In The 1960's We Marched For A Reason

nephilimiyr

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
Jan 21, 2003
23,432
1,799
60
Wausau Wisconsin
Visit site
✟40,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/.../ixopinion.html


In the 1960s, we marched for a reason
By Janet Daley

(Filed: 01/09/2004)


I watched Michael Moore's buffoon-ish reaction when he was attacked by John McCain at the Republican convention, over and over again yesterday.

Fox News showed it repeatedly, probably figuring that the sight of Moore behaving like a snotty 10-year-old defying the headmaster was the best gift the anti-war movement had presented to George W Bush since Howard Dean's "I Have a Scream" speech. (The BBC, which also ran it time after time, was presumably just overcome with admiration.)

And as I watched this puerile performance from a man who is regarded as the spiritual leader of American, and now British, conscientious protest, I thought "Has it come to this?" Is this how it ends, the great modern tradition of American dissidence launched by my generation of students in the 1960s?

In my day, protesters were mostly bearded, lithe and sensitive. Now they are bearded, fat and smug. Back then, demonstrators had firehoses directed at them, not fawning television interviewers. Did you see those jolly marchers in New York, staging their anti-Bush carnival of absolutely safe, no-risk, self-congratulatory dissent?

When we marched against the Vietnam War, and the young men among us publicly burnt their draft cards, we could expect real punishment and victimisation, not lionisation by the Cannes Film Festival. The draft-defying men were committing a federal crime and risking imprisonment. Some of them had to live in exile in Canada for years - a truly awesome punishment - as the price of their youthful conscience.

But the biggest difference between then and now, of course, is that we marched against our government when it supported dictators, not when it removed them. The logic of the anti-Vietnam War movement was that America, in its ferocious determination to hold back the spread of communism, was prepared to back the tyrannical Diem regime in South Vietnam even to the extent of thwarting democratic elections when they threatened to put communists into power.

Our complaint was that America's foreign policy was deeply hypocritical and self-serving: committed unswervingly to democracy and liberty at home, while supporting any murderous despot abroad who was prepared to be "our son of a *****" rather than the other side's. The ultimate paradox is that the country that still behaves in this way - prepared to do business with pretty much any murderous regime or criminal dictator who will cater to its interests - is France: the nation that today's anti-war protesters regard as the epitome of wisdom and restraint.

But the "warmonger" Bush, supported by the "liar" Blair, is doing precisely the opposite in Iraq, where a peculiarly vicious tyrant has been overthrown and subsequently arrested with due legal process, in the hope - idealistic and even naïve, perhaps, but unquestionably sincere - of introducing democracy and freedom to his country.

As John McCain said in his speech to the convention, Saddam's regime was based on torture and indescribable cruelty: a fact that Moore's anti-Bush propaganda film utterly ignores. So wherever this generation of refuseniks is coming from, it certainly isn't where we were in the 1960s.

But we, alas, are the historical model for what constitutes glamorous rebellion. Stirred by a half-baked, half-understood fixation with what our generation did and said, comfortable self-satisfied liberals can talk the talk, knowing that, 40 years down the line, they will lose nothing by it.

Whatever the political or legal, or even tactical, arguments against the invasion of Iraq might have been, how can anyone in his right mind equate what America intended there with its shameless support for Third World gangster regimes half a century ago? Even the scandals of the Iraqi occupation - such as Abu Graib prison - are footling by comparison to the dropping of napalm on civilians as routinely happened in Vietnam. How has the logic of protest become so inverted, and the language of condemnation so debased?

Is there something about the conformist culture and predictable prosperity of American life that makes rebellion so attractive that everybody wants to find a pretext in his own time? Since the 1960s, is this simply the way to be young and smart and fashionable?

Perhaps you think I am being too dismissive, too reluctant to admit that people I disagree with could be perfectly sincere and committed. Maybe. But there is something about the tone, something about the mood and manner of this movement, that strikes me as unauthentic and second-hand. Like Moore's response to John McCain's criticism, it is somehow unserious and babyish. Which does not stop it from having profound effects.

In America, politics is often (by British standards especially) childish and simplistic and, considering how little actual policy difference there is between the parties, remarkably partisan and nasty.

This may have something to do with the fact that America takes political power, and its own institutions, very seriously and that running the United States really puts you in charge of the world.

But whatever it is, American politicians visiting here are struck by the good-natured, benign parochialism of our debates. I remember one Democrat coming here in the early 1970s, at a time when America was tearing itself to pieces over Vietnam. Edward Heath and Harold Wilson were embroiled in an election campaign that revolved around the cost of food. "It's fantastic," said the American enviously. "You've got guys arguing about the price of eggs."

I thought of that yesterday when I turned back to the British news channels, where the lead story was the failure of Royal Mail to meet any of its targets on postal delivery. Happy is the land whose biggest concern is whether the post arrives in one day or three.
 

Glaz

Obama '08
Jun 22, 2004
6,233
552
✟24,137.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Is there something about the conformist culture and predictable prosperity of American life that makes rebellion so attractive that everybody wants to find a pretext in his own time? Since the 1960s, is this simply the way to be young and smart and fashionable?
I wonder that myself. Perhaps its just 'hip' to protest now, not that there aren't legitimate reasons to protest these days, but alot of it comes off more as trying to relive the '60s than anything else. Maybe I'm wrong though. As long as they don't hurt anyone or destroy any property, protest all you want IMO. Just do it because you actually care about the issue, not just to be cool.
 
Upvote 0

Borealis

Catholic Homeschool Dad
Dec 8, 2003
6,906
621
53
Barrie, Ontario
✟10,009.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
CA-Conservatives
burrow_owl said:
*yawn*

I'll bet they had to walk uphill both ways to the protest, too.

Ten miles, through snow. You forgot that part.

The article makes a lot of sense, though. Let's face it; the people protesting today aren't even paying attention to what they're protesting about. Some people were holding up signs that opposed the draft. What draft?

There's only one party talking about bringing back the draft, and it's not the Republicans. So these protestors outside the RNC are complaining about something that has nothing to do with the Bush administration. Do they care? No; they're just protesting because they have nothing else to do. Seriously; how many of those people have anything else to do besides protest? Why aren't they at work? Why aren't they getting ready for school? Are they all independently wealthy?

As for the post previous to yours...a one-sentence rebuttal isn't much, is it? Why don't you actually discuss the article and demonstrate why the author is wrong in her beliefs? Or is it easier to just smugly dismiss the argument?
 
Upvote 0

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
PatrickM said:
I wonder, are these fanatical protesters actually helping the Democrats? I mean, I don't see any pro-Kerry supporters out there, just anti-Bush ones.

Do the mainstream Dems really want to be associated with these radicals?

it's hundreds of thousands of voices. they represent the mainstream.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PatrickM

What? You're not a Fightin' Irish fan????
Jan 8, 2004
1,748
85
68
Utah now!
✟9,870.00
Faith
Non-Denom
datan said:
it's hundreds of thousands of voices.
Hundreds of thousands? Source please.
they represent the mainstream.
Really? Does that include the 1,500 arrests, and the poor plain-clothes policeman kicked unconscious?
 
Upvote 0

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
PatrickM said:
Hundreds of thousands? Source please.

NYTimes: a police officer at a command centre estimated the protest at half a million strong. Even if he's off by a factor of two, that's still at least 200,000 people.


Really? Does that include the 1,500 arrests, and the poor plain-clothes policeman kicked unconscious?

many of the arrests are for civil disobedience, non-violence etc. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of the arrests.
As for the poor policeman, yes, it happened, but what's your point? All protesters are like that? One protester out of hundreds of thousands is like that?
 
Upvote 0

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
Bronco said:
Actually the "Mainstream" is at work on most weekdays during the day, and do not take time off to march down the street with a sign. I do not think the protesters represent the "Mainstream".

Yeah well, maybe that's why the march took place on a Sunday.
 
Upvote 0

Bronco

Active Member
Dec 10, 2003
37
9
55
Lamar, Colorado
✟198.00
Faith
Christian
Point well taken regarding the Sunday march :thumbsup: . However I think that one went off with very few arrests or disturbances. I have no problems with the folks marching, but the more radical protests occurring during the convention, where arrests have been made and people assaulted, are far from representing the mainstream in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
Bronco said:
Point well taken regarding the Sunday march :thumbsup: . However I think that one went off with very few arrests or disturbances. I have no problems with the folks marching, but the more radical protests occurring during the convention, where arrests have been made and people assaulted, are far from representing the mainstream in my opinion.

yeah I agree.
Most of the people doing the more 'unusual' stuff have a more radical agenda.

But I do believe that tomorrow's candlelight vigil (which I'm planning to attend) when Bush does his inauguration address would appeal to the more mainstream crowd once again. I only hope Union Square would be able to hold everyone.
 
Upvote 0

Firscherscherling

Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
Apr 9, 2003
2,354
148
58
✟3,271.00
Faith
Atheist
Borealis said:
Ten miles, through snow. You forgot that part.

The article makes a lot of sense, though. Let's face it; the people protesting today aren't even paying attention to what they're protesting about. Some people were holding up signs that opposed the draft. What draft?

There's only one party talking about bringing back the draft, and it's not the Republicans. So these protestors outside the RNC are complaining about something that has nothing to do with the Bush administration. Do they care? No; they're just protesting because they have nothing else to do. Seriously; how many of those people have anything else to do besides protest? Why aren't they at work? Why aren't they getting ready for school? Are they all independently wealthy?

As for the post previous to yours...a one-sentence rebuttal isn't much, is it? Why don't you actually discuss the article and demonstrate why the author is wrong in her beliefs? Or is it easier to just smugly dismiss the argument?
I see no argument. I just see mouth foaming.

I can't figure out if you are just pretending to not know about the issues or the protests, or if you actually beleive what you are saying. I can't imagine it, but maybe you are actually serious.

"Why aren't they at work?" "Don't they have anything else to do?" Hmm. How silly, IMO. I admire the peaceful protesters for taking time from their daily lives to spend a day or two in New York speaking out against what they see as a terrible administration. I admire the Republican protesters for taking time out during the Democratic convention. But I guess for you, them taking a day or two off must mean they are deabeat criminals with nothing better to do, right? When I see protests on this scale, I think, "Woah. Something is definitely wrong with this administration."

And you should do a bit of reading up on what the protesters mean when they say "draft". This is simple current events, people. Do some reading for Pete's sake.
 
Upvote 0

xMinionX

Contributor
Dec 2, 2003
7,828
461
✟18,028.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm just gonna write as I read here....

In my day, protesters were mostly bearded, lithe and sensitive. Now they are bearded, fat and smug.
Nice... We start off with a blatant ad-hominem. Good sign...

When we marched against the Vietnam War, and the young men among us publicly burnt their draft cards, we could expect real punishment and victimisation, not lionisation by the Cannes Film Festival.
Why do I get the feeling that this man thinks that the protests are really just an army of 200,000 Michael Moore clones? Really, I feel like he associates the entire movement with him.

But the "warmonger" Bush, supported by the "liar" Blair, is doing precisely the opposite in Iraq, where a peculiarly vicious tyrant has been overthrown and subsequently arrested with due legal process, in the hope - idealistic and even naïve, perhaps, but unquestionably sincere - of introducing democracy and freedom to his country.

As John McCain said in his speech to the convention, Saddam's regime was based on torture and indescribable cruelty: a fact that Moore's anti-Bush propaganda film utterly ignores. So wherever this generation of refuseniks is coming from, it certainly isn't where we were in the 1960s.
Oh, calling people on leaving out facts, are we? Weapons of Mass Destruction comes to mind. I see you're leaving out the fact that that's the entire reason we went to war in the first place.

Stirred by a half-baked, half-understood fixation with what our generation did and said, comfortable self-satisfied liberals can talk the talk, knowing that, 40 years down the line, they will lose nothing by it.
Is protest supposed to be a trial by fire? Should we all have to go under the hose to speak our minds? It sure sucks that you got the dogs released on you, but that doesn't make it right.

But there is something about the tone, something about the mood and manner of this movement, that strikes me as unauthentic and second-hand. Like Moore's response to John McCain's criticism, it is somehow unserious and babyish.
The tone? Oh, please. You claim we're nostalgic for the '60s, but you're the one holding it up to be the model of civil disobedience. You're bothered by 'the tone' because it's not like your protests. It's different, and therefore bad.

And Moores response... what would you expect him to do? Sit there and look grumpy? Or maybe laugh and show that he doesn't care what John McCain thinks. Personally, I find his response more mature.

Oof. Garbage.... :sick:

(note: When I say 'you,' I'm responding to the author, not the OP... just to avoid sounding overly confrontational)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Why?

"Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself"
Jul 16, 2004
1,702
101
45
✟9,927.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
xMinionX said:
It's different, and therefore bad.
I thought that was one of the Republican party's mottos...:scratch:

Anyway, back to the OP. I agree (with someone else who replied) that having that many people show up to protest should set some warning bells off for those 'on the fence'. That this many people showed up to protest the people 'in charge', don't you think that it's time for a change?

I applaude the people who went to speak out against something that they think is corrupt!:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0