A reader writes:
At this moment in history, the foibles of right and left are not comparable. The only liberals still living in the 1960s are a tiny fringe with little power or representation; the left could purge every last one and it wouldn't change a thing. Liberals have moved to the right and ARE living in the present. In contrast, the conservatives stuck in the 1970s have tremendous power. They have acquired a massive money and media machine – right wing talk radio, Fox, pundits from think tanks, etc. – that has pushed a majority of political leaders to endorse their world view. Equating the two sides obscures the only solution, which is exposing and reducing the power of those who have led the GOP down this path. There will come a day when the pendulum swings back and power-brokers on the left get lodged in the past, but that's not the moment we are living in.
Another writes:
I think your reader's observations in this post are very astute. But to answer his/her question, "Why is it that the history of 40-50 years ago seems to impact on people’s thinking so much more than the history of 20-30 years ago that ought to be fresher in their minds?" There's a simple answer to this: The Boomers.
That's their politically formative years, and they keep partying like it's 1968-1979 over and over and over again. Generational analysis, both in social science more generally and in foreign policy studies more recently, demonstrates that not only is it difficult for a generational cohort to break out of its past thinking, it actually keeps reinforcing that thinking over time, interpreting incoming data (new events) always through the same lens. Thus, the focus in foreign policy "debates" on and comparisons to, either (take your pick) Vietnam or "Carter's" foreign policy, and the same domestic policy debates through the lens of the 1960s or 1970s.
We just have to wait until the Boomers' dominance on public discourse starts to wane. And if it seems like we've been waiting forever for that to happen, well, we have.
Another:
While I'm not so sure I agree with the overly simplistic take on opposing ideologies, it does illustrate one very important thing. Largely excepting President Obama, our policies and priorities are driven by a group of people whose formative years were the '60s and '70s – which is part of the problem. Our response to terrorism is very Cold-War era (some even argue for a policy of increased containment); the Drug War, an expansive knee jerk response to the '60s and the various iterations of drug control thereafter; our troops stationed overseas in Europe, relics of wars that have no chance of starting again; our dusty policies against Cuba; the right to marry whomever you choose, a next-stage mutation of mixed-race couple nonsense. I could go on.
I hate to be so generationally negative, but really, it's time for some of them to get out of there and retire. I get that it should be "the job" of the upcoming generations to take control through voting, but it's a two way street. The baton can be passed a lot easier than it can be taken away by the vote. Sorta sounds like I'm arguing for term limits, huh?
(Image by The Atlantic's Jason Treat)
The Dish 