[RC] Why the West gets religion wrong?

[Chris Hahn]

Ernie,

 

I think the politics in the generation before the 60s was more venal (the
original Mayor Daily in Chicago) and shallow in some ways.  The blue collar
laborer was a union member and a democrat, while the managers and white
collar workers were republicans.  This polarization made it simpler than it
is today to figure out how to vote, but there was also an underlying post WW
II patriotism that made some things more "clear" for all of my parent's
generation.  

 

Almost all of our Dads served in the War in some way or another.  The evil
menace of Hitler morphed nicely into the communist menace from the other
side of the Iron Curtain.  I grew up with air raid drills in school as well
as fire drills.  This, in many ways, led to a shallow political view for our
parents, but it was not necessarily self serving.  The views of the WW II
generation were patriotic and pro-government.  After all, the government of
the US helped defeat Hitler.

 

I don't think my generation changed the political system in any lasting and
positive way.  We had some issues to fight, we had the energy, we had the
confidence, and we had the numbers.  After the Vietnam War ended we tended
to go about our lives while more or less forgetting about the political
system.   Worse yet, many of the ideas that we boldly espoused were shallow.
They made sense in the context of the sixties, but they didn't have the
well-rounded wisdom that comes with age.

 

The free love movement crashed to a horrible stop with the onset of AIDS.
The racial movement still has a long way to go and some of the equal
opportunity experiments flopped.  I think we were right about the Vietnam
War but that has certainly not led to a war free world. The drug culture of
the 60s got ugly when cocaine and other addictive drugs came along to trap
many.  Probably the most successful of the major movements was feminism.  A
lot of our sisters are now doctors, PhDs, lawyers, etc.

 

The jury is still out about the way we raised our kids.  It is clear,
however, that they don't tend to care about politics.  A huge percentage of
this generation does not vote.  Of course, this will give more relative
power to my generation so we can push our PACs to get our representatives to
vote for even higher benefits for seniors.  (Ouch, that'll hurt the balanced
budget.)

 

Your cartoon columns below certainly have one thing right.  The generation
of the 90s is going to have to pay for my generation when we all retire.  I
have paid the max into social security for years paying for my parents and
grandparents benefits and I intend to collect my retirement funds when I
retire (even if I don't need the funds to live).  Since social security is
not fully funded there is going to be a crunch in the future.  

 

On the other hand, some guys like me are "retiring" to help with charities
and to make a positive contribution to the world.  That is the primary
reason that I am pursuing my PhD.  I won't be around to read the history
books about my generation, but it should be interesting.  The story can't be
told yet because it is still being written.

 

Chris

 

  _____  

From: Centroids-bounces at radicalcentrism.com
[mailto:Centroids-bounces at radicalcentrism.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie
Prabhakar
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:36 PM
To: Radical Centrist discussion list
Subject: Re: [RC] Why the West gets religion wrong?

 

Hi Chris,

Because I was there in the middle of the '60s I disagree with the IHT
authors.

I'm not surprised -- the author's arguments did seem a little too pat for
reality. At the very least, the article is either way too dogmatic or far
too simplistic. Yet, as part of what often feels like the "cleanup"
generation for the sixties, there does seem at least a grain of truth in
this criticism.

 

In particular, it seems like your generation clearly achieved what I would
call (admittedly in hindsight) strong *tactical* gains. However, I have a
harder time believing it really achieved lasting "transformation" of the
rules of the political game.  Unless politics before the sixties was even
*more* venal, shallow, and self-serving than it is today, which is a
depressing thought.

 

To be fair, one could make the cases that the sixties generation did help
move the ball forward, and it was the seventies generation (or even mine)
that dropped the ball by failing to similarly advance the debate.   Then
again, my generation was busy coping with the breakdown in family,
authority, consensus morality, and health spawned by the sixties (even if
for understandable reasons), so I'm somewhat sympathetic to the author's
argument.  Which is perhaps better (if cheekily) summarized here:

 

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1996/generats.html

 

              1940 generation        1965 generation     1990 generation

              _______________        _______________     _______________

 

International Defeat of Hitler,      Opposed Vietnam     Changed channel

Achievement   Communism              War                 to MTV

 

Judicial      Legal system should    Legal system should Legal system should

idea          support society        change society      destroy society

 

Economic      Raise 60's generation  Develop             Support 60's

achievement                          Sophisticated       generation 

                                     Tastes              retirement

 

Economic      Work hard - get ahead  Let your parents/   Prepare for
employment

philosophy                           government support  at K-Mart

                                     you

 

Blames        Them-->                <--Them-->          <--Them

                                     (Loses 2-1)

 

:-)

 

-- Ernie P.

 

 

On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:39 PM, Chris Hahn wrote:





One section in the article, in particular caught my attention."liberalism
had republican values and communal aims. But in overcoming absolute
sovereignty, liberalism internalized it, reproducing not mutual citizens but
self-sufficient subjects. This process reached its zenith in the 1960s, when
genuine political transformation was aborted in favor of the subjective
desires of pleasure-seeking adults."

 

Because I was there in the middle of the '60s I disagree with the IHT
authors.

1.	There was a period of time when there were"mutual citizens" working
for common causes, specifically feminism, racial equality, and anti-war
causes.  Dramatic strides were made in all of these areas.  
2.	Once the protestors perceived significant gains, and once they grew
older and became parents they became "self sufficient subjects".
3.	"Genuine political transformation" was not aborted; rather it was
sidelined after the significant gains had been made in the minds of the
mutual citizens.

 

Radical war protestors became radical soccer moms and some drifted to the
polarized arenas mentioned in the IHT article.  I don't believe absolutely,
however, that "privatizing religion initiated the abandoning of any
collective public realm that expressed common substantive ideals".  But this
does resurrect the discussion we had a while ago about a common "ten
commandments" that spans different mainstream religious boundaries.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20050711/af45ff3c/attachment.html