Introduction to Part 2 (1 of 2)

In my “outline of posts” page I say this: “The reading and thinking about our polity and society that I have undertaken the last couple of years has made me believe that our current times are significantly precarious, more so than the mid-1960s to the early 1970s. I have gone from a simplistic and perhaps naïve optimism about our country to a view that is at best minimally pessimistic.”

Several considerations generated my move from optimism to at best minimally pessimistic. I now briefly recount these considerations as an introduction to part 2 of my posts, although I have already made a few entries into the second part of my posts’ schema.

I see the 1970s as an inflection point in our society and polity. I believe decisions and ideas promoted by people generated this inflection point. Decisions and ideas also, in my opinion, generated the reinforcing themes that occurred in the 1980s through today. This may be the main reason why I now believe the leadership I taught was too instrumental, perhaps too short-sighted and narrow.

I am not suggesting the existence of a small elite cadre who carefully crafted and implemented an overall strategy. Rather, many people and organizations gradually came to believe it was necessary to move our society and polity in a different direction. A direction much more to their liking and comfort than the 1960s. This occurred not through a singular orchestration of a very small number of people and organizations. Rather, it occurred because many people sought a similar outcome, a similar direction. They used their resources interdependently to move in parallel direction toward very similar objectives. The whole of Part I of my blog attempts to provide a detailed genealogical outline of how this significant change in direction occurred.

One label or term can not effectively describe this movement. Several that I would use include libertarian, neoconservative, neoliberal, and radical right. Unfortunately, these terms are heavily value-laden. If you are happy, pleased with the polity and society we now live in you may see these terms positively. If you are unhappy, displeased with where we are now, you may see these terms negatively.

Certainly the chaos of the mid- and late ’60s help fuel this change in direction. The urban/civil disorders/riots; the heated protests over the Vietnam War; the whole counterculture movement that generated disrespect for authority and dramatic changes in sexual mores and drug use; a militant feminism; the assassinations Martin Luther King and the Kennedys; and forced busing generated in many an anxious uncertainty, perhaps even a fear, of where the country might be going.

During this time (1965 to 1975), I was at a university. First in Syracuse, then in Pittsburgh, and then in Tampa. I remember the riots in Pittsburgh, which occurred right at the border of the campus, and the overwhelming force of the law enforcement positioned in that area. For several days, not much movement occurred; most people kept their heads down. I often reflect on how well the Tom Wolfe’s phrase “mau-mauing the flak-catchers” suited these times. I also remember being involved for a year or two after the riots with a mixture of whites, blacks, and other ethnic groups to determine how to improve conditions in the black neighborhood called the Hill District. At no time did I feel threatened or nor did I believe any kind of revolution or major change was occurring or about to occur.

Fast-forward a bit to the mid ’80s to the mid ’90s. I remember talking with people who had been very active in the counterculture/protest movement of the ’60s and ’70s who now held mid-level or senior positions in government, nonprofits, and the private sector. While these people, might dress a bit more casually or act more informally than their elders, they were all normal people, like everyone else. Their 1960s’ anger and angst quickly evaporated as they became older. Some were conservatives and Republicans, some were liberals and Democrats, and some were not particularly interested in politics.

I say all this to note that all the protests, militancy, and counterculture behavior quickly softened and pretty much dissipated. It deflated perhaps more quickly than it arose. Perhaps the late ’60s and early ’70s most lasting effects were equal rights for women and environmentalism. To this day, I believe that if the Vietnam War had not started or had been terminated quickly and if the assassinations had not occurred, little counterculture activism would have happened.

The “long ’60s” ended much more in a whimper than a bang. However, the inflection point changes of the ’70s had significant lasting power because of their interrelated and parallel focus. And because they were built upon, nurtured, reinforced, and adapted in the following decades.

One possible lesson I draw from this: generating an alternative set of circumstances to today’s environment may take time and perseverance. I say this as someone who is not comfortable with where we are today. It may be the case (who knows?) that the years 2018 – 2024 may be comparable, albeit much quieter, to the years 1968 – 1974. And that 2030 may be much like 1980 as a new direction, a different polity and society, one hopefully much better, takes root. If so, it will not be easy or quick. And this is one reason for my move from optimism to pessimism. I am unsure if those who desire change understand how powerful the opposition change is and how difficult the challenge for change may be.