Letters to the Editor
OhioPlayer
Published Letters: 31
-
Re: The Meaning of the Sixties
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"That is the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama does not know what Clinton is even talking about, becasue he does not have that experience. Not only does Clinton have that experience, but she understands what it really meant."
logicalresponse, fascinating that your logic brings you to this conclusion because what I read from Clinton's statement, as well as everything else I've read on the period and direct personal experience with Boomers, leads me to conclude that they do NOT know the meaning of this period. In fact, even to this day they are collectively making every effort to reconcile the dissonance of their youthful hopes and aspirations with the reality that they settled for, that is from Motown, Philly, and Soulsville R&B/soul to disco.
Clinton's quote (paraphrased): "I have thought a great deal about that. It is remarkable that the greatest generation that this country has ever produced in turn produced the sixties generation. I have TRIED to figure out exactly what more was needed, what aspirations were still unmet that brought about our rebelliousness and rejection of authority."
This does not sound as though she has a solid grasp on "meaning" of those times. Further, living through a particular period is not necessarily the most important requisite for actually understanding said period. Indeed, very often it is subsequent generations that have a much better grasp on the "meaning" of what happened in the preceding one. And of course in line with this thinking, I posit that Obama has a much better grasp on the "meaning" of the Sixties than Clinton, if only because of how comfortable he is with himself. In this regard, George Packer's article "The Choice" nails the essence of the difference between Obama and Clinton - essentially, that Clinton is much more like LBJ while Obama is much more like RFK (Ted Sorenson said same point, just made comparison to JFK).
I read a NY Times article on Max Roach after his passing this past year. Uncertain of your knowledge of jazz, but he along with Charlie Parker and Dizzy, created "be-bop". Well, the article mentioned how later in his life he was criticized as he began to do collaborations with hip-hop artists. But upon closer inspection, it makes sense that he would do such projects - be-bop was a rebellious response to the "Big Band" sound that had become way too commercial; and following the same pattern, hip-hop was a rebellious response to disco. And they both created an entirely new form by adding an angle to the "traditional" approach (sounds an aweful lot like what Obama proposes): Parker meshing European classical with jazz and hip-hop literally "mixing" rap over R&B/Soul loops. Further, to disabuse Boomers of their self-appointed lofty role in the Civil Rights Movement, be-bop, along with Jackie Robinson and black WWII veterans were the ORIGIN of what developed in the 50s and 60s.
-
Ideas: Democratic or Republican
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most of the folks who continue to insist that Obama "insulted" the Democratic base either must not really WANT to understand, have self-esteem issues (as it applies to political party affiliation) or have a very poor understanding of 20th century politics.
Democrats - starting with Woodrow Wilson and Progressive agenda, then FDR's "New Deal", followed by JFK's "New Frontier", even LBJ's "Great Society" albeit greatly ineffective - were the "party of ideas". So much so that Republicans were in a political wasteland for all that time. But while they were in the dessert, a fella by the name of Barry Goldwater did a wonderful Moses impersonation and a fella by the name of Reagan, starring as Joshua, completed the Republican return to ascendency, which does still officially hold as Bill Clinton did NOT do anything transformational in the manner of the aforementioned Democratic presidents. He simply "triangulated" and had the assistance of a Republican Congress elected in 1994 on the strength of its "Contract w/ America", an extension of Reagan's win of the executive branch to the legislative branch. This is OBJECTIVE fact. Obama never said that the ideas were good, in fact he said they were bad and thought they were on their last leg.
I think what is going on here is what I mentioned earlier concerning "party" self-esteem. That is, the Democrats have now been in the dessert so long that they've become brittle. So much so that when their own "Joshua" says "We are capable of taking the land" instead of embracing and supporting him, they act as Dathan and back-bite. (Hope it doesn't play out this way, but sounds very similar to Ford and Reagan in 1976.) The Republicans were able to get out of the political wasteland because they were willing to do the hard work around developing an agenda that proposed "ideas" that spoke more effectively to American voters; that and a big assist from LBJ signing Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. If the Democrats don't hurry up and figure out the same - that is, how to apply progressive concepts to our present time - then they will continue to remain in the dessert. And this is not to say that Obama is a certainty to win the general election but it is to say that he has a much stronger chance than Hillary Clinton. Check out Frank Rich's NY Times article "Who's Afraid of Barack Obama" as well as George Packer's New Yorker article "The Choice".