|
fostered, ironically, by many of the same once-idealists that populated the movements of the 60s. Part of why that decade appeared to be what it appeared to be is the fact that those who came of age in the 60s grew up in the "ideal" 1950s. And even the 50s, in reality, were far from ideal, the post-war years represented growth and optimism, and when that optimistic vision was unveiled--when the underbelly of racism became evident and assassinations and war tore at society's fabric, the people raised on that optimism said: "this ain't how it's going to be and we can make it better." And so you had the 60s.
Simplistic, of course, but accurate in the broad strokes. Then, you had Watergate, and Vietnam fizzled and gas prices rose and the economy stagnated and everybody stopped doing pot and acid and started snorting coke and listening to disco. And the people raised on optimism became cynical. And they also started thinking about money. And then Reagan came along, and said he could put an end to this national malaise, and the people raised on optimism, who fought in Johnson's War on Poverty and fought against Johnson's War on SE Asia and waged war against the racism of Jim Crow thought: "we can be optimistic again, and make a lot of money in the process," and so the Reagan Democrat ushered in the coked-out, greeded-up 80s. And as the sun began to set on Reagan's empire, some of those raised on optimism evolved into neocons, but many of them simply became cynics. (And some, fortunately, continue to fight for things they believe in.)
College students in the 60s honestly believed (because they had been told) they could make a difference. I work with college students, and I don't think most of them, if asked, would honestly believe they can make much of a difference on a grand scale. I don't think they've been raised to think that way.
|