I think you ought to have your hearing checked...
Posted on 06/17/2008 5:29:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
We regularly hear about Barack Obama's appeal to youth, about how he has been able to excite and mobilize a generation of young people to become politically involved, his rare ability to excite young people, and about how many new voters will register (and vote Democrat) as a result.
All this seems to be true. The question, however, is whether it is a good thing for the country and not just for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
The answer is that it probably is not. With a few exceptions -- and those exceptions are usually those rare cases when young people confront dictatorships -- when youth get involved in politics in large numbers, it is not a good thing.
Of course, there are those who believe that the mass movement of America's young people in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a great thing for America -- a bright shining example of young people mobilized against an unjust war and on behalf of a world filled with love.
If that is how one views the legacy of the baby boomer generation, the mobilization of youth for Obama is probably a great -- not to mention nostalgia-inducing and personally validating -- development.
For those of us who view the late '60s and '70s as the beginning of a downward spiral for American society, however, the mobilization of many young people on behalf of Barack Obama is not encouraging. It is only the latest example of young people getting excited as a result of their unique combination of naivete, lack of wisdom, romantic idealism and narcissism.
Most adults throughout history have recognized that young people are likely to be unwise given their minuscule amount of life experience. After all, most adults, even among baby boomers, believe that they themselves are wiser today than 10 years ago, let alone than when they were 20 years old. It is remarkable, then, how often adults romanticize youth involvement in politics -- "Isn't it heartwarming to see young people getting involved?"
Actually, for a wise adult, it is not heartwarming.
Most thoughtful observers now regard the massive youth demonstrations in France in 1968 as the narcissistic explosions that they were. As French columnist Jean-Claude Guillebaud (Le Nouvel Observateur) wrote recently in the New York Times on the 40th anniversary of those demonstrations:
"I lived through May '68. I was a 24-year-old graduate student and a journalist who covered the revolt, during which students armed with cobblestones battled the police, and 10 million workers went on strike. … To borrow an expression of Lenin's, we were useful idiots."
As regards the positive views of those events held by French elites -- just as American elites hold the '60s and '70s mobilization of American youth in awe -- Guillebaud continued:
"This generation of baby boomers largely controls the news media and cultural life. The majority of broadcast chiefs and newspaper, magazine and book publishers and senior editors 'did' May '68. They are simply indulging their own nostalgia. The boomers … are first and foremost celebrating their own youth."
The same holds true about the idealization of a politically involved young generation here in America. The politically activist baby boomers were "useful idiots" here, too.
They were a major, perhaps the major, factor in America withdrawing from the Vietnam War. And if one believes that the American attempt to prevent South Vietnam from falling under Communist totalitarian rule was an immoral, imperialist venture, then America's young people were terrific. Likewise, if one believes that the movement toward having college students help shape college curricula was a good thing, then the youth movement of that time was a boon to education. But if one believes that America's defeat in Vietnam was unnecessary, and that it led to unspeakable atrocities in Southeast Asia, to a greatly weakened America and to a revived Left; and if one believes that college education in the liberal arts has deteriorated since then, enabling students to obtain college degrees with little knowledge of history and of Western civilization, let alone increased wisdom, then the youth movement of the '60s and '70s was a moral, social and political disaster.
Yes, young people were also involved in the civil rights movement. And that was a wonderful thing. But unlike the anti-war movement, which was largely spearheaded by, and relied for its effectiveness on, young people, the civil rights movement did not need massive numbers of young people in order to prevail.
Having been a young person at that time and having watched as my university (Columbia) had its classrooms taken over and teaching interrupted by fellow students; having watched the sexualization of society that followed the "Make Love Not War" generation; having watched America become obsessed with youth rather than wisdom as a result of the "Never Trust Anyone Over 30" mantra of the '60s young people; having seen the myriad speech codes that arose, ironically, out of the "Free Speech" movement at Berkeley and elsewhere; having watched pacifist-like doctrines decimate America's moral compass; having witnessed a selfish preoccupation with an ever increasing number of inherent "rights," with a commensurate devaluing of inherent moral obligations, I, among many others, am not enamored of the '60s and '70s youth movement.
So, forgive me, but I for one am not encouraged by the ecstatic reaction of young people to Barack Obama. The track record of politically excited youth movements in modern Western history is not a good one. And I see no reason why this will prove to be the first major exception.
“I turn the hose on ‘em when that happens! Then I say ‘You kids get off my lawn!’” — Grumpy Old Man
“So, forgive me, but I for one am not encouraged by the ecstatic reaction of young people to Barack Obama. The track record of politically excited youth movements in modern Western history is not a good one. And I see no reason why this will prove to be the first major exception.”
He is not the only one! The fervor of Obama’s young supporters is down-right scary, IMO. All they are hearing is “hope” & “change” without a clue as to what he means by it.
Correct. Ask any of them if they know Obama is an admitted “progressive pragmatist” and who else in history claimed such a philosophy. They don’t know the answer. Or if they think they do and say that is not what Obama means..ask them to clarify it for you...they can’t.
“He is not the only one! The fervor of Obama’s young supporters is down-right scary, IMO. All they are hearing is “hope” & “change” without a clue as to what he means by it.”
Hear, hear.
Kids never actually make it to the voting booth. We hear this same mantra every election year. Then some shiny new video game comes out and the kids are nowhere to be found.
I already know what he means by "hope" & "change." Let me translate for my fellow college students: after we graduate, Mr. Obama will appropriate the income and assets of those who studied hard (engineers, accountants, and so forth) to give to those who partied hard and made fun of the studious folks all through college, all in the name of equality.
By the time Mr. Obama and the Democrats are done with us, we will be hoping and praying to have more than just pocket change.
Young people today are lazier and more useless than any prior generation in American history. They spend their lives on Facebook and MySpace, walk around everywhere with iPod buds in heir ears, have no comprehension of how the economy works or what freedom means. You see these imbeciles handing our Greenpeace pamphlets on any Manhattan street corner. They are so incredibly stupid. My wife and I argued with one of them, she said she was a Harvard grad—who claimed that 2,000 people died from Three Mile Island, and that U.S. troops had killed 9 million Iraqis (that would be 40% of the total population). An ideal voter for Obama.
Baddabing, baddaboom.
that cant be !!! we have public education in this country !!
Let ‘em peak now. IMHO the more the media glorifies Obamo now, the more “attention tokens” are spent now by those who elect to spend their limited amount of such tokens quickly.
As much as it may p!ss us off now to see the media go all Obama all the time, IMHO this is a blessing. If the media wanted to really bolster his chances, they would hold off now; the inevitable final November media push would be much more effective.
But they’re not wired that way.
That's because the young folk who do have such comprehension are too busy working or studying productive things. You only really see the ones who have nothing better to do, living off their parents.
They are so incredibly stupid.
Not stupid, but definitely naive, inexperienced, and most likely brainwashed by years of indoctrination in the education system.
My wife and I argued with one of them, she said she was a Harvard grad...
You can't argue reason and facts with a fool. You can only make fun of them.
And, just because someone has a degree from a prominent, prestigious post-secondary school does not necessarily imply that they have the supposed intelligence to back it up.
The kids were all behind George McGovern in '72. How'd that work out for 'em?
I think you ought to have your hearing checked...
...”So, forgive me, but I for one am not encouraged by the ecstatic reaction of young people to Barack Obama. The track record of politically excited youth movements in modern Western history is not a good one. And I see no reason why this will prove to be the first major exception.”...
I, too, believe this is not a “good” thing in the traditional sense of use. Further, I don’t believe “college students” in general should be allowed to vote, unless they file an IRS 1040 at least one year prior to and during an election year. I would not exclude college age military personnel (they are working), nor non-collegiate, non-military folks who are working. My bottom line is that, to cast a vote, you have to have a horse in the race - earned income and tax liability. This so-called “movement” (and it is a movement to me, of the bowel sort...) for Obama is based in emotion, ignorance, narcissism, and ethereal vapidity - that’s why it appeals to “college students”.
Actually, for a wise adult, it is not heartwarming.
Actually, it isn't heartwarming when adults get involved in politics, either. Politicians should operate smoothly in the background, like sewer system engineers and telephone linemen. If people become obsessed with political "horse races" and expect one politician or another to solve their problems or smite their enemies, then those people have taken their eyes off of the whole point of life. Instead of using a relatively harmless outlet like NFL football as a proxy for their egos, they put that energy into individuals empowered by law to do direct harm to other people.
No good has ever come of messianic fervor for any particular politician.
later
The good news is that the kids never actually show up and vote. The majority of them anyway. Even the Obama girl of Youtube fame couldn’t have been bothered to leave NYC and drive to her home town in NJ and vote in the NJ primary for him. She could make and upload a video but she couldn’t find time to vote.
The voting age should be increased to 30, the only exceptions being for those who serve in the military.
Can you say "educated beyond her intelligence"? I knew you could.
We are in the grip of a bunch of charlatans who have successfully sold the idea that "inequality" equals "injustice" to the ignorant unwashed. The fact is, unequal outcomes are the norm, and somebody is always going to turn out to be a leader.
The elitists have a problem, and it consists in the semi-heritability of leadership. If your daddy was top dog, you have a better chance than most to be tops in your turn, but no guarantee. The apple does not fall far from the tree, but sometimes it rolls a long way down the hill. Think Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich (son of Peter the Great).
Meanwhile, leadership talent has an irritating way of springing up here and there among the unwashed masses. America was founded by men who understood this and expected to make use of it, rather than depending on the whims of heredity which had not served the royalty of Europe all that well.
But now we have our own homegrown royalty. That's how they view themselves -- in the case of the Kennedys they even say it aloud! And the problem that faces the patriarch of such a would-be royal house is, how to ensure that his disappointing brood are not displaced at the head table after he is gone?
The solution that has arisen seems to be to miseducate the masses so that any potential leaders among them are left to work with blunt tools. Once upon a time, college was restricted to those who had the talent to become leaders; not like today, where college is supposed to be for "everybody". Fat chance. The only way that colleges can take in everybody is by dumbing down. Not that they mind it; dumb pays just as much as smart, and does it without asking embarrassing questions to boot.
Back in the day, when the leftists were rioting on the campuses, they were enamored of the idea that one could "speak truth to power", seemingly meaning that truth in the hands of the weak could overthrow unjust might. Now that they have the power of academe themselves, they seek to secure their hold on it by using power to redefine truth, so that nobody has the means to challenge them.
They take empty young skulls and fill them with arrogant self-esteem and a sense of entitled self-righteousness which renders them proof against correction and wisdom (and also incapable of learning on their own!) They teach a sort of absolute personal autonomy that paradoxically leaves the learner with no means of using it except by joining a mob. And the mobs are ready to hand, complete with thought-destroying slogans like "No blood for oil" or "Change we can believe in".
This structure may stand for a while, but it has no foundation, and it cannot resist the inevitable attack. After all, nobody gets to sit on top of the heap forever. The question is not, whether it will fall, but who will be the one to bring it down?
Pay your money, and take your choice.
Ya’ll would have loved the commencement speeches that I had to endure over the weekend. My wonderful daughter graduated from UC Riverside on Sunday. The keynote was delivered by Michael Lynton, the Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures. It was basically an Obama campaign speech... He quoted Obama and Clinton, made comparisons to the Carter-era, then tried to pin the Carter-era on Reagan, finally he reminded everyone to vote for change. Then the student speaker gave an uninspiring speech about how we should demand social change.
Even when I was in college in the late 60s and early 70s, I could see that many of my classmates were hopelessly naive. Yes, I learned my conservatism from my wise father.
The thoughts in the minds of “politically active youth”
center around -
“let’s put someone in power that will give us stuff that we haven’t lived long enough to earn”
Young people for the most part are idiots. Easily swayed one way or the other, emotions too often overrule rational thought. It’s why the democRats love them so much. For you rational minded younger crowd out there (29 and below) congratulations, you are the exception.
From Isaac Asiomov’s Starship Troopers
Jean Rasczak: All right, let’s sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven’t, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student]
Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It’s a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
I stand corrected.
Never having read the book or seen the movie I don’t feel too badly. ;^)
Don't confuse the two.
The book is a work of high art. The movie borrowed the name of the book. It shares little else.
If you get the chance, you should read the book. The civics classes represented in the book are one of the best discourses on the exercise of power and the fallacies of democracy ever put on paper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.