In the movie The Big Chill – (1983 German: Der grosse Frust) a group of friends get together for a 10-year reunion and find that the dreams and illusions of Generation Woodstock have been dashed. The film was Hollywood’s recognition that the idealism of the 1960’s was officially over, and America was now officially in the era of Ronald Reagan: a 1950’s retrograde patriotism combined with a ruthless, social-darwinian worship of wealth and greed.
I couldn’t help but think about the The Big Chill when I read this post on Wahlblog05 by Mario Muenster. Mario asks why he cannot be excited that Germany will soon have a woman and gay man leading the national government. Then he answers his own question:
Doch Freude möchte nicht aufkommen. Hätte es in den vergangenen 40 Jahren nur Merkels und Westerwelles in Deutschland gegeben, wäre es undenkbar, dass Guido und Angela demnächst die Mächtigen der Republik mimen dürfen.
Yes, it is popular – even mandatory – to blame the Woodstock Generation (die ’68er) for all of the social and political problems we face today. Pope Benedict XVI gets a lot of mileage out of this every time he speaks. But where is the idealism, the demand for justice and equality, in today’s political reality?
Es ist grundsätzlich nichts dagegen einzuwenden, wenn junge Menschen traditionellen Werten wieder mehr Beachtung schenken. Aber die Gefahr ist groß, dass die offene und solidarische Gesellschaft, die in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten aufgebaut wurde, Stück für Stück zu einer Gesellschaft wird, in der die Eigenverantwortung mehr wiegt als die Verantwortung für Schwache und in der Menschen auf den Faktor Arbeit reduziert werden. […]Es braucht den Mut ganzer Generationen gesellschaftliche Werte weiterzuentwickeln. Und es braucht Jugendbewegungen die für eine offene und freie Gesellschaft stehen. Die Angst ist groß, dass es nach dem 18. September sehr schnell sehr kalt wird in Deutschland.
Of course, the chill wind has been blowing in the US for the past five years. It is questionable whether a woman could be elected president here. An openly gay man has no chance for national office as open prejudice against gays and lesbians is perfectly acceptable, even required in certain parts of the country. And I cannot celebrate the fact that we have an African-American woman as Secretary of State, since – like Mario – I realize that if her party had been in power the last fifty years African-Americans never would have achieved civil rights. No, the wind is blowing us backward in time and in the process blowing away whatever minimal progress was made in the last decades. Dress warmly, for the future looks very cold indeed!
0 comment
David
Why must you use such blatant hyperbole when describing your “bogyman”… Republicans?
“I realize that if her party had been in power the last fifty years African-Americans never would have achieved civil rights.” The most important movement in American history can fairly be described as the process and result of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Which party was more supportive of this legislation? The answer is… the Republicans. See this site for additional information: http://home.att.net/~trdmrk/rightsact.htm
@ Kuch
perhaps so many Democrats were against the Act because the South elected more Democrats than Republicans at that time.
There have not been many Southern Republicans in Congress, if I understand these numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act#Vote_statistics
correctly, which I might not at this late hour 😉
If you compare Southern Democrats with Southern Republicans, then the Democrats have a better voting record.
Likewise if you compare Northern Democrats with Northern Republicans, then the Democrats have a better voting record as well.
So the issue is the North-South divide rathern than Democrats vs Republicans.
Or am I wrong?
I know that Senator Fulbright opposed civil rights for a long time because of his constituents, which is not really a good excuse.
I’ll never forget that Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi – the town where 3 civil rights workers were murdered (one black, two Jews). I think that says a lot about his presidency and Republican values in general.
@Atlanticus
You make some very interesting points… I’d like to hope that both parties have evolved a bit since those days of such geographical social differences on this topic. I just don’t believe it’s a fair arguement to indicate that today’s Republicans (or even the Republican Party of the 1960s) stood in the way of progress in this area any more than the Democrats. Of course generalizations can always open themselves up to rebuttal. I would note that the Republicans have not spent much time painting the Democrats with the “Robert Byrd” brush on this…
David
To use a Reaganism…”There you go again.” If you think Reagan held this event in Mississippi for racist reasons, then there probably isn’t anything that can be said to convince you otherwise. You say that the fact tha he held the kickoff to his campaign in Mississippi says a lot about his presidency. What does Robert Byrd’s good standing among fellow Democrats say about the Democratic party?
Kuch, I don’t think Reagan was racist, but this was part of the Republican ‘Southern Strategy’, which so effectively polarized the electorate along racial divisions and has made the South such a Republican stronghold. Even Ken Mehlman apologized for this just last month to a group of African-Americans. Can you explain to me why 9 out of 10 African-American votes went to the Democrats in the last election?