What a Drag it is Getting Old
Fans of the Rolling Stones should recognize the title of this post, from the song, “Mother’s Little Helper.” Of course, the Stones are now old enough to actually be the parents of the middle age mothers who are addicted to little yellow pills. And naturally, many of their fans, who once protested the Vietnam War, have aged right along with them, as freelancer Jack Langer illustrates, with a wink and a nod, in his post about last weekend’s Iraq war protests, published yesterday at Human Events.
I smiled, even chuckled, at the first half of Langer’s article. (Yes, however rare it might be, some conservatives have a sense of humor.) But when he moved from witticisms about aging Hippies to social commentary, he lost me, especially with claims like this one: “… the attempt to make the current war into a replay of Vietnam is failing quite dramatically. What’s missing is the key element that provoked many of the old radicals to oppose the Vietnam War in the first place: the draft. ”
And this one: “What do the old radicals have left to offer the youth? Socialism. One can understand the attraction of this credo back in the 1960s, when its American adherents only had the millions of victims of the Soviet regime to contradict their assertion that socialism would provide a positive alternative to capitalism. But now, we know of the atrocities of a whole new set of postwar socialist regimes … as well as the final collapse of most socialist governments and the turn toward capitalism of nearly all the remaining socialist regimes. Younger activists may have the Iraq War to fight against, but they need something to fight for – and with socialism, their older role models are not offering them anything appealing.”
First, I don’t think it’s “the radicals” who are attempting “to make the current war into a replay of Vietnam.” I think certain neocons and their failure to manage the war have succeeded, all on their own, at prompting those comparisons.
Second, socialism and communism are not necessarily synonymous, despite Langer’s attempts to make them so, nor do the more extreme strands of socialism have any real political traction in this country. Moreover, let’s not forget that the current Republican administration has far outpaced the prior Democratic administration in embracing socialist-style programs and the flagrant spending and arrogant inflation of federal government control that often accompany them.
If we want to find the “younger” protesters/radicals, no, we probably won’t find them gathering on the Mall in Washington, but we will find them swarming online with a reach and level of authority that dwarfs any physical swarm of our time. Granted, I wrote a post a few days ago questioning their impact. Subsequently, I heard a presentation by a former client-turned-counselor who has studied the Web 2.0 world far more thoroughly than most of us, and he illustrated, in both numbers and anecdotes, just how substantive the effect of Web pamphleteers can be, proving Glenn Reynolds’ thesis: “Bloggers have very little power. What they have is influence.”
Finally, regarding Langer’s other suggestion, that today’s young protesters are against the war in Iraq but don’t yet stand for something, again I have to disagree. Though I can’t yet prove it, I think they have found something to stand for, with or without the prodding of prior generations, namely: sanity, fairness, and balance between the divisive extremes that have defined their predecessors. And that’s why, I think, their heroes are frequently named Clinton and Schwarzenegger and Giuliani, rather than Hoffman and Leary and Fonda.
(Cross-posted at Central Sanity.)
7 Responses to “What a Drag it is Getting Old”
[...] And naturally, many of their fans, who once protested the Vietnam War, have aged right along with them, as freelancer Jack Langer illustrates, with a wink and a nod, in his post about last weekend s Iraq war protests, … – Read More – [...]
You are joking, I presume, when you said:
Perhaps you hadn’t heard about the spraypainting of The Capitol?
I live in DC, and I occasionally suffer through the various marches and protests of all stripes. This particular issue (anti-war protests) gathers folks with all kinds of signs (including lots of ANSWER and other Socialist groups) who seem to only agree on the fact that they don’t like President Bush.
Many of those who pass for conservative Republicans now have a hard time distinguishing between Communism, socialism and a belief that government social programs are necessary.
Actually, I was under the distinct impression that a lot of Conservative Republicans also aren’t too crazy about President Bush right now. Conservative ideology does preach balanced budgets, not monumental debt. And I don’t think they are crazy about paying for Bush’s war.
I am a Republican, and tend toward the Conservative side. I am a huge believer in balanced budgets, and the current administration has been a significant letdown in that regard. (Mind you, not that I think that the previous administration was better: the Clintonian surplusses were fueled by the Internet bubble, which itself was inherently a Ponzi scheme of escalating fraud. It would have collapsed eventually no matter who won in 2000).
I don’t mind paying for the military one bit – the US military is important for advancing and protecting US interests around the world, and that’s expensive. I also would not mind a specific “war tax” which could help to fund this. I am surprised that no one on either side of the aisle has thought of that…
But don’t you remember how much we were reassured by all of the President’s people that those who claimed the war would cost as much as $200 billion were just completely incorrect? Actually the idea was floated if I recall correctly…and promptly shot down by every Republican politician in sight.
Jim S- Larry Lindsay , who worked in the Treasury Dept was fired for suggesting what he thought would be the true cost of the war. It turns out his estimate was too conservative.
I’m not a conservative, but I do believe in a strong military, as long as it is always used as a last resort, and used only for tasks that they are trained to do.
I don’t believe that is what happened in Iraq. I think the handwriting was on the wall back in 1998, when members of the PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton, urging regime change in Iraq. Among the signees? Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. 9/11 was just the excuse, which is why they tried to get the intelligence committee to tie Iraq in with 9/11. The military has been used in Iraq for nation-building, a task for which they are very poorly trained.