VLVL Is it OK to be a misoneist?

[Paul Mackin]

On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 20:17, Otto wrote: 

> The Neocon think tanks assert (and Rob is trying something similar in his
> last sentence) that the bad shape America's been in after 1973 was the fault
> of the 60's generation that had betrayed the government in its fight against
> communism during the Vietnam-era. 

Regardless of what Rob is or isn't trying to do, I think that in this
reference to the Neocons you are giving far too much weight to the
student revolutionaries (as well as their present day successors, in
other words what remains of the left in America). This might be fine
when discussing the novel. But in the wider world of American politics,
student movements and left movements in general are as a fly on the skin
of an elephant. Thus it would be more realistic to say that those whom
the Neocon mind set blames for "the bad shape America's been in after
1973" are the wishy washy (by their way of thinking) stances taken by
the mainstream of America's leaders' thinking and acting vis a vis the
use of American Power in the world. The bad guys to Neocons actually are
Democrats like Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton plus many a moderate
Republican. People who didn't and don't dare assert America's military
power and moral superiority (again by Neocon lights) to the very maximum
in the world at large. (jokingly put, people who don't dare to be great
or who don't dare to win) Of course neocons at root are as naive as
producers of big thoughts as it is possible to get even including the
student left. Neocon thinking is very powerful in the Bush
Administration. But it is no doubt in for a fall. (not necessarily THIS
Fall but that would be nice too) 
 
> In this sense the violent
> Chicago-demonstrations August 1968 could be see as contra-productive when it
> came to the decision between Nixon and Humphrey. 

Don't know about counterproductive. The demonstrations didn't much
affect the outcome of the election. 

> On the other hand there
> were no signs coming from the Democrats that they would have ended the war
> in Vietnam in a reasonable period of time or would have legalised marijuana
> if H.H. Humphrey had been elected. 

The election wasn't mainly about such things. 
 
> So the counterculture had no reason at
> all to elect Humphrey or to trust him. They had simply lost the trust in the
> electoral system to be able to provide alternatives to the nuclear threat.

Humphrey was definitely not the man for the Counterculture. So the cc
went out and protested. To most people it was just a lot of noise but if
it made them feel any better why should we object . . .

>  A
> historical error I admit, because the only alternative would be terrorism
> with all its contradictions  -- and the possible instrumentalisation
> right-winged governments can use terrorism for, as we see in a fictional
> character like Rex and a real-life president.

Terrorism, as an alternative to relatively peaceful demonstrations,
assuming it could have been pulled off, would have have been destructive
for the same reason Al Qaeda type terrorism has been. Violent actions
tend to produce equal and opposite violent reactions.

Here's a thought. What if after Nixon had gotten into his Watergate
trouble the New Left had decided to bomb the World Trade Center. In
response a decisive and determined President could have come instantly
out of disgrace and hiding from the press and declared a war against
terrorism. 

Pynchon's now famous rodeo clown (this time the New Left rather than
Osama bin Laden) could have could have assumed his important job of
protecting the fallen rider. 

Now THAT would be counterproductive.
    
> Bush's success can only be explained through the special structure of this
> US-electoral process. As we see now the only possible challenger of the
> president has to be an extremely wealthy guy who did his tour of duty in
> Nam.
> 
Can also be explained to some on Ralph Nader's diluting the anti Bush
sentiment in America.