Posted on 03/20/2004 8:26:56 AM PST by qam1
DALLAS -- No one can ever accuse baby boomers of having an inferiority complex. In the 1960s and early '70s, their mantra was: "Don't trust anyone over 30.'' Now it has become: "Don't listen to anyone under 40.''
As a 36-year-old, I got a taste of that this week following an appearance on National Public Radio. Invited to be a guest on "The Diane Rehm Show," I argued that the presidential election should be about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq -- not the war in Vietnam. I maintained that the personal decisions that John Kerry and George Bush made as young men are not as relevant as the political decisions the two have made since Sept. 11, 2001. And, I said, the fact that so many middle-age Americans -- in both parties -- seem intent on using this election to re-fight the Vietnam War is more evidence that the baby boom generation craves the spotlight and enjoys nothing more than talking about itself and its experiences.
That didn't go over well with another guest on the show -- David Halberstam, Pulitzer Prize-winning Vietnam-era journalist and best-selling author of The Best and the Brightest. Halberstam insists that, when it comes to Vietnam, it matters -- even now -- who went and who didn't. He said that those who went to Vietnam tended to, upon their return and for the rest of their lives, "do more reading." And become more engaged in world affairs.
I don't know about that. President Bush didn't go to Vietnam and he's not known to be much of a reader. But, after 9-11, I would say he's pretty engaged in world affairs.
Halberstam also drew comparisons between what happened in Vietnam and what is happening now in Iraq. He said there's enough "historical resonance'' between the two conflicts to "raise again the question of whether absolute American military superiority can be undermined by the political undertow of a country with a very difficult cultural, historical background'' -- one that includes having lived through a "colonial past.''
As opposed to, say, the United States, which started out as 13 colonies? As long as we're poring over history books, why not start at the beginning? Besides, does anyone out there really think that the administration set out to "colonize'' Iraq?
That's nuts. The fact that polls show a majority of Americans still support the war -- even if they question the way it has been managed -- suggests that most people see the conflict for what it is: an extension of the war on terror and an attempt to neutralize what National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has called "strongholds'' where terrorist outfits like al-Qaida could find support.
And how did my opinions go over with the NPR audience? Well, judging from the 100 or so angry e-mails, I would say, like the proverbial lead balloon.
Some self-identified baby boomers seemed to want to send me to my room with no milk and cookies.
One letter ended this way: "I suggest that Mr. Navarrette and his Gen X buddies miss an episode of 'Friends' and go visit the Vietnam Memorial in [Washington] D.C.''
Another suggested: "Crack a book now and then. Those video games are bad for your eyes.''
And another said of her cohorts: "I'll admit mistakes. Apparently, we raised a generation of self-indulgent people with no sense of history.''
That's the thing with baby boomers -- such a high opinion of themselves, such a low opinion of everyone else.
Self-indulgent people. No sense of history. These are the same things that, 30 years ago, members of the World War II generation said about baby boomers. How they were self-centered, spoiled and soft, and that they knew nothing of sacrifice and making do with less especially compared to those who lived through the war and the Great Depression.
At least one letter writer hinted as much: "Unfortunately for people my age, there's a group of people older than we are who fought World War II . . . and they've never forgiven us for 'losing' in Vietnam. Those older veterans disrespected the veterans of my era from the get-go. I'm hoping that'll end this year [with a Kerry victory].''
And I bet you thought this election was about where the country is headed. Nope. For some, it's about where we've been. It's about redemption and second chances for a generation that feels like it never got the respect it deserved and which now can't bring itself to respect the generations that follow it.
Now, if you will excuse me, I think "Friends'' is about to start.
You are perfectly correct.
As a Native Texan I must say that Johnson was the worst President that I ever saw up and until Clinton. He was a complete and total criminal a@@Hole! He instigated the murder of many youths of America. There was a book published back in those days entitled, "A Texan Looks at Lyndon". Too bad more people didn't buy it and read it.
Then they could have seen the EVIL B*st*ed for what he was. A "Showboating G*dD*mn*d A**H*le". I Voted for Goldwater and I would Again.
(Screw the texas native political criminal, Johnson)
Really, now. What do you have to say about all the FR boomers as opposed to the liberal MTV groupies?
I thought the same thing about this assertion that you did: I would like to see the data.
In fact, a compelling argument could be easily made that the opposite is true.
"The thoughtful, disturbed adult may say, 'But why now? It wasn't this way when I was young.'"
"And I must agree that it was not this way at Chicago in the Class of 1930"
Robert Ardrey 1970
Just a small history lesson. :)
Now, we're the parents and I'm VERY happily surprised that many of us are going back to our grandparents' values. We remember what doesn't work and we're trying not to repeat our parents' mistakes.
My good friend was asked by her boyfriend what she really wants out of life, college and job-wise. She grinned and said, "Barefoot and pregnant with a loving husband who can provide for our family!" He blinked and said, "But that's sexist!" (We'll see if he can open his eyes and embrace this vision.)
Talkin’ bout my generation
In the mid-sixties hit “My Generation” the Who declared they hoped they’d die before they got old. It appears most rockers have further considered the matter and decided death isn’t that great a career move.
Watching recent inductions into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was a reminder of what geezers “my generation” has become. Wrinkles, gray hair, and paunches that make Marlon Brando look like a health nut made up the uniform of the day. The “Young Rascals” are older than the president of the United States is, even though they don’t have their remaining hair feathered as nicely.
Something that was obvious was a change in mind-set. As usual in such situations, the recipients rattle off a litany of people to whom they’re grateful. Lots of the rockers thanked God for what He’d done for them. Considering the booze, drugs, and profligate living many rockers engaged in, they should be giving thanks. It’s a miracle some of them are still around. David Crosby of Crosby, Stills & Nash thanked his wife for sticking it out with him while he did a prison stretch for drugs.
One thing that struck me was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame must be running out of groups to induct. This year it brought in Buffalo Springfield. Buffalo Springfield? They had one, count ‘em, one whole hit, “For What It’s Worth.”
You remember it. It starts:
“There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there. Telling me I got to beware.”
It goes on to explain that young people speaking their minds get so much resistance “from behind.” Wherever that is. After telling us that, they go on: “Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away.”
Paranoia sounds like something these guys are pretty familiar with. Not to mention a complete detachment from reality. Those of us who were around back then know that most of the time young people said and did pretty much what they wanted with impunity. Protest rallies, shrieking obscenities at the president, using the flag as the seat of your jeans. . . . just about anything went. I only wish that “the man” had come and carried off some of those jerks.
Maybe Buffalo Springfield was inducted because the pooh-bahs who run the Hall of Fame think their song captured the spirit of a generation. It did, insofar as we boomers were – and continue to be – the most self-indulgent and pontificating generation in history.
Our parents made it through two monumental catastrophes, the Great Depression and World War II. They wanted our lives to be so much better than theirs had been. So they coddled us. We grew up spoiled and smug and egocentric.
The smugness was reinforced in colleges and universities across the Nation as we unquestioningly accepted the Leftist dogmas many instructors dished out. Bill Buckley had it right many years ago when he observed colleges claimed to be centers of academic freedom, but in reality they practice indoctrination.
As boomers bought into the liberal bromides, we were rewarded with being told we were the smartest generation to grace the face of the earth. Ever. We even started believing it.
Now we’re attempting to resist the rules of nature. When we were kids 50 was old. Not any more. We have the right to be young forever, darn it. And if we don’t feel like we did 30 years ago, then some doctors had better come up with pills that’ll do the trick. It’s our right. After all, we went to all the trouble of being born and are the smartest generation. Ever.
Don’t forget that, you young whippersnappers. Or we’ll have the man come and take you away.
...the last few generations have been brought up with too much and to little: too much opportunity and things, too little gratitude and obligation.
We actuallly have a large segment of population (Gen. X & Y )that couldn't imagine giving without getting, sacrificing out of obligation, suffering out of responsibility, or following through out of honor. Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Perhaps this is a common ground between "boomers" and "Xers"
There are theories that the decline of the family was the result of the Industial Age. While some may think there are other reasons, it is interesting that the meaning of family seemed to have fallen during the Industial Age, while it is now recovering during the Information Age.
marron had a great read on Vietnam:Mom, Apple Pie, and the Ghost of Quagmires PastNixon visited South Viet Nam as VP, and came back saying to Eisenhower that the U.S. should keep out, and when Kennedy took office there were some military advisers (who of course "never" did any fighting) but they probably numbered in the hundreds.Kennedy let the CIA participate in the overthrow of the Diem government in order to try to get democratic government in a country fighting a civil war. That morally committed us to giving S. Vietnam a decent government. A month later Kennedy was assassinated, and then Johnson proceeded to try to win a war by playing defense - making the baby boomer troops into targets.
The huge terrorist strike known as the Tet Offensive resulted in the complete decimation of the Viet Cong insurgents, leaving the North Vietnamese Army to do the subsequent fighting in a war of conquest. But Tet also demoralized the Democratic Party (and especially its contingent which was known as "objective" journalism). And the Democratic Party has been opposing efforts "to provide for the common defense" ever since.
John Kerry can prattle as he will about having medals for valor in Vietnam, but Kerry was a leader of the post-Tet anti-American Democrat movement. And as such John Kerry has no grounds for questioning the courage of anyone who is younger than himself and who essentially followed Kerry's advice not to fight in Vietnam. To make the case that Vietnam was an ignoble cause, Kerry must make the case that hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese deserved to die in camps or at sea in little boats.
To make the case that the US was no better than the Soviet Union, John Kerry must argue that our nation should collapse like the USSR did, or that the USSR should be reconstituted.
To make the case against the Republican Party, Kerry must say that Nixon was responsible for not instantly giving up on Vietnam after Kennedy had committed the US to it and after Johnson had put 500,000 troops there - but he must not admit that he voted for the man (Johnson) who fouled Vietnam up so royally that, after all the blood and treasure that the US had put into Vietnam under Johnson, Nixon should have instantly pulled out.
Kerry will have all the help journalism can give him to evade that conundrum, but with Dick Cheney and talk radio and the INTERNET he will need every bit of help he can get. And, probably, then some.
LOL!! That's very funny - and very true.
I sometimes look at online dating services (been widowed a long time). I'll read thru a person's musical tastes and see that they are similar to mine. Then I look at the picture and see an old man. I wonder how come that old guy likes the same stuff I do - and then note that the 'old guy' is in my same age range (50-55). Scary stuff, dude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.