Not a bad job, actually: you raise some decent points, but the structure and primary thrust are all wrong.
First, I have no need or desire to argue at this time over which side was "right" and which side was "wrong" during the conflicts of the '60s. That is not germane to the issue. The weak point in your version of history lies here:
We actually know what happens when the OP viewpoint becomes pervasive, and begins to seriously vie with the PM viewpoint. We tried it in the post- War period, especially during what are called the 60s
You are casting the turmoil of the '60s as a conflict between those who had values and morals and those who did not. I would challenge that assumption, and suggest that people of both types were to be found on both sides of those political equations. The conflict was between several divergent sets of morals and principles, not between the principled and the unprincipled. Note that there is no need for me to demonstrate that one side was superior to the other. To reduce your argument, I need only demonstrate that people driven by principles and morals existed on both sides of the conflicts. Would you really want to argue otherwise?
You do realize that in your picture, Dick Nixon was a champion of principles and morals, while Martin Luther King was devoid of either.
I would also suggest that the triumph of Reagan was hardly a victory for morals and principles; in fact that administrations moral compass, at least where public policy was concerned, was as thoroughly askew as that of Clinton. It takes a really exceptional degree of moral relativism, or at least an exceptional capacity for self-deception, to praise and support those agitating for democracy in one part of the world while cheerfully and willingly subsidizing their torture and slaughter in other parts of the world.
It is possible to be concise without being simplistic.
The period we refer to generically as "the '50s", though it actually encompasses the late '40s and early '60s as well, was dominated by the memories of depression and war. It is hardly surprising that a generation shaped by those massive disruptions should have retreated to the simple rewards of hearth and home, friends and family, and raised normalcy and traditional moral principle to the status of supreme virtues. Nothing could have been more natural.
Things change, though. In this case there were three main drivers of change. First was an unprecedented economic and technological expansion, building mobility, communication, access to information, prosperity. Second was a demographic shift, seeing the country move from a population based dominantly in small to medium towns and rural areas to one dominated by urban and suburban residents. The third was the arrival of a generation that had not been shaped by war and depression.
The rebellion against the conformity of the '50s was as predictable as the elevation of normalcy during the '50s. Pendulums swing, such is their nature. Lives tailored to a rigid standard of perfection by parents were seen by children as stifling, controlled, robotic. The elevation of moral principle created a situation where sanctimony made natural imperfection look like hypocrisy and betrayal. Young people saw the imperfections - racism, the subjugation of women, the rape of the environment to feed rampant consumerism, a war they believed to be unjust, a government that lied repeatedly to justify that war - and interpreted them as evidence that the same generation that had drilled moral principles into their heads had been flaunting those same principles all along. This interpretation was in some degree correct and in some degree not; it existed nonetheless.
Some responded by rebelling against moral principle of any kind. Some shut the doors and windows and took refuge in tuning out. Others adopted a moral code in many ways stricter than those of their parents. In many ways it was impossibly and impractically strict. This group – the activists – actually succeeded in imposing many of their ideas on public policy, particularly during the national trauma that accompanied the retreat from a war that was finally acknowledged to be unwinnable. Many of these policies were as impractical and unrealistic as the moral ideas that guided them, and ended up being rescinded when the inevitable swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. Others are still with us today, and in many cases we are better off for them.
All societies change, unless they are dead. The dynamics of change are fairly consistent. Ideas emerge, often driven by technological advances. Those who adopt the new ideas come into conflict with those enamored of the old. Extreme positions develop on both sides. Conflict ensues. If the society is strong, it survives the conflict, and the resolution of the conflict produces changes that were often not anticipated by either side.
Every society needs liberals, and radicals, to keep it changing, keep it alive. Every society needs conservatives, and reactionaries, to control the pace of change and prevent enthusiasm – change for the sake of change – from producing changes that prove to be destructive. The trick lies in managing conflict and directing the process toward a constructive goal.
The suggestion that either side has a corner on morals and principles is simplistic and, in my opinion, a bit on the dim side.
It is Saturday morning here; we go to the river. I may not be back until Monday, and at the current posting rate, this will be ancient history by then. If life makes me untimely, so be it; I have priorities other than SI. Where quality of writing and thinking are concerned, perhaps we shall let the readers decide. |
