I think it's important to make this point about the draft in order to properly contextualize 60s/70s social activism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I confess Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: I confess Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: I confess Posted by: DrC
The times, they aren't a-changin'
Posted by: bmikkelsen on Mar 23, 2006 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have echoed much of what I've been thinking lately. I was watching a documentary on John Lennon recently. Much of it focused on his involvement with the late anti-Vietnam war movement and the governments efforts to get him out of the U.S. In the background of the piece were the images of the early 70's we're all familiar with... riots, protests, national guard troops on college campuses; and voices...lots of angry, loud voices.
Why can we not muster a remnant of that passion in a time when we need it so badly?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A cynical take...
Posted by: NIKUZAI on Mar 23, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may be pessimistic, but I think that the populations in the US and UK are too apathetic about the Iraq issue. Yep, a few thousand people may go on a protest, but the majority of the population are mostly concerned about their own lives and the next consumer purchases/fads than anything political. They may come up with an opinion when asked to do so by a pollster, but they then revert back to their apathy. If at first you think I'm wrong, just remember I am not referring to people like you (i.e. people who can be bothered to search out something like Alternet, read other people's opinions and contribute your own), I'm talking about the people right now who are either slaving away in one or two jobs to keep their families above the poverty line or are hanging out in the local shopping mall exchanging gossip about celebrities. Again, if you still disagree with my self-admitted cynicism, question why there aren't more people attending marches, why the crescendo of voices against Iraq has not reached an anti-Vietnam high. The way forward is think about how to motivate people to get off their backsides to protest - and perhaps to do this, you will have to demonstrate how Iraq is bad for them and their country (it may be apparent to people on this website, but for a lot of people Iraq is someone else's problem (i.e. the Iraqis' problem).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A cynical take... Posted by: woodford54
It's About Time
Posted by: jammy on Mar 23, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am reminded of a quote I heard recently that says:Let the Future Look Back on a Generation That Looked Ahead.

I wasn't around in the 60s, but I am glad that there were people that were politically aware of what was going on to actually do something. It seems my generation has had its social conscience short circuited by shortened attention spans, soundbites and an ever growing encouragement of total independence. I agree, if we do not act now, the future we get will be one that we could never imagine. People need to wake up and figure out if they want a future that they, themselves create. Or do they want a future envisioned by bush and his fellow christian fascist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's About Time Posted by: triana1326
» RE: It's About Time Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: It's About Time Posted by: outsidea
Tactics of another time and place
Posted by: chomsky on Mar 23, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Act how? People taking to the streets are ignored or rejected as "fringe elements." I honestly believe that if 100,000 people led by Iraq Veterans Against the War were to march in Washington now, they'd SwiftBoat us all. We don't because we know it's just walking. And yes, the lack of a draft keeps youth and their parents quiet -- you can shrug off a volunteer war.

Few sane people want to live the extroverted round of wakes and fundraisers of a politician (not to mention the scrutiny of your entire life), so we can't take over the system.

Exactly how can we act effectively?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Old, fat, bald & bitter: 60s revolutionaries near retirement
Posted by: sausage on Mar 23, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are good reasons the spirit of the radical Sixties, yes that brief era, as Don Hazen writes, from 1967 to 1973, is waning.

Affluence is one. Look how many once radical, even Communist, students are now stock brokers, accountants, real estate salespeople, high school principals, etc., etc., etc ad nauseam. In short the hippies, freaks, heads all cut their hair, put down their hash pipes, got married and be came straight people. In effect they (we) became their (our) parents. I wonder how many members of the Radical Students' Brigade are now card-carrying Republicans.

With affluence comes fear of incarceration. To be sure there are those who yet man and woman the peace lines and spent a night or two in jail for peace. But they for the most part are viewed by "mainstream" society as part of the permanent fringe: Quakers, Catholic Workers, Buddists, Cindy Sheehan.

The radical chic of theSixties is dead and buried. The late Jerry Rubin was an investor, Bobby Seale is a self-described "the old cripple-footed revolutionary humanist," Jane Fonda a twice-born Christian, Abbie Hoffman's dead these 17 years. Who is there left?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In answer to your question Posted by: sausage
» RE: In answer to your question Posted by: MyLeftFoot
A new age, a new medium
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 23, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Revolutions are dependant on media for communication. In 1776 it was the printing press and in the Viet Nam era it was television. Today, both the press and television are owned and controlled by the corporate establishment. The establishment that the hippies fought against. Today we have the Internet. It is free from corporate control. This is the medium to use for information exchange and to call for action. Internet groups such as AlterNet spread the word to take action. This is working well. This is the modern media.

There are three facets of the Viet Nam war protest that I think are important to consider. One is that it wasn't organized. That is, there wasn't one organization. There were diverse groups that sprang up inspired by the scenes on television. Each group acted more or less independently, unified only by the common goal of ending the war.

The second is that the action was taken outside our two party political system. In the beginning neither party was anti-war. In the end the movement forced both parties to accept its view..

The third is the enemy. The corporate establishment and the two political parties backed the war. They had to be defeated and they were..

The internet isn't as public as television. Each individual sits alone at his/her computer. I believe that an unorganized movement of individuals can force both parties and the establishment to accept our view.

Unlike the hippies with only one issue, we have multiple issues. Each individual has his/her one most important issue, ending the war, clean air and water, public education, campaign finance reform, and a host of others. These are the issues of the ordinary citizen, the majority. What we must do now is decide the one issue that can unify us. Not as an organization but as individuals with our seperate and maybe even conflicting views.

I believe that this issue is Democracy, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". Voters aren't represented by either party. We are living in the days before the Revolution when the batllecry was "Taxation without representation is tyranny".

I believe that the threat of a massive protest can restore our Democracy. I don't believe that we need an organization. We only need individuals each pursuing his or her own goal, to take action. I don't believe that we need marches and public demonstrations. These are largely ignored by the corporate televsion and press.

I think that the appropriate threat is a protest vote. The action to take is to tell both parties that you won't support any candidate who doesn't support your most important issue. To vote for a third party or to not to vote at all isn't a protest. A protest vote must be an "in your face" unmistakeable protest. I suggest a write-in vote for "Honest Abe".

Now is the time to act. Now before the election. Now is when our votes have power, once they're cast their power is gone. Click on Join Us Today

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» some care Posted by: Lauren
Everything counts and nothing is enough.
Posted by: pedropedro on Mar 23, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i read the article and comments above and it echoes something i've been feeling for a while. i felt a certain urge to write about these things...

I am 29 years old. I have a profund admiration for the 60/70s political movements. The impression i have is that most of them had all its ideologies head's chopped off by capitalism ideals. It seems they walked in, killed everyone and bulldozed the house down. There is no room left - a dream existed in the 60s and people really believed it. Believed that everything was going to change. Well, we are here in 2006 and things seems worse than ever. I look back at that era with a bit of an envy for the belief in a dream - the belief that things could change forever.

I grew up as one of the first breeds of hardcore advertising and marketing. I wanted the nike shoes, i wanted the consumerism... then later, i realized it was all fake. And since then i have started to look for a way out - and it's been hard finding it. I have a deep belief in the dream of change, i have to keep believing it but everywhere i look seems highjacked by this huge black sexy nightmare. So it seems i have to fight myself everyday to oppress the cynic me and lift the me believer. And i try to do this, but as you walk down the street, turn on the TV, flip the newspaper: the nightmare is here and this is it.

It is frustrating.

The means to do change is something i struggle with. Somedays i believe in changing one person is all we need to do. Sometimes i believe that we have to change everyone. Sometimes i believe we have to act urgently in an anarchic way disrupting everything everywhere. Some other times i believe in non-violent action, in peaceful means.

But then again, there is always hope: Everything counts and nothing is enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jim D
Posted by: progressiveview on Mar 23, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting article, but I would suggest everyone who reads this article and the comments pick up a copy of "Doing Democracy" by Bill Moyer. I am reading it right now and he melds theory and practice in describing the 8 stages of social movements. The fact is the Civil Rights movement took decades and guess what it is still importance because we have not eliminated poverty or economic injustice (the gap between the top 5% and bottom 20% continues to widen). The Vietnam War anti-war movement didn't start immediately with our entrance into the war in place of the French, but took years to educate the population before it became effective. And if you think about the era 67-73 as mentioned in the article (and as Moyers points out in his book) the war did not end until 1975, at least 2 years after the major protests were over.

Commitment to Social Movements takes time, new people with energy because people get burned-out, discouraged, some may even get coopt'd by the government when they make false promises. But we need to be in in this for the long haul.

I agree with the comment about the draft and the military was falling apart at the end of the Vietnam war. I was a draft and war resister during the Vietnam War and was in Federal prison from 1971 to 1973. I used to like to take some of the credit for ending the war and the draft. I agree also with Moyer's assertion that we often did not celebrate our successes. The flip side of the coin is that the power holders figured out they could not continue to fight imperialist wars with an army of conscripts so they naturally wanted an all volunteer army of mercenary trained killers to fight their wars.

But at the end of the day, when social movements are successful, the changes come about, we end segragation and most of the goals of the civil rights movement become mainstream beliefs and it forces the government and corporations to make the changes the masses of people demand. However, they are still in charge and the economics have not changed (only gotten worse for the poorest people) due to Bush's tax cuts for his rich friends and budget cuts on the backs of the poor.

I also agree that we need to take action, take it back to the streets. Direct political action and yes a lot of sztreet theather helps educate the general population to move to the stage where we can effectively change the course we are on now.

In addtion to building this social movement, we need to build a new party (or maybe adopt the Green Party) because as you have seen repeatedly the Democrats are the same as the Republicans and get their toast buttered by the same corporate lobbies. There was a time when a political party had a platform that spelled out their beliefs and the programs they wanted to implement.

I think we need to put together a group of committed progressives to develop the platform, spell it out clearly and then only support candidates that back the platform. It will take some time to put this together, but it needs to include all the sub-movements that progressives support, but this is the best way to communicate to the masses that their beliefs are the same as our in the principles of true democracy, which by the way the Bush administration hates. When you have a true democracy you might not like what you get, as in Palestine or Venezaula right now.

The party platform should begin with a fundamental shift in the economic view of the world. We need to focus on building a peace time sustainable economy where the people in the country can make a living wage, have national health care and we take care of the environment. It needs to be people centric not corporate centric. Until we take the profits out of war, we will not get away from the war time economy, which basically Eisenhower warned us about after WWII.

Peace,
Jim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Party coalition? Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: Party coalition? Posted by: starvinmarvy
Jim D
Posted by: progressiveview on Mar 23, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I ran out of room on the last comment, so here is what I had to delete...

Then we build a progressive party that addresses, nuclear power, the environment, all people's civil rights, and restore some of the dignity and programs for poor people.

We need a foreign policy that is 180 degree from where we are now. Just imagine if we truly gave money and training to empower the people of Iraq for war reparations (like Germany after WWII). If they could have electricity for more than 1 hour a day, clean water and sewage systems, meaning and gainful employment we would not be so hated in the world.

I did not mean to get so long winded here, but it just has been waiting to come out for some time.

It is time for people to be in the street. We need to walk the walk and not only talk the talk. I encourage you to read Moyers book.

Let dance in the street. And when we are successful, we can then prosecute the war criminals for what they truly are, just like Nuremburg.

Peace,
Jim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're doing our part!!
Posted by: johnnyphilko on Mar 23, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're doing our part to try!

Political Rock.......
Check out
http://www.JohnnyPhilko.org
or
http://www.myspace.com/johnnyphilko


Peace,
Mike
http://www.JohnnyPhilko.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ack, the 60s....
Posted by: supercrisp on Mar 23, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that a little civil disobedience is called for. It’s getting bad. But the local peace movement is run by folks who remember the 60s too fondly. This is a college town with tens of thousands of students. Yet, I see very few at the rallies here. It is my strong suspicion that students can’t relate to the 60s iconography. Acoustic guitars, long hair, and patchouli don’t seem to appeal to them. Rather than recalling the glory days of the 60s, I think it’s more useful to recall the mistakes and success of protest in that era to inform protest now. Nostalgia isn’t useful in and of itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ack, the 60s.... Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: Ack, the 60s.... Posted by: outsidea
Not in the closet,just underground
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Mar 23, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being an activist since '64 I can tell you for sure those folks and visionaries are still with us. Yes some are in Spirit. The vast majority are still here. Along with the 'Week-end Warriors'. The kids who,due to their 'social stature' could only don longhair wigs on the week-end and get involved in what they thought being a 'Hippie' was all about. Mostly they thought it was about the partying. We celebrated Life,no doubt about it,but while enjoying being alive we also expanded political philosophy,social philosophy and recognized the futility of centralized power and wealth. The
Folks that were there for the party only had 'seeds' planted.
Those of us that were 'involved' then,are so now. The resurgence of 60's style activisim,is some of those seeds sprouting. If the rest have'nt been laden with too much manure,there should be a massive movement of People to 'Re-Construct' this System soon. I think it's underway already. We know what and whom the enemy is,we know our Rights. We taught our Children. We are the Volunteers.
We're 18-66 and we know you can't trust The Govt.
The time is now to become the civilization we said we'd make
back in the circles in our history's short past. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not in the closet,just underground Posted by: montana freeman
re-instate the draft and escalate war
Posted by: scott balogh on Mar 23, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We here in the U.S.A. do not have it so bad. We are not suffering for lack of basic needs. We think we have a democratically elected government. We think our country does much in the way of aid to the poor peoples of the world, and the recipients of that aid turn on us. This country of ours is a nation of fat and happy, ignorant slackers. We have so much stuff in our lives. Stuff that keeps us occupied to the point where we just do not want to do anything else. The internet keeps the politically interested occupied, t.v. keeps most everyone occupied with whatever they are interested in that the t.v. provides. And there is religion as it can be utilized to achieve whatever the individual desires. We are litterally bombarded by advertizing to the point that we feel compelled to spend on stuff. The point is, to get the attention of the youngest adults to respond to the improprieties of our government, they must feel threatened. Re-instate the draft. If that does not get them to act, nothing will. The Bushes do not want the draft because they know it will awaken the sleeping dogs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Evolution of Democracy
Posted by: CMaciolek on Mar 23, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are capable of a peaceful, well-organized revolution...

The Blue Party.net
(http://www.theblueparty.net)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ugh
Posted by: trevorg on Mar 23, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no more 60s nostalgia please. we have no more new deal liberalism left to lean on. no mass movement of direct action captivating popular attention. lsd is not new. cost of living has gone up while wages and social safety net has gone down. ngos have proliferated everywhere. the entire dlc is built upon buying into the republican charicature of the 1960s as having gone too far (ie women's rights and affirmative action)-- it's pointless to try to play into the way they frame politics, to play into that culture war. movement thinking needs to learn from the past but address the present with something new. so that our opponents have to wrestle with our ideas, rather than just typecast us as a bunch of longhairs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ugh Posted by: montana freeman
Humans are fun to watch
Posted by: NotConvinced on Mar 23, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that we are more likely to see a PETA member assaulting a shopper at some fur emporium than a anti-war activist doing any more than holding a sign and singing songs. It only bothers us a little to torture innocent people and make an entire country unsafe for typical life, but killing an animal for its fur, now that really gets us riled up. I am not knocking PETA members or any other activists. I just think it's strange to see what types of things motivate the strongest types of reactions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Humans are fun to watch Posted by: Michaelmammal
Abbie Hoffman said it best
Posted by: elmarco on Mar 23, 2006 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The lesson of the Sixties is that people who cared enough to do right could change history. We didn't end racism but we ended legal segregation. We ended the idea that you could send half-a-million soldiers around the world to fight a war that people do not support. We ended the idea that women are second-class citizens. We made the environment an issue that couldn't be avoided. The big battles that we won cannot be reversed. We were young, self-righteous, reckless, hypocritical, brave, silly, headstrong and scared half to death. And we were right." -- Abbie Hoffman

Is it coincidence that the accomplishments Hoffman mentioned seem to be the very ones the Republicans have dedicated themselves to reversing?

As for reinstating the draft, the Pentagon has already started scraping the bottom of the barrel, lowering recruiting standards to admit those with criminal records (including, bizarrely, convictions for making terrorist threats) and history of alcohol and drug abuse. If they're that desperate now, it can't be long till they roll out the draft.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Abbie Hoffman said it best Posted by: katrivers64
» RE: Abbie Hoffman said it best Posted by: phelander
No.
Posted by: tcx2 on Mar 23, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my dad went to Woodstock. Painted his car and all, too.

Then on 9/11 he stuck a flag on his SUV and supported Bush on his war against Iraq. Imagine that, Mr. Lennon. I wonder if you can.

The anti-war movement didn't get us out of Vietnam. The funding was cut off. The war got too fucking expensive for Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No. Posted by: pacto
» RE: No. Posted by: starvinmarvy
» anti-consumption Posted by: Coleman
fragmentation
Posted by: karyse on Mar 23, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the lines that we (the fifty and older crowd) use amongst ourselves is "if you remember the sixties you weren't there." But, you know what? We actually were there. That is to say, we were together in public places. Not thousands of us together, but five or ten of us together in small groups that totalled thousands all together.

It was before we decided that being in our house, car, or dorm room, was preferable to hanging out to discuss politics, art, or each others lives and pain. It was before the idea of "public space" was eliminated by the powers that be. Before they started "improving" cities and towns by omitting the "center of town." It was when coffee shops, bowling alleys, and diners, were locally owned, and the owners were not afraid of people hanging around for hours arguing vehemently about politics, philosophy, and life.

It's easy to call someone an idiot, moron, nutcase, when you don't know them up close and personal, such as is the case online.

We've been fragmented into narrow "causes" where the proponents of one cause don't want those of another because they disagree on another, periphrial issue -- as though the periphrial issue upon which we disagree, were an indicator of our unworthiness, our stupidity, our "moroness." Online conversations are somehow less real than ones in person. And the "in person" discussions are starting to look more and more like online discussions.

I've actually seen four people stitting at a table at a restaurant where three of the four are on cell phones. In answer to the phone question, "Where are you?" the response is "having dinner with some friends." Well obviously the friends you are sitting with are somehow not as important as the "friends" you are on the phone with. Can anyone really have a conversation when ringing phones interrupt every couple of minutes? Or text messages? Or PDA email checks?

You want a solution? One: Put down your technology whenever you are in the company of another human being -- even a stranger. Do you remember when starting a conversation with a complete stranger about a book they were reading was okay? How is reading a book different from being on a computer? Does anyone start a conversation when someone sitting at the next table is "working" on the computer?

Two: Take up smoking. Smokers (of which there are many less nowadays) have ten minutes to do nothing while they hang around to smoke a cigarette. And I say this only half-assessed facetiously.

Three: Write a pamphlet; Hand it out to people. Talk to them.

We all seriously need to start talking to each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us
Posted by: cyberfactotum on Mar 23, 2006 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When was the last time you dove into expanding consciousness like you did in the 60's? When was the last time you actually "did" love and freedom beyond all boundaries, for real? Those of you who were around back then and were a part of that know what I am talking about.

What has really changed? The adventure of it? The COUNTER-culture nature of it? Your youthful embrace of it? World conditions have certainly turned. New generations have come into being. Loyalties have shifted. The empire we formerly protested and the culture we were counter to is in fact now in the process of crumbling.

In other words, the revolution SUCCEEDED. We're just seeing some of the more unpalatable results now.

A lot of the idiocy and suffering we are seeing is evidence that the empire is actually crumbling. Before it comes crashing down, there will be much more pain, much more hurt. Isn't that obvious? Did we think we could have our materialistic possessions, our capitalistic strangehold on the world's resources, our military superiority forever? Weren't those exactly the things we were protesting against in the 60's?

Look at the fall of the Western Roman empire. Sure, that empire lasted longer, but the parallels with what's happening in the U.S. are too obvious to ignore. Let's see, there's that darn decline in morals and values, public health problems, political corruption, ramapant unemployment, urban decay, inferior technology, military over spending... Sound familiar?

Is George W our Caligula, our Nero, perhaps even our Romulus Augustulus?

The establishment is going to clamp down all that much harder now because we're in the midst of our decline. You can take that to the bank. They really don't want to let go. But they're going to have to, eventually. Sometime realtively soon, the new boss ain't gonna be like the old boss.

The new conquerers/rulers will be our own form of visiGoths. Maybe they will be Muslims. Maybe Indians. More likely they will be Chinese.

So, be ready. Dive back into expanding consciousness and love and freedom beyond all boundaries, for real again. In the 60's it started with music. It started with drugs. It started with an idea and a heart feeling. And it unfolded the fabric of society at its very core.

Our young will adapt, in their own way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

60's redux
Posted by: Marco on Mar 23, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's an outrageous war, there's the Gulf Coast and New Orleans, there's certainly repression, plus a couple of thousand other things. People nowadays are too busy choosing their interior color for their SUV's or the threadcount of their carpet to be bothered. Most people just don't care period and that's the travesty. People have become so numb and asleep that it's shameful and pathetic. Where the hell are the songwriters? Clipping coupons? There are people doing things, but far too few. People are terrified to speak out. It's an entropy state that has hyponotized the country's psyche. Enough already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 60's redux Posted by: famouspipeliner
Laurence Topliffe
Posted by: peaceyogi on Mar 23, 2006 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution to war will be found and understood by reading Victory Before War. It will also end the corruption of government officials or cause their removal. READ THE BOOK AND GET INVOLVED, PLEASE! DO MORE THAN RAVE AGAINST THE CORRUPTION, ARROGANCE, IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY. THIS IS 100% SUCCESS-CREATING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People Act Only When It Hits Home
Posted by: skiptowne on Mar 23, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The earlier comment about what would happen if the draft was reinstated hit the nail right on the head. Violent acts against the government won't work in this day and age. People only get angry when an issue hits home (or their pocketbooks).
What we need are for people NOT to sign up for the military. Perhaps this will force our government to start up the draft again. It is then that you will see real pressure from the general population to put an end to "pre-emptive defense" moronics. It would also scare the shit out of the defense contractors.
One can learn from history, whether it's the 60's or the fall of the Roman Empire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The media is a viable target
Posted by: chasaturn on Mar 23, 2006 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was discussing the media's refusal to speak truth in covering protests with an anarchist friend of mine, right after the IMF-World Bank actions in Washington, DC during April 2000 and prior to her leaving for Los Angeles for the Dems convention. We concluded at that time that if the media were harassed and kept from being able to record ANYTHING they could lie about, it would soon cost them enough that they'd change their tune & start telling the truth. Keep the reporters locked in their vans. Don't let them out. The Washington Post took note, printed a story about it from LA. We need to try it some more. This is a REVOLUTION. It doesn't take ten thousand to surround a TV van. Thirty can scare the bejeezus out of those sell-outs. We have no friends who wear a badge, work for the government, stand in front of a camera and lie, watch, infiltrate, lie in court, who do nothing while others are murdered, practice a hypocritical "religion or disclaim the actions of patriots. We are everywhere!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Era, New Tools, Same Old Opponents
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 23, 2006 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many good and not so good things happened during the counter-culture, anti-war, women's rights, consumer rights and other movements that happened during that time. There was no one monolithic 'movement'. It was a whole kaleidoscope of groups that allied or went it alone based upon their needs and conscience. The fact that to this day the advancements are taken for granted speaks to their wisdom and rightness.

The '60's', more than anything else, were the product of three things:
1) The New Deal
2) World War II
3) The Trade Union Movement

The New Deal changed America in ways that are still incalculable to this day. Basically, it was the first time our national government acknowledged that people were entitled to certain help and protections from our society on the simple basis that they were people. It also caused a massive migration of poor white and black people out of the south into the industrial Midwest and the coasts.

World War II caused more migration, brought tens of millions out of their local areas and opened them to a wider world, put millions of women and people of color in the workforce for the first time, and birthed the GI Bill and the VA Home Loan. Prior to that time, the majority of Americans rarely, if ever:
1 Travelled more than a few miles from their home area.
2 Owned their own home or even hoped to.
3 Were College Educated or had any hope of getting a higher education.

The Trade Union Movement taught the masses the power of organization. Prior to Unions, most people had only political parties to organize through and, just like now, the well-off and well-connected controlled the local and state parties.

The generation of the '60's' were the offspring of the WW II generation and the first to have the full benefit of all the change. They were the first generation that was universally well educated, fed, housed and expectant of going to college. They also were the first to grow up with Television, Modern Radio and almost universal car and telephone ownership. Think about all of that. What a paradigm shift. It all looks very obvious in retrospect.

Despite all of the change the times were very different. No cell phones, e-mail, blogs, websites, 250 channels of Cable, community radio, 24 hour news channels, etc. Back then, few companies, politicians and trade associations had professional PR staffs or media advisors-- everybody has someone to spin things now. Even activist organizations have professional PR people in the beltway playing the same political games the corporate interests play.

The moral of all of this is that we cannot bring the 60's back, but there are a few lessons:

1- If a lot of dedicated people organize and stick with it-- the world will change and can be changed.
2- Education and opportunity are the most powerful agents of change and always will be.
3- A liberal and open society is always the parent of the kind of society and world you want to live in and raise your children in.
4- The enemies are always the same: Ignorance (lack of education), Intolerance, Intransigence and Apathy.

Consider yourselves Educated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -