I just finished Tim Sandlin’s 2007 novel, Jimi Hendrix Turns Eighty. A quick summary, taken from Amazon.com:
It’s 2022, and Guy Fontaine, a widower from Oklahoma, finds himself committed to a California old-folks facility where the flamboyant residents have reverted to the pursuits of their glory days, the late 1960s. Pot smoking, group sex, a rock band called Acid Reflux, cliques formed according to where you were during the Summer of Love, and the motto “don’t trust anyone under sixty” all make for a wild, sometimes grotesque milieu overseen by a bitchy director who treats the oldsters like idiot children and a staff doctor who overmedicates them. When Guy inadvertently jump-starts an insurrection, the old hippies, old hands at civil disobedience, take over the compound.
While the book is pretty fun, I’d rate it with 2 1/2 stars out 4. Still, I found myself rivited near the end of the novel, as the insurrection is winding down. There is a scene between Sioux, an elderly European American who was the catalyst for the insurrection when his forbidden cat was discovered (he adopted the name Sioux because of a family story that his very distant relative was part Sioux Indian), and Sunshine #2, an elderly woman with whom Sioux shared his only happy moment, some fifty or sixty years ago. The scene goes:
“You know what tomoorow is?” Sioux asked.
Sunshine #2 thought. “Saturday.”
“November 27. If he’d lived, tomorrow would be Jimi Hendrix’s eightieth birthday.”
Sunshine #2 took another drink. She wiped her mouth with the back of her hand. “That’s hard to wrap your mind around.”
…
“I wonder what Jimi would think of the world now, if he’d lived,” Sioux said.”
“He would be appalled. Nowadays, strangers hate each other. Normal people are mean as badgers. That’s not the Hendrix Experience.”
Sioux looked down at the lawmen and the supporters dancing around their fire and the ones who were out to get him passing a bottle around their fire. The media reporters on cell phones in the middle of the night.
“Peace and love have turned into bad jokes,” he said. “No one dreams that stiff might be real.”
Sunshine #2 threw her bottle at the klieg light, missing by a good twenty feet. She said, “The Boss Man won.”
Did the Boss Man win? Have the Sixties/Seventies consumed themselves so much as to now be a joke? What happened to the activism, the fight for progress, the sheer determination to make the world a better place? I pose this question to young Americans: Where are you and why aren’t you organizing?
There is an extreemly unpopular war going on and yet the protests I’ve seen seem to be held by the middle aged Baby Boomers. So why aren’t young Americans protesting? I’ve heard a lot of theories. Bill Maher recently asked why young Americans will wait in line for days to get the latest IPod, but can’t rally around an idea. He never really came to a conclusion.
My wife thinks it has to do with different economics. Basically, she puts forth the theory that Americans financially can’t afford to protest because they need to work and make money in order to survive. In the Sixties, she thinks, the kids were more affluent and as such were able to afford to protest. Her argument makes sense to me.
Others have suggested it has to do with bitterness toward the Vietnam protesters, a belief that they attacked Vietnam Veterans and, today, no one wants to appear anti-soldier. And of course this works with theories that many young Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that protest is, somehow, anti-American — unpatriotic.
I don’t know what the answer is. I just see such lethargy. The answer may be a combination of everything — materialism (the IPod), economics and fear of being called unpatriotic. Or it may be something else entirely.
I only wish they would start fighting for their future with as much intensity as so many of us less-young Americans have been fighting for their future.
Here’s my thought on it. I think it isn’t that young people don’t organize, it’s a matter of how they organize. You are right this generation of young advocates are not in the streets they are at the keyboard. Most young organizers (on both) sides exist within the blogosphere.
Now does that mean that young activists don’t get heard by the mainstream media and most people over 55 (those from that great protest generation, Bill Mahr included)? Probably. dose it mean they are not heard at all? absolutely not. The political parties do listen to the electronic media out there. we don’t take to the streets we take to the web.
The real problem I see with this however is that it creates communities within a bubble. if you are a left wing liberal you are most likely only going to read and support, and write left wing material. If you are a right wing gun nut you are only going to read NRA is great sites and organize E petitions for your cause. if you are centrist who likes the idea of people wearing meat for hats (http://www.hatsofmeat.com/) then thats who’ you read and write to.
the diversity of thought and dialog isn’t generated when the opposing view is not thrown in your face, which is what a physical protest does. if you are a pollitician you can just delete the e petitions of an opposing view, no one will know the wiser. don’t want to believe that people don’t agree with your ideology only visit the sites you agree with.
Sorry for the rant but this is something I have been thinking about lately and you just happened to give me an outlet.
Peace,
Freytag
Yeah, the blogosphere does seem to be the HQ for most people now. But I agree with you that it easily becomes too insular (I am as guilty of this as anyone) — too one sided.
Though, if the net is the place to be, I hope the young are there for more than porn and myspace hookups.
God, I sound old now…..
I’ll try to make it less one sided.
I’d be very interested in seeing data that shows that young people are actually less afluent than they were in the 60’s and 70’s. I highly doubt that is actually the case, in fact I’d guess they are more alfuent today by a fairly wide margin. Certainly if the problem is that we’ve taken our protesting to blogs and the internet then affluence isn’t an issue, since in order to be able to do so we need to be able to afford the internet (which isn’t any more necessary to survive than cable TV).
It could be a generaly distrust of all things political, but that’s probably my own person bias shining through.
As for the IPOD thing, well IPODS are fun and the payoff is both long and short term. Protests are generally boring and even if there is a pay off it happens a very long way down the road. Again, if the would be protestors can afford IPODs they probably aren’t suffering economically.
It could also be that the war isn’t nearly as unpopular as people think.
It’s also worth noting that the 60’s and 70’s are basically a joke at this point. Or at least the stereotypes of those decades are.
Well, it is definately possible that affluence has nothing to do with it (it is a thought, not a researched fact). As for affluence and blogs, I don’t believe I ever said one needed to be rich to afford to blog — blogs came into the discussion much later. And the affluence argument has to do more generally with all Americans rather than just young Americans. Can I prove it? Nope. If I could, I would have put it forward as the reason. Do I still think the economy has something to do with it? It’s a bet I would take.
Still, I would love to see some comparisons between college students during the Vietnam War and college students during the Iraq War. How many pay/paid their own way vs. how many do/did not. How many have/had school paid for by working/student loans vs. how many have/had it paid for by scholarships and parents. Something like that might help illuminate whether or not students then had more economic freedom to protest as opposed to having to work three jobs to afford tuition. Of course, a flat money comparison will prove little since it won’t take into account inflation, number of jobs, school workload, etc… Ultimately, it will be a difficult comparison to effectively and accurately make.
But as for the war, 69% disapproval ratings are pretty high. The midterm elections in 2006 as a referendum on Iraq also seems to support the opinion that Iraq is unpopular. The numbers of high ranking Republicans calling for a shift in policy in Iraq shows serious pressure based, it would seem, on an unpopular war. Comparing it to the protests/opinions of Vietnam, it took five years before polls showed a majority of Americans disapproving of the handling of Vietnam, and that included the influence of the draft (which if implemented today would likely take the 69% disapproval ratings and send them skyrocketing). Iraq took two years before the majority of Americans disapproved of the war and that majority has yet to change.
Define joke? Do you mean that the advances made are joke worthy or that the actions taken are joke worthy? Or that we now parody that time period? If the last, it is important to remember that everything ends up that way — everything ultimately becomes a parody of itself. Everything consumes itself. Look at 90’s grunge music. That was no joke when it began. But it quickly became nothing but a parody of itself — a joke where anyone who wanted to buy a flannel and use the word “sad” in a song got a record deal. That is the nature of all movements (political, cultural, social, etc…).
And if the actual work done in the 60s and 70s are a joke, that is a true shame.
Do you really think the economy today is significantly worse than it was in the 60’s and 70’s?
I think you missed my point about affluence and blogs. In order to blog you need an internet connection that is easily available. In order for people to read blogs they need an internet connection. If blogging, as Chris suggested, is the way activists protest, then I don’t think affluence can really be said to be an issue because of the costs necessary to both blog and participate in blogging (as both commentors and bloggers). I’m certainly willing to take your bet, I doubt lack of economic freedom has anything to do with why people don’t protest.
Is 69% high? I really have no idea. Comparing the time it took for Vietnam to become unpopular and the time it took for the Iraq war to become unpopular is pretty meaningless. Between the internet, significantly larger penetration of television, and general increases in communication things tend to happen faster now than they did then. Combine that with the fact that Vietnam did not have to live in the shadow of itself or the Watergate Scandal and I don’t really think the comparison is terribly accurate or meaningfull.
But my main point is that, while 69% is pretty high it doesn’t strike me as nearly as high as those opposed to the war make it seem. Congressional approval rates are much worse than the approval rates of the war in Iraq. Extremely unpopular? Maybe, but I’m not really convinced. Iraq is unpopular because the perception is we aren’t winning (largely the reason Vietnam was unpopluar as well). If that changes, so will the wars popularity and so will the fickle politicians pushes for shifts in policy.
It isn’t just that we parody that time period, that happens for most time periods, it’s that the time period itself has become little more than a stereotype. The advances are also joke worthy, but thats a different kind of joke were we look back at things that were allowed to happen and laugh at what would happen if someone tried that same thing today. Advances in general are obviously good things (hence the term advance). that would be true of the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and any other decade.
Well, anyone can get an internet connection for free through the public libraries. That said, I don’t know what the economy was in the 60s and 70s (which is why I said it wasn’t a researched fact and why I am as interested in data as you — I haven’t found it, though.)
One could debate if 69% is high, I guess. But, to me, it seems high. I’m not sure that :living in a shadow” is terribly meaningfull, either. Certainly, I’m not making the case that Iraq is exactly the same thing as Vietnam. However, in order to make a comparison one has to compare to something. Vietnam is the best bet since it is the other unpopular war. That things move faster now than then is likely true, but I’m not sure how meaningful that is, either.
Still, Iraq is unpopular for a lot of reason, not just because it seems we are losing. The same was true of Vietnam. Many people (I won’t say a majority because I don’t know that that is true) are upset because they see this as an unjust war, an unnecessary war, a war of agression. Still others don’t understand why we went to war in the first place. Still others understand the reasons put forward for invading Iraq but see those as unacceptable reasons. I think a lot of people are sick of American soldiers fighting halfway across the world for no apparent reason (not the argument I’m putting forth since I don’t subscribe to American isolationism). And on and on and on. The same is true of Vietnam, as well. If everything turns around in Iraq, yes the polls will change. How many people will still be opposed to the war? I don’t know. Will there be enough opposition to affect policy? I don’t know. But to say it is unpopular just because of the perception we are losing, I think, is wrong.
What things would we laugh at specifically? I can think of some. I laugh at disco. But somehow I think that isn’t what we’re talking about.
Well, there was the Korean War. Not terribly popular. The Revolutionary War was extremely unpopular, as was the Civil War. But none were as unpopular as Vietnam and it isn’t a coincidence that Vietnam is also the last time we’ve been involved in a war for any signficcant duration of time. I’d argue Vietnam (and other events that coincided or followed Vietnam, related strongly to the culture of the 60’s and 70’s) fundamentally changed the way people think about war, government and authority. Given today’s political climate I have alot of trouble imagining any popular war occuring.
The speed of information impacts the speed of our reactions to that information. Thus comparing the time it took polls to react in the 60’s and 70’s versus today can be very tricky.
Most of the reasons you listed for being against the war are all very common, and aren’t any different than the reasons many people were against WWII (and WWI, and the Korean War). We don’t belong over there, the war is unnecessary or unjust (from the Catholic perspective there have been exactly zero just wars in US history), we don’t agree with the reasons stated for going to war.
We laugh at “free love” and “hippies” which have both become caricatures of themselves. The entire counter-culture concept is essentially a punch line and even got turned into a long running TV show (That 70’s Show). The drug culture is pretty much a running punch line as well.
It’s possible the reason people protest less is that it isn’t as easy to score LSD at protests now as it was in the 60’s and 70’s. Plus the distinct lack of easy sex coming from protests may have decreased its appeal.
Certainly, very valid points and certainly because of the costs of wars (in lives, money, property, liberty), they are rarely popular. A war like the revolution would have caused conflict because, well, it was revolutionary. The civil war would, of course, be unpopular because, well, it was civil — America v. Americ. Korea and Vietnam … I see little differnec between the two so, again, no surprise there.
And arguments against wars are certainly pretty consistent. But as you said Vietnam changed everything.
A question (one to which I don’t know the answer): Was Iraq I (Persian Gulf Crisis during George H.W. Bush) unpopular? It is not a valid comparison, I know, because it was short, few American lives were lost and it was a stunning success, rhetorically, for America. But I am just curious.
But not everyone laughs at free love and hippies — That 70’s Show aside. And while That 70s Show pokes fun at the 70s, it does so with love and reverence and so to say the 60s and 70s are “basically a joke” seems an oversimplification. Do I want the U.S. to return to the culture of the 60s and 70s? No. AIDS is enough of a reason. Kent State, too. Among many others. Similarly, while the “quiet simple life” of the 50s might appeal to many, I would hope no one would want to return to a time without the civil rights movement (despite Newt Gingrich’s assertion during the ‘94 Contract With America that that was exactly what he wanted to do).
The amount of time it has taken America to turn against the Iraq War is tricky. Especially because of the new media. You said, “Between the internet, significantly larger penetration of television, and general increases in communication things tend to happen faster now than they did then.” But it would seem that would go both ways. Because while mainstream media (CNN and other TV News) may present the anti-war movement (a belief I don’t agree with but that many argue), talk radio (Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc..) forcefully argue that the war is good and going well. And then the blogs and internet are pretty even plus, as Freytag noted, are insular — people only read what they agree with. So the increases in communication, etc should create a standstill regarding the propaganda/news/blog/whatever one wants to call 21 century media.
I will also add another difference between Iraq and Vietnam that likely influences the lack of concrete, physical unrest: The Draft. Iraq is fought by a voluntary army whereas the Draft … well that made a lot of people very upset about Vietnam, especially young people who couldn’t vote until 1972 but could still be drafted.
LSD and sex may limit the appeal — but I’m not sure drugs and sex are really that harder to score. Woodstock ‘99 anyone?
An interesting follow up to the discussion regarding the popularity of the war, this from The Christian Science Moniter:
Active-duty US troops become outspoken critics of Iraq war.
Iraq I wasn’t unpopular but it was also extremely short and successfull. Had we decided to stay and depose Hussein then I expect the result, in terms of both popularity and length of conflict, would have been similar.
The lack of a draft definately buffers the current war from alot of criticsm and significantly differentiates it from Vietnam. Short of a major global conflict, a draft is essentially political death after Vietnam.
True. True.