Does this atmosphere, this feeling in the air, remind you any of the late Sixties...?

[kentuck]

With RFK and MLK, with Woodstock, with Watergate, with impeachment of Nixon filling the atmosphere and the air we breathed?

The people revolted in the most peaceful way they could. They understood the words of Gandhi, of MLK, of RFK, and other leaders of peace. Much of the atmosphere at Woodstock was political because the people felt their government was not accountable.

There was a feeling of victory, in a strange way, when Nixon stood on the step of the helicopter and waved goodbye to America for the last time.

The lies about the Vietnam War, about Cambodia, about a plan "to end the war". There had been the Mylai Massacre and more than 58,000 Americans killed in that jungle of a foreign policy.

And the young generation stood up. They marched. They educated. Sometimes they rioted. It was a very unpredictable time in many ways.

And they had friends in the House and Senate - men like George McGovern. He lost to Nixon in a landslide, but two years later, Nixon was giving the double peace sign from the step of a helicopter.

[virgogal]

1. No.

[Mojorabbit]

40. I agree. There was a feeling of anticipation and hope back then. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

71. "There was a feeling of anticipation and hope back then"...

yep, I feel little hope these days. Are party has become the good cop to the GOP's bad cop.

[RobinA]

133. What He Said

Plus, the '60's had a way better soundtrack

[hedgehog]

2. For me, it's more like the frustration of the Carter years -

we won, didn't we?

[Katashi_itto]

33. Feels more like the twilight years of the USSR, slowly the conditions getting harsher

The political class has been revealed to be frauds top to bottom and the people suffer more and more.

[KT2000]

46. It was the Cold War

It has done in both nations. That is when resources were given to the never ending and ravenous war machine. Each nation bankrupted themselves to assure destruction of the other while the counties fell to their respective powers - oil, chemicals and the war machine.
Some have even proposed that there were more casualties/fatalities from the Cold War than any other war, and it continues on - cancers from the radiation is just one example.
The USSR fell first but we will fall too.

[Katashi_itto]

47. I agree

[Unknown Beatle]

84. If things continue in their present form,

and I can't see anything that will dramatically alter it, then no doubt, the US will fail as a result of it's policies and general greed.

How can the pentagon justify receiving so much money? If one tenth was diverted (68.37 billion dollars per year), we would eradicate much of the homelessness, and have practically zero hungry in the US. That would be on top of what the US spends on those programs.

[AAO]

94. To say nothing about the secret off-budget programs. How many billions there? We'll never know.

[Jackpine Radical]

96. Yes, I think that's on target.

The Soviets fell when the little man behind the curtain was revealed. Unfortunately, other little men (in league with corrupt capitalists from the west) crept in behind the curtain & got another thoroughly fucked system up & running.

[trumad]

3. Nahhh---we have Netflix now and Xbox...

oh---and microwave Popcorn.

[HappyMe]

4. No, not really.

[DURHAM D]

5. No.

We did not have the Octopus Surveillance State and the MSM was not as compliant.

[Maximumnegro]

9. That's a joke right?

[awoke_in_2003]

72. No, I don't think so...

yes, there was surveillance then, but in today's world it is almost impossible to escape it without getting off the grid entirely and moving to the middle of the boonies.

[truedelphi]

115. How is it a joke?

When Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, and there was a need for the important parts of the papers to be published - yet the NYT was prohibited from doing more than one "news dump" of those papers, the owners of 27 other major newspapers took huge risks and then took turns releasing the information.

Today, you couldn't find owners of even three newspapers that would be willing to stick their necks out.

In 1968, there were enough Presidential candidates that it was an interesting year politically. And no one got called names for not supporting Humphrey - it was understood he was establishment and pro-war, and that if you weren't for the establishment and its stoopid war, you wouldn't be caught dead voting for him.

[madrchsod]

18. i know for a fact they did...

the msm was more "liberal" because they more often actually reported the news without bias. the last real news we had is when turner ran cnn.

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. No!

We had a "real" free press back then.

[Maximumnegro]

7. No.

No one is marching against the government. A whole bunch of leaders have not been assassinated in front of our faces. Young people are not rioting. They are waiting for the new Iphone and paying a crapload of money for used turntables.

I don't remember there being a war against vaginas in the 60's - seems like the counterculture was perfectly okay with women as second class citizens as well.

So, yeah, no.

[carolinayellowdog]

8. A generational watershed may have just occurred

The way some people talk about Snowden brings back to me the constant accusations of treason from rightwingers back then. Just as "commie traitor belongs in prison" became so familiar when we were teenagers that it lost all power to intimidate, it seems to have come back to life lately only to remind us of those bad old days.

[madrchsod]

14. i just read an piece about young folk are paying more attention because...

they can not find jobs!

i think women will be a driving force in the coming elections because the republicans have targeted them as bad as they did to the blacks in the south.

[madrchsod]

10. ya...i was watching a film on youtube about the airplane

in fact here it is....

highlite..47 minutes into the film.

[kentuck]

13. White Rabbit and Lather...

were two of my favs.

[napkinz]

67. at 47 minutes ... looks like the Beatles on the rooftop (Let It Be sessions)

So who was the first to play a rooftop ... the Beatles or The Jefferson Airplane?

edit: Just went further back in the video. That scene is from 1968, so the Beatles weren't the first. Learn something new every day!

[hamsterjill]

11. Well it sure reminds me of the sixties!

This war on women is like a television re-run!

[displacedtexan]

12. Yes, it does, and I'll tell you why.

But it was so peaceful for a lot of us kids.

We were so self righteous about ending the war that we turned on our own Democratic president and paved the way for Richard Fucking Nixon and his merry band of assassins and thugs and Bushes to do away with the Great Society.

I'm glad you asked, and I'll calm the fuck down now.

But, damn it. This NSA stuff reminds me so much of the anti-Johnson stuff I was part of.

No, I don't like the spying stuff, but it's nothing new, and it opens a door to republican vote stealing (AGAIN) next year and in 2016.

Sorry for the rant, but I hate seeing history repeat itself.

[CakeGrrl]

19. Agreed. History can repeat.

The OP is a thinly veiled pipe dream about seeing President Obama flying out of Washington in impeachment disgrace, when you get to the bottom of it.

Friends in Congress. Seriously?

The media? A GOP-shilling joke.

And when the 'revolution' (maybe once you can tear people away from their computers and TV remotes) happens and the GOP comes back to power, they'll shake everyone out of their dreamy purple haze in a big way.

[kentuck]

26. That was not my intent nor a "veiled pipe dream"...

So you are wrong in that regard.

I'm afraid you are probably correct on the last point about when the "revolution" happens.

peace

[marions ghost]

32. Ridiculous assertion

---

[CakeGrrl]

52. Your opinion.

[Erose999]

21. Can we have a Great Society without war and surveillance? Seems like the Dem leadership want both.

[displacedtexan]

24. In a perfect world, yes.But I'll take imperfect Dems over Repubs any day. n/t

[upaloopa]

23. The Great Society never happened. The war took that away.

Johnson decided not to run on his own.
People believed Nixon would end the war not just pull out.
We did not put Nixon in office.
I would say you are a revisionist at best.
I am proud of what we acheived in tbe sixties though I spent part of them in Vietnam.

[displacedtexan]

27. Revisionist? I was there, protesting the war in the streets

and handing flowers to kids arriving in Dallas to take their army physicals.

Exactly who put Nixon into office when Johnson had carried 46 states with 61% of the vote in '64? Someone else?

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Glad you survived the war! It's great to be able to argue with you, and I mean it.

[Art_from_Ark]

114. The Electoral College put Nixon into office

George Wallace helped.
As did Mayor Daley, with his show of brute force at the Democratic National Convention.
As did the Democratic Party leaders at the convention, who chose Humphrey over Eugene McCarthy.

[kentuck]

30. And so are you...

As most historians are also. Nobody can write history except by what they recall. The people decide which to believe by comparing it to their own feelings at the time.

[upaloopa]

31. no history becomes what the majority says it is

It's not written by people who lived it. That's especially true here at DU. That is the main thing I learned by being here. And I've been here since 2001 under various names.

[zeemike]

82. No we did not turn our back on a democratic president

He turned his back on us....in order to give the MIC the war they wanted.
And it was LBJ that paved the way for Nixon not us....and the complaisant democratic leaders that made sure the Hump was nominated to take his place instead of someone who would change things and end the war.

And Nixon said he had a plan to end the war but he lied....and now we have a president that said he would end the excesses of the Bush years and he has not done it...so yes, it is like then in that respect....we DID get fooled again...gut this time it was our guy.

[Fuddnik]

89. Not to mention, in the '68 election, you had to be 21 to vote.

Most of the people in college and in the streets were ineligible to vote.

I cast my first vote for McGovern in '72.

I still remember my bumper sticker. "Lick Dick in '72".

[zeemike]

92. "Lick Dick in '72"

I had never seen that one....but if I had I would have bought it...

[Fuddnik]

97. I had to buy a couple of dozen.

I was living at home, and my Fundie Republican father kept scraping them off as fast as I could put new ones on.

[Art_from_Ark]

116. It's interesting that in the first Presidential election that 18-20-year-olds

could participate in, Nixon defeated George McGovern in a landslide. I guess the main reason was that by November 1972, it was apparent that American involvement in Vietnam was about to end.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. That and RFK very conveniently died in LA.

Oh yeah, that.

[upaloopa]

15. Hell no! Half the people on DU support giving away

their freedoms for some undescribed sense of security.

[snappyturtle]

22. Yep. (it's not about security...bummer) nt

[Maedhros]

81. Well, if we complain too loudly about our Constitutional rights being stripped away...

...then the Republicans will win!

I think that was the twisted logic I saw up-thread.

[Fuddnik]

90. And it ain't Social Security.

[NoPasaran]

17. Not a bit

[Erose999]

20. We can count our "friends" in the house and senate lately on one hand. And still have fingers left.

[boilerbabe]

25. i was too young but were many of the DEMS far right and fascistic?

[upaloopa]

29. There was not the split that we have today.

Dems in the South were racists. The anti war movement was a-political. Basically the Liberal Dems wanted to pull our troops out of the war. Nixon said he could have "peace with honor"
Cities were erupting in race riots. The Dem convention in 1968 became a police riot in Chicago.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Not exactly the sixties... But there's a certain feelng in the air

To use Marxist analysis for a second, just because it happens to work here. We are entering pre revolutionary times.

From my readings of history, it is the 60s just wrong century, 1760s

[Blackford]

38. I simply do not see that analogy as having anything approaching accuracy.

The current times are not analogous to any times.

It is the early 21st century. No other time in history is really comparable on any level no matter how much comfort such analogies may give some one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. The past is prologue my friend

Otherwise why bother writing history and keeping records?

[Blackford]

43. We learn from the past.

The past never truly repeats itself. All that ever happens is new history is made.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Ah but that's where you are wrong

History has definite echoes and patterns to it.

How revolutions happen, ( and for the record most are not violent) have a pattern to them... We are very much repeating the pattern.

[Blackford]

45. I disagree completely on the current pattern

What we are observing now is far more complex than anything that has gone previously and the outcome will not be as any prior outcome.

We are in entirely new territory.

Furthermore, there is nowhere near enough antagonism or even concern in the general populace to even come close to supporting the notion of a revolution. The only people talking about it are the same extremists on both the right and the left who have been talking about it since there has been a right and left.

There is no revolution coming. What is coming cannot be foretold, but it will not resemble anything that has gone before.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. You know...I hear more and more the distress

From every day regular folks who know something is broken...(first step).

Perhaps it's the job...

And I recommend you re-read the thread. You are assuming a revolution will involve bullets. I am not. It could get there, but that is not the natural outcome of revolutions. Most are not jackeries.

I say that as a historian. Our moment in time is not exceptional. Just as the US is not exceptional either. We are an empire in decline... That's all

[Blackford]

54. I am not assuming "the revolution" will involve bullets.

But I am looking at the general outlook of the general public and most people in this country are paying absolutely no attention whatsoever to what extremist on the right or left point at as a cause for "revolution".

There will be no revolution. There will merely be a changing world like there has been for literally centuries. The changes will not be violent, but they are not some "revolution" hoped for by extremists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Funny, yesterday I was cooling my heels

At a forest fire waiting for residents to come back up the mountain.

Regular back country folks...they were talking of all that was wrong.

None of them posts on free republic or here. Nor would they known of these sites.

Back at the shelter, similar conversations, and all that. Again, these folks have no time for sites like this one.

Heck, one of them started on the NSA scandal and his issues with it. I did not start that's conversation. He did.

As I said, must be the job... I get to talk with hundreds of people a quarter.

It is getting out there, and the unease is very real.

By the way your talk of radical left, you would not know a radical leftist if they jumped in front of you...very revealing language.

[Blackford]

57. Aecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

BTW, both extremes on the left and right are wrong, IMO. Politics is about the possible and neither extreme is possible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You would not know an extreme left

If it jumped in front of you.

But you know what? Centrists in this country are the problem...can't imagine change. Why you think we are so exceptional. More like Rome, or Spain, in the last years...than even Britain...

[Blackford]

61. I would ask that you please refrain from ad hominem attacks. tia n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. You mean like you did?

[Blackford]

64. I did not make an ad hominem attack in any post.

You attacked me at a personal level. I was attempting to keep the discourse cordial.

As it is now obvious to me that you and I can no longer engage in cordial discourse, I shall refrain from any response to you in any thread or any post on this site.

Good day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. You did

By engaging in extreme left / extreme right language...

By the way, I suggest you use the ignore button, won't feel offended or give two shits about it, and use the hide/trash thread to keep to yourself.

[socialist_n_TN]

102. I imagine that's what the Tsar and his ministers said....

circa 1915/16. Yet a bare 2 years later...

V.I. Lenin said (paraphrasing), "Sometimes years go by with nothing much happening. Then sometimes years go by in months." All it would take is a little more pressure on the middle who aren't paying a lot of attention yet to WHY their situation is changing for the worse, they just know that their circumstances ARE changing for the worse. And it's not going to get better for them because the ruling class won't LET it get better for them. When it gets bad enough, all it would take is a spark.

I disagree with nadin somewhat about being in a pre-revolutionary situation. I think we're halfway to that pre-revolutionary situation, but not all the way. The basics of a pre-revolutionary situation is where both the rulers and the ruled find themselves in a situation where they CANNOT and WILL not go on as before. The rulers find themselves unable to rule like they have before, i.e., behind the scenes by propagandizing the masses into giving them their way and now they have to be more blatant about their (mis)rule. CLOSER to fascist, but of course, still not there. Yet. The masses are the ones who are lagging as of now. They still hold some tattered beliefs in what they've been indoctrinated with, but those beliefs are rapidly being undermined by the very system they're indoctrinated to believe in. We'll be in a pre-revolutionary situation when the people finally lose their belief that all they need to "make it" under capitalism is hard work. That day of disillusionment is rapidly approaching because the system itself in in it's end stages.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. My friend...some of the things I have been hearing in the back country

Lead me to think we are very close if not there.

Trust me, the distrust is...different.

[socialist_n_TN]

122. Always a judgement call nadin.......

ALWAYS a judgment call. I wouldn't be disappointed if you were right and I was wrong in this case. And yes I AM advising everybody who asks to stockpile a couple months worth of necessities, just in case. I've become such a Preppie...er Prepper.

[NOLALady]

58. IMHO,

you are absolutely correct.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Hey there

Have not seen you in a while. Are things good with you?

[NOLALady]

91. I am fine, my friend.

I lurk more than I post. It's become a bit toxic around here.

But, I agree with you that the empire is in decline. I'm not an historian. But, in researching my ancestors, I've learned that most of them (except the Africans) came to the New World because they were escaping corruption, persecution and decline. Our current atmosphere is quite similar to the conditions that caused our ancestors to seek a better life in the "New World".

When will we ever learn?

[malthaussen]

135. 1760's America or France? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. Either works.

The question is what will happen? Nobody like Loke right now.

[malthaussen]

137. Eh, I think France works, not so much America.

The difference is in the level of desperation. The white population of the colonies was in a position where labor was precious and money was scarce. France was in a state of economic chaos and the polarization of wealth much greater. There was genuine upward mobility in the colonies, there was little in France. When the situation exploded in France, it drenched the continent in blood.

This is why I have forboding feelings about the next revolution, if it comes. Those who complacently think the youngsters are too apathetic and conditioned to lotus-eating may just have a surprise coming. But so far, there seems to be little to tie the disparate pockets of despair together in the US. But one can never really predict if a catalyst will come.

And then we can look farther forward. The Revolution created Napoleon. Who knows what genius may lie in the wings?

-- Mal

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Here is a thought for you

I have been bringing Spain for a reason. The failure of empire set the stage for....Franco.

[malthaussen]

140. Not a bad comparison at all

The Cortes was just about as gridlocked as the US Congress, there was constant scandal and economic distress. However, though we have a very rabid Hard Right in the US, unlike Spain in the 30's we lack a real Left. (And of course, we are not so subject to the machinations of powerful neighbors)

-- Mal

[RebelOne]

34. Not at all. I was not into politics in the '60s,

but I was not happy that Nixon was elected. I voted for McGovern.

[Blackford]

37. Nixon v. McGovern was in '72. I remember it well. Not the sixties.

It was Nixon v. Humphrey in '68. I was for Bobby and was devastated.

[tweeternik]

104. Me too. :(

[1-Old-Man]

35. No, not at all. Then there were two things we do not have now, Unity and Unifiers.

[Blackford]

36. Having lived through the late sixties, no. n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. Almost... it reminds me of the lead up to Watergate.

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 03:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I have a deja vu feeling, just as then, of another shoe to drop. I hope it's something not too bad, or (wild hope, but who knows) maybe even good for restoring our democracy, as Watergate's finale was. I view Snowden's leaks as a lucky break, maybe there's more to come out of "chance" to benefit us.

Or as Jackson Browne said...

"Perhaps a better world is drawing near,
Or just as easily it could all disappear
Along with whatever meaning you might've found
Don't let the uncertainty turn you around... "

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. in the 60's a couple of kids with minimum wage jobs could have shared a flat in the village

now it would take a couple of hedge fund managers to afford that. A lot of the spontaneity of the 60's is less possible now because of the outrageous increase in the cost of housing, education and healtcare - Thus making it a lot more difficult to just hang loose and do what you want.

[felix_numinous]

48. Well the Republicans are taking civil rights back to the 50s

so there are parallels in what challenges lie ahead. But this time perhaps we will heed Eisenhower's warning and address the root of the problem. Ignoring his warning got us where we are today.

The early 60s is what I think these days remind me of.

[1-Old-Man]

128. Deleted by Author - I misunderstood the post I was responding to - sorry.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

49. No. And I hope no one gets too carried away.

Just got my life back on track to become a future CPA and a revolutionary period would destroy it.

[Skittles]

79. you need more than coffee

[pinboy3niner]

50. That's a real blast from the past

And I know you saw it from both sides. There are some similarities now, and some things that are very different. If I come up with something new to add to your discussion, I'll jump in.

What a long, strange trip it's been, hey brother?

[kentuck]

78. You got that right, brother.

Good to see somebody from 'Nam respond....

[East Coast Pirate]

53. You left out disillusionment with our leaders.

[mstinamotorcity2]

55. yes

with a social media spin.

[Myrina]

60. It reminds me of the 1910's & 20's

The wealthy robber barons have obscene wealth & run just about everything, while the working poor struggle just to get by with little or no help from their own govt/ representatives.

And we all know how the 20's ended.

[byeya]

65. I agree. Plus the viscious clampdown on dissent from the prig Woodrow Wilson. Seems

like what I've read and been told about the late teens and twenties.
You could throw in the distractions of sports and celebs too plus the disregard of the Volsted Act and the increase in organized crime.

[The Time is Now]

68. Echoing other boomer postings...

No.

It strikes me as odd, however, that there isn't more outrage, more demonstrations, Occupy 2.0, whatever. More and more, I'm convinced that we are living in Wolin's inverted totalitarianism. The term sounds extreme, but the description strikes me as very, very accurate.

According to Wolin, whereas the production of propaganda was crudely centralized in Nazi Germany, in the United States it is left to highly concentrated media corporations, thus maintaining the illusion of a "free press".*

Furthermore:

Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.*

*Wolin, Sheldon S. (2008). Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-13566-5.

As he says, the central lack is what he calls "the political," which might seem ridiculous, but he defines that as "the commitment to finding where the common good lies." That commitment is exactly what is often meant when the politics of the '60s is invoked. It was the (evil) genius of Fox News to eradicate the notion of common good with a remix of Nixon's "Southern Strategy." As you recall, this was an appeal to poor white people (and yes, that means those belonging to the 99%). Under the hypnotic allure of culture wars, fed by racial, religious, and gender indoctrination, they were convinced to vote against their own economic interests. Yes, in principle, there is common ground between rank-and-file tea partyites and the left, but that ground is buried under a toxic mountain of propaganda. We'll need a new generation of muckrakers to clear that up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. I call it a dictablanda

It has many similarities, more than are good, with the Mexico I grew up in, including the realization that media is a megaphone for the state

I forgot, some of woolin's analysis comes from systems such as the PRI

[zeemike]

88. And a big DU welcome to you

And thanks for that observation, which I think is spot on.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. "Young wolves, show us your teeth." John Steinbeck

[mwrguy]

70. You don't need a weatherman

to know which way the wind blows.

[Skittles]

80. but you need one to know when the hurricane will hit

[DeSwiss]

74. You ain't seen nothin' yet!

- K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. If by "dawn of a revolution" I'd say yes,...HOWEVER....

The DESPERATION and exploration of an alternate to "the establishment" was driven by the real fear of nuclear annihilation. The classic way of putting it was "not knowing if you would be alive when you are thirty". That tends to make young people want to live life while they can. This also let to the sexual revolution and the "generation gap".

We have a "generation gap" going right now between young people who see their world SUCKS and older people who think things are the same today as they were when they were working. Like I said in another thread, there are older folks today that really and honestly believe the stock boy at the local hardware store makes enough to buy a house. They think A JOB, ANY JOB in America is all you need to be a success. From there, you are expected to be devoted and work hard and that will be rewarded.

They refuse to accept the notion that wages are a fraction that they were when they were working.

If we are talking historic perspective it's more like the Hoover to FDR period in America economically. The old "A fair days work for a fair days pay" has to be the goal.

[onyourleft]

129. The generation gap...

...is no different now then it was when I was 20 or 30. My parents, staunch Republicans, couldn't believe the obscene rent I was paying for a three bedroom condo ($350) and couldn't believe I would have trouble supporting two children on $1,500 a month. The problem was the fact that they bought a house in 1954 (I was ten years old) for which they had a mortgage of $50 a month. They didn't realize, not being in the market, how much prices had gone up.

I don't refuse to believe that wages are a fraction of what they were, I know. I don't know anyone in my generation who believes what you stated above, except for Republicans. Most of us were working when wages stopped going up. We, too were caught in that web.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

130. I've got another kicker for you...

Americans have been suckered into believing 35 MPG is as good as it gets. That was the MPG for econoboxes in the 70s. Hell, you could get that in an empty Toyota minitruck.

We should be getting twice or three times that today.

[onyourleft]

131. I agree with...

...you, although I'm sure the oil companies will agree with neither of us.

[sbh]

76. Honestly, that "feeling in the air" only brings one thing to mind...

[WinkyDink]

77. For both good and ill: No, it does not.

[liberal_at_heart]

83. we're getting there, slowly.

[MineralMan]

85. Nope. Not even close.

[kentuck]

86. Perhaps I should have asked?

Who was around and remembers the Sixties. You cannot know what you have not experienced.

[DevonRex]

98. I was. See below. I miss it.

Really miss it. That feeling.

[Fumesucker]

100. If you can remember the sixties, you weren't there

[femmocrat]

87. Not one little bit.

I was somewhat involved in the anti-war movement and there are very few similarities now. Once in a while there is a big march on DC, or some protest that eventually fizzles. The sit-ins in the state capitols (WI, TX) and the Occupy Movement come closest to how it "felt" in the late 1960s. The assassinations and Nixon's 1968 election were the beginning of the end of the euphoria we felt.

[tavernier]

93. No.

And we won't until/unless there is a draft. Things don't happen until they directly threaten our daily lives.

[DevonRex]

95. Not at all. If people march for voting rights it will. LGBTs stood strong and changed America.

But it's not over yet. They'll continue to fight.

But nothing will ever feel like it did then. The body counts every night on the news. Kids arguing with their parents over war and drugs and clothes and music and life and love and everything. Women wanting to work, burning bras. Boys not wanting to die for nothing, burning draft cards. Other boys dying for nothing. Others fighting because they couldn't make someone else go in their place. Always the protests. And flowers. And music. Always the music that meant something.

So, no. It doesn't feel like that.

[FreeBC]

99. Change will happen when the Baby Boomers die off

and not before.

[madrchsod]

103. what the fuck is wrong with baby boomers?

oh...we are SO SORRY we can't die soon enough.

[Le Taz Hot]

118. You're welcome for that whole Civil Rights Movement

thingy. Did you hear minorities no longer have to sit in the back of the bus? And that whole women's rights movement thingy. Did you hear? I can get birth control (if I still used it) without permission from my husband. And Viet Nam? Notice we're not there anymore. We did that.

Look around at the ages of the CURRENT protesters there, Sparky. MOST of us are still out there. Know why? CAUSE TOO OFTEN WE CAN'T GET THE YOUNGER GENERATION'S NOSE OUT OF THEIR FUCKIN' I-SHINY-THING TO PAY ATTENTION.

But we'll go ahead and all hurry up and die for you so you're change (that will apparently happen all by itself) can happen.

[aikoaiko]

121. Jury Results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Fri Jul 12, 2013, 06:37 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Change will happen when the Baby Boomers die off
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3228897

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Ageist bullshit AND looking forward to the time when the Boomers die off? Since when is this up to DU standards?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jul 12, 2013, 06:58 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the post was insensitive but I wouldn't muzzle a person for making it unless other statements were provocative and I don't see any. If it represented a pattern by the person I'd feel otherwise.
I agree it sounds ageist and the only defense would be about taking a long view of history.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't think it is unreasonable to talk about change when a huge demographic bubble finally pops. Do boomers expect to live forever?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[democrank]

101. No

because back then, even without computers and cell phones, people were in the streets. We cared that much. We stood for something.

[burnodo]

105. I was born in 1967 so I can't say

however, I don't get any positive feeling about what's going on today...those that are completely apathetic are added to those who are completely misinformed, and that's a lot of people

[Coyotl]

106. Nixon was giving the double VICTORY signs because they got away with it.

He was leaviong the White House, but they had pulled off the con and taken the White House back just the same, and held onto it in 1972 by lying to the People. Nixon was showing his base that they were still in charge.

[socialist_n_TN]

107. Yes and no. And I was there and politically active then....

There was more of a mass feel to the demonstrations of the 60s, even though the protest movement was still a minority. The biggest part of that mass feel was the FACT that the Vietnam war impacted us immediately and lethally. That was also the reason, along with a TON of suppression by the PTBs, that the protests died out with the ending of the war. Some folks made the connection between the system of capitalism and Vietnam, but most just saw it as their government trying to kill them. Until you understand the connection between the system that controls the government, you're going to blame the puppet rather than the puppeteer. Which is why the Teabaggers are so anti-government. They are mostly Boomers who never made that connection between the puppet and puppeteer, so they just regurgitate that distrust of government that they learned in the 60s. And yes, there's a healthy dose of racism involved too.

One difference now is that more of today's activists actually DO make that connection. Most still believe it's a matter of lack of "regulation" or big money "corruption" of the system, which is bullshit of course, but at least now days most people understand who the puppets are and who are the puppeteers. To me that's a positive and an advance over the 60s. What's not an advance, is the lack of the mass of people who are directly affected protesting. Things will have to get worse before you reach the point where there are mass demonstrations. Americans are not only lazy, but also highly propagandized (not surprising since this country has been the epitome of capitalism for at least a century), so they have got to be directly affected in a SERIOUSLY life threatening way (like a war) before they will do anything. It hasn't got that bad yet.

[scarletwoman]

108. Speaking as someone born in 1949, I say no, not even a bit.

I graduated from HS in '67. I remember the 60s well. There is absolutely nothing in air now that resembles what was in the air back then. Nothing.

What was in the air in the 60s was hope and excitement and a splendid belief in the power of love, a belief in possibilities, a belief in freedom, a feeling of determination and a feeling of joy and empowerment in that determination. There was a feeling of mass rising up, and faith in the power of that rising up.

Faith, hope, and love - those were the forces that moved us in the 60s - not confined to just the religious sense of those words, although that religious sense was most certainly encompassed in the Civil Rights movement.

We had faith in the inevitability of social and spiritual progress. We had hope for the triumph of true humanity over war and hatred. And we were fired with the power of love - love of truth, love of justice, love of beauty, love of free expression, love for the greater world.

The 60s was a wave of light passing through millions of hearts. There's nothing like that now. Now, there's only impotent anger, frustration, seething resentment, apathetic resignation or accomodation as a means of self-preservation.

There's no overwhelming will to agitate. No sense of solidarity. No love, no joy.

[Riftaxe]

109. Was there a bellbottom jeans sighting

that i missed?

[Iggo]

110. I was too young then to fully understand what was going on..,

....but I do remember how it felt.

And this ain't it.

[BlueToTheBone]

112. No. It reminds me of the early 30s when there

was some money and lots of fascism and racism around the world. There was fear everywhere and there was no hope. I know that's our motto, but there is very little hope and the widespread use of meth is symptom of that.

No, we actually (foolishly) thought we had a chance. But we were politically naive and we failed and here we are, smack dab in the middle of the belly of the beast.

[School Teacher]

113. No, It is Sadly Very Different.

No. Back then we read serious books and good literature and were interested in important ideas and the philosophical underpinnings of why things were the way they were. We had broad cultural education with a lot of History, Literature, Science and Substance. We were serious. We did serious political work without benefits of internet and cell phones. We toiled in the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti War Movement. As a working class girl I did all these things and worked my way through college and it took a long time. I never owned a car or expensive toys. I took the bus.

We didn't dress like prostitutes or have tatoos. We respected ourselves and how we spent our time. We didn't sit around drinking our way through college and spending too much while playing board games, and we were not mesmerized by sports events and banal popular culture and we had good manners. We were not selfishly focused on discovering our inner selves. Sorry about the rant, kids, but you all are going to have to wake up and stop goofing around if we are to take control of the monster our country has become.

[olddots]

117. world population in 1967 under 3.5 billion

world population 2013 7 billion plus ad in robotics and other labor saving devices .A planet plundered by pollution ---the list goes on

[bemildred]

120. Mid to late 60s, I'd say. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

123. That is pretty accurate bemildred....

now that I think of it. More mid than late though. The late 60s was when it really started bubbling over. The mid 60s was before it really caught on. There was a sense of the cusp of change, but the change hadn't really kicked in yet.

[kentuck]

124. I think that is probably the most accurate.

From my recollections.

[bemildred]

125. I was there. I agree, more mid than late. Just warming up the engines still.

Plenty of violence going on already though, and clearly the loons are loose in the government again.

But lots of differences too, you know it will be a lot different in the details. The millennials, bless their hearts, have the same spirit, but they live in a much different world.

[JoePhilly]

126. Were people in coffee shops using the free wifi to post

on internet forums back then?

[1-Old-Man]

127. Nope, in fact just the opposite. Back then they actually talked to each other face to face

You do not need WiFi to talk to the guy and gal at the next table. Interesting concept, no?

[truebluegreen]

132. No.

I was hopeful in the mid-sixties and many things seemed possible. By the time of the election in '68 that had changed, and I've been on the defensive ever since.

Booting that prick Nixon out of office was soul-satisfying...right up until Ford "pardoned" him for crimes he hadn't been charged with yet. That, for me, marked the beginning of the end of the rule of law in this country.

But the younger generation does give me hope, I just wish their challenges were not so many and so big.

[PlanetBev]

134. Not even remotely

I am 62 and I am in the depth of despair about what I'm witnessing in this country. I'm watching as religious fanatics are running the country, all the reforms of the 60's are being undone. I see a lack of compassion, a lack of discourse, and a Civil War mentality.

To me, it's like watching the rise of Nazi Germany.

[malthaussen]

138. A sort-of related question.

Another thread was polling DU members for age, and not too surprisingly, most of the respondees are Boomers. Or maybe it is surprising.

I wonder, if we had had an internet and DU in the late 60's, how many people in their 20s would be members? Given that the children of the Boomers comprise a rather large demographic themselves, where are they all? It does make one wonder if the worries about apathy are not so far out after all.

-- Mal