A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 10, 2005Is the Counterculture Republican?Here is a fascinating article in The Atlantic that interviews the authors of a book called "Nation of Rebels." The theme of the authors is that the 60's counterculture, which was intended to be a way of getting away from capitalism, has devolved into just a form of "competitive consumption" that has actually helped promote capitalism and made leftist politics irrelevant in this country. Essentially, their argument is that the counterculturalists weren't really dropping out of society so much as promoting an alternative society with its own status symbols and codes. This made it prime targets for capitalism, which adopted many of the countercultural icons and turned them into mainstream consumer items (Birkenstocks anyone?). The authors call themselves "lefitsts" although they seem to be more traditional liberals than they are radicals. They make several interesting points, including: (1) the counterculture was essentially a search for status on the part of radicals that substituted alternative forms of consumptions for traditional forms; (2) counterculture politics was (and remains) essentially elitist and undemocratic in that it is based on the idea that the masses are a bunch of brainwashed idiots (my term not theirs); (2) the radical critique of capitalist culture was so negative that it made it impossible for leftists to pursue actual political reform. (They take a shot at Michael Moore in this regard.) I think it's an interesting perspective. I have always believed, as I think the authors do too, that radical leftist politics has always been essentially elitist and anti-democratic. The counterculture, as the quote above points out, was more about the desire of radicals to portray themselves as superior to others than it was about serious political reform. And the critique was so pessimistic that it led and still leads to exaggerations about the evils of society that does nothing except make political action seem pointless. From a contemporary standpoint, the sixties still haunt the Democratic Party, in part because the countercultural left created an association that the Democrats have not been able to get rid of. And, interestingly, as the authors point out, it gave "politics" a bad name among the left, which preferred to drop out of the system. At the same time, conservatives did not drop out, worked to organize and build up conservative networks and now dominate the system. Posted by Marc W. Schneider at June 10, 2005 11:36 AM Comments
"They came to Woodstock a generation, they left a market" Posted by: Rick DeMent at June 10, 2005 12:17 PMThe Democrats never embraced the 'radical countercultural left' to the same extent as the Republicans have now embraced the 'radical religious right.' Why do you suppose that Democrats have been so tarred by that association? My suspicion is that it has more to do with the dominance over the last two decades of right wing talk radio and other partisan Republican megaphones than with any reality. Posted by: Ben Brackley at June 10, 2005 04:46 PMOh, sure, it's a conspiracy. As someone at the tail end of the boomers and ahead of th gen x wave, I'm pretty sure that people in the boomer demographic who vote democratic associate strongly with the liberal notions of the 60s generation, even if the democratic party, as manifested by its leaders, didn't embrace it quite as strongly. Besides, what's the point of claiming that republicans are somehow more guilty, as usual? just letting us know you're a troll? Posted by: bk at June 10, 2005 05:34 PMDavid Brooks has a similar thesis in his very amusing "Bobos In Paradise." Posted by: Oberon at June 12, 2005 12:39 PMHaving been a student during the prime years of the counterculture, and having known a number of at least regionally prominent radicals, I have a few observations: 1. In the early years (mid-1960s) the counter culture was essentially an upper-middle class bohemianism with little political content. 2. Simultaneously, the "New Left" was emerging from the "Old Left") defined by opposition to capitalism. This is the time before the Vietnam War was a large issue, the time of the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley. Prominent figures in this left, Mario Savio, Tom Hayden, etc. were either children of the upper middle and upper classes at elite private and public universities, or red diaper babies. Often, they were both, especially in California where there were many children of those who had been in Hollywood. 3. I was in San Francisco during the "Summer of Love" (1967) and can attest that there was virtually no real political activism among the counterculture types who flocked to the city. The only politicization at that point was hostility to the police for enforcing laws against drugs, nudity, and the like. It really was about drugs, sex, and rock and roll. You had to be there. 4. Opposition to the Vietnam War (and fear of the draft) really drove the integration of the New Left and the counterculture. The New Left (think SDS, etc.) really were elitists, and thoroughly anti-democratic as they viewed themselves as some sort of vanguard of the proletariat. Democratic rhetoric abounded, however. 5. Between 1966 and about 1970, being both (mildly) countercultural and to the left of the Democratic party (mostly because the Democrats were running the war most of that time) became "cool" -- that is, the most popular kids, the most attractive girls, etc. at the better colleges were those who did some drugs (but not too much), took off their bras, enjoyed their newfound "freedom" from parental restraint, and became 'radical', encouraged by hip radical younger junior faculty, commited leftists who had recently come out of the graduate schools. All of a sudden, the military was out, fraternities and sororities were out, athletics were out. The best analogy I can think of is Paul Hazard's comment in The Crisis of the European Mind 1685-1715, when he described the transformation of French thought during that 30 year period something like 'it was as if the average educated Frenchman went to bed thinking like Bossuet and woke up thinking like Voltaire'. Posted by: CatoRenasci at June 15, 2005 09:37 AM
Posted by: Marc at June 15, 2005 02:17 PM
|
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
