Political and Cultural Perspectives on the 1960s - Research Paper Example

Political and Cultural Perspectives on the 1960s Ask a sampling of people and they will all have their own interpretations on exactly how things changed in the 1960s, and why. The Sixties, as it is called, represented the development of complex inter-related cultural and political trends in America and throughout the world. Used nostalgically to describe the counterculture and social revolution, it included growing libertine attitudes about sex, feminism, drugs and a variety of other social topics considered controversial then, but are now fairly established if not completely accepted norms. Along with the cultural and social changes certain “radical” political changes were also taking place. Combining the social and cultural aspects with the political movements and changes, a large segment of the population tied to a previous generation and immersed in a “nostalgic fog” (Farber 1) chose to place the entire era and its manifestations in the category of “left”—a remnant, no doubt, of the McCarthy era and its anti-communist frenzy. The results were widely held misconceptions that the entire era was somehow sponsored and promoted by communist ideals—leftist ideals. Everything connected with the era somehow had a “leftist” taint, which has, over time, produced a kind of “sixties confusion” as to what the era was, meant, and how it is to be considered in a historical timeframe. The initial reality that must be accepted is that no one group, movement—social or otherwise—defines it. However, looking at all of the actions and events that took place, there is one aspect that stands out above all. In the process of defining the era through its various groups and ideas prominent at the time, “it is important to note that problems, oppositions, conflicts, and ultimately struggle are what truly characterized the sixties”(Carter, para. 4). What is true whether we are talking about political or social movements, the younger generation’s grasp for freedom, the sexual revolution, et al, it all involved struggle from one perspective or the other: struggle for emancipation from parents and the “establishment,” struggle for civil right among minorities, struggle for equality in society and the workplace for women, or the struggle to end the Vietnam War by the anti-war movement. It was this latter movement perhaps more than any other that came to cast the “leftist” shadow on all that occurred in the sixties. The Vietnam War and Its “Leftist” Opponents Unfortunately, the legacy of the anti-war movement is that it was born and nurtured by “left leaning” radicals who did not have America’s best interests at heart. It is important to note that any reference to “leftist,” even today, uses the term as a euphemism for communism or the very least, socialism—philosophies easily despised and counter to American ideals and values. And so anyone openly espousing anti-war sentiments is automatically placed in a negative category. While the movement may have been the most successful of its type ever to appear on the American scene, and despite being credited with the government’s decision to finally end the war, most people, even those who also questioned the war, did not support the movement. It may in fact even be true that “...movement activities, especially mass demonstrations, may have retarded the growth of antiwar sentiment” (Small 1). Oddly, contrary to claims even today of “liberal” [leftist] media bias, the reality of how the movement was presented to the American people shows the extent of its complicity. “...those who reported major antiwar demonstrations concentrated on violent and radical, albeit colorful behavior on the fringes of the activity, undercounted the crowds, and ignored political arguments the protesters' leadership presented” (Small 2). Protest itself then does not appear the issue, but what one protests. For instance, no one has called the Tea Party protesters of today leftists, because they appear to be supporting “traditional” values and beliefs. This behavior is explained blythly: “Those who are less trusting of existing political institutions, or who hold more intense political views may be more likely to engage in protest” (Sherkat & Blocker 823). Interestingly, Sherkat & Blocker write, “Youths who were strong believers in the Bible as the word of God were less likely to have become involved in [anti-war] protest activities” (833), yet this same group seems to have little problem protesting abortion clinics, a cause they see as hardly leftist and consistent with American values. Sexual Freedom as the “Deviant Left” Too bad for the sixties that Marx’s comments on sex and capitalism were so clearly stated by Ollman. “The women's liberation movement has provided ample evidence to show that in our society this relationship is one of inequality, one in which the woman is used as an object, and one which does not bring much satisfaction to either party As predicted, these same qualities can be observed throughout capitalist life” (Ollman 159). It is hard to know if anyone actually charged that the sexual revolution was a leftist plot, but the cultural attitudes toward it certainly bespoke that something evil was certainly behind it all. Web sites such as Restoring America, though current, make the point as clearly today as critics did in “the day,” continuing and supporting the notion that somehow the sexual revolution is a communist plot. In this case, it rails against corporations that supposedly donate [leftist] money to gay and homosexual projects. “What’s happening in your back yard? This scenario is being played out all over America. Business profits are being used to fund many leftists groups and organizations” (Restoring America, para. 3). But perhaps the most cogent explanation of why the sixties became the target of accusations that everything which occurred was somehow leftist inspired, we must study an explanation given by a conservative writer William S. Lind regarding the Marxist underpinnings of almost everything that happened. According to Lind, cultural Marxism, a western brand better known as multiculturalism, did not begin in the 1960s but earlier in the century when communists realized economic Marxism would not succeed in Western Europe. Naming the Frankfurt School and particularly philosopher Herbert Marcuse, he points out that it was Marcuse that first, “coined the phrase “Make love, not war” (Lind, para. 10). As the main culprit in the leftist multicultural conspiracy, Marcuse translated Marxism from economic to cultural terms, focusing on a hatred of the bourgeoisie and suggesting an army consisting of “blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals” (Lind, para. 7), eerily mirroring every group taking part in the cultural and political events of the sixties. Civil Rights: A Communist Plot While most consider the civil rights outcome of the sixties to be a positive step for the U.S. in terms of race relations and equality, some, apparently, insist King was a Communist who “openly incited violence under the banner of ‘nonviolence’” (Epstein, Myth #4).  Epstein wrote: King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective" (Epstein, Myth #4). This view may not have been necessarily common. Yet the fact that Epstein incorporates in his article a call to Christians to take a stance against King and his posthumous image as an anti-communist is telling. Many in American culture, more than one might suspect, hold these types of views and undoubtedly would have been a part of the moral majority referred to by Richard Nixon. In speaking of this group Nixon intimated that the majority of people in America were against the movements of the sixties, including, of course, the anti-war movement who were regularly accused of being communist sympathizers. The leap from being a member of this group[moral majority] to believing everyone outside of it a leftist [communist] is not a long one. Conclusion Often people today speak of the sixties as a disruptive time best forgotten. The ideas and the manner they were expressed were simply too fringe, to outside of the norm, to ready to challenge an establishment with which a majority of people were then and still are comfortable and supportive. The cry today against many of President Obama’s policies is that they are leftist: too radical, too outside the norm which Americans have mentally established as such. It is not then that a person or group protests, but what they protest. And if that protest--earmark of the sixties in all of its many social, cultural and political challenges-- falls within the realm of disrupting the norm, it is automatically seen as deviant, unacceptable, leftist--the worst possible of deviant political leanings. As the sixties were generally associated with the youth culture, the idea of young people being mislead into leftist ideology by ill-meaning teachers is still very much a part of the sixties conversation. Who can forget the demonstrations at Berkeley, one of the nation’s most prestigious think tanks. Today, many who did not vote for Obama will say he was elected because of the huge black vote [surely a communist conspiracy] and by young voters who know nothing about politics and are far, far too “liberal” [a euphemism for leftist and all of its connotations] in their thinking. Even modern authors can not resist using the term when discussing the era. “...the sixties constituted a period when liberalism briefly shaped the agenda of the federal government and leftist-oriented activists challenged established cultural and political authorities...” (Farber 4). It is interesting to look at the era from two polar opposite perspectives. African Americans were thrilled with new possibilities for equality; Christian fundamentalists on the other hand saw challenges to school prayer a threat to American values. Few if any realized that the Chicago seven were far from leftists, but in fact challenging in a very overt and public way a government and establishment which had lost site of true democratic ideals. No, they were leftists trying to tear down the established order. Even today the subject of the leftist sixties persists. When the Iraq War was declared the government made certain it would be popular. We’ll have none of those left leaning protestors to take exception to this conflict. Works Cited Carter, Tracy. Defining The Sixties in America. American History in the 1960s - Groups, Organizations, and Movements. September 30, 2009. Epstein, Marcus. Myths of Martin Luther King, Jr. LewRockwell.com, 2003. Farber, David. The Sixties: From Memory to History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994. Lind, William S. Next Conservatism: What Is Cultural Marxism. October 25, 2005.  Sherkat, Darren E and Blocker, Jean T. The Political Development of Sixties' Activists: Identifying the Influence of Class, Gender, and Socialization on Protest Participation. Social Forces. 72: 3 (1994) 823. Small, Melvin. Covering Dissent: The Media and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994. Restoring America. 2006. Sexual Revolution: Where Does the Left Get Its Money? Read More