Posted on 05/25/2004 7:36:40 AM PDT by qam1
A generation ago, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, young people in America turned out by the thousands, and sometimes hundreds of thousands, to protest the U.S. war in Vietnam. Today the Iraq war is just as hotly debated in the United States, but there are few street protests, and those few are not well attended.
Last week, U.S. President George W. Bush traveled to the southern state of Louisiana to deliver the commencement address for Louisiana State University, and urged the new graduates to use their educations wisely.
"Our country depends on business people who are honest in keeping the books [accounting], and public officials who stay true to their oath, and soldiers who put their duty above comfort, and men and women in every walk of life who conduct themselves with integrity even when no one is watching," Bush said.
Had this same speech been given by President Lyndon Johnson 35 years ago, he quite possibly would have been met by angry hoots of derision from students opposed to his escalation of the war in Vietnam.
Today the country is nearly evenly divided over the American military presence in Iraq, and public opinion polls say those who oppose the war are bitterly angry about it. And yet there are virtually no public protests to demonstrate that anger.
There are some simple reasons for this, according to Bill Frenzel, a former member of the House of Representatives who represented the upper Midwestern state of Minnesota for 10 years. The two chief reasons, Frenzel tells RFE/RL, is that the Iraq war shows no signs of being as long and as bloody as the Vietnam War, and that there is no longer a military draft.
Frenzel notes that the Vietnam War lasted from 1954 to 1975, with deep U.S. involvement from the early 1960s. More than 58,000 Americans were killed in that war, and television news programs regularly showed the remains of those victims being returned home in body bags."The '60s really is a non-typical period in the history not only of the United States but also of American youth.”
As for the draft, Frenzel says, the U.S. military today is an all-volunteer force. During the Vietnam War, the draft inspired many young people to take part in demonstrations because their friends -- or they themselves -- risked being called up to serve, and perhaps die, in a war they opposed. The draft ended in 1973.
Finally, Frenzel says he believes that Americans today are less angry about the Iraq war because it at least deposed Saddam Hussein as Iraq's president.
"I don't think people feel as strongly [today] as they did during the Vietnam War. Everybody admits that Saddam was a hoodlum. And no matter how peaceful your inclinations are, you've got to be grateful he's gone, and I think that's held down a little of the protests also," Frenzel said.
Frenzel also says he feels antiwar Americans are less angry about the Iraq conflict than they were about Vietnam. In fact, he says he is not certain that they are as polarized or as angry as many polls and news reports suggest.
But he says that could change if the war drags on and U.S. casualties continue to mount.
"I don't feel the same spirit of polarization that seemed to be flowing in 1970 and '71. I think those people [today] who think we ought to be in Iraq aren't as vehement about it, and I think those people who don't think we should be there aren't as vehement about it. But it depends on how the reporting [from Iraq] goes and the [number of] body bags -- things could change," Frenzel said.
Leo Ribuffo agrees with Frenzel that the lack of a draft and the as-yet short duration of the war in Iraq have limited the number and size of antiwar demonstrations. Indeed, he says, the first major demonstrations over Vietnam did not take place until 1967, several years after the United States became deeply involved in that war.
But Ribuffo -- a professor of American history at George Washington University in Washington -- disagrees with Frenzel about the anger felt by those who oppose the U.S. military presence in Iraq. He tells RFE/RL that the anger over Iraq is intense, but is being channeled into a more conventional form of protest than demonstrations.
"A lot of the antiwar sentiment is going into mainstream electoral politics. People I know who would be marching, and did march in the past, are now writing a check [contributing money] to the Kerry campaign," Ribuffo said.
Senator John Kerry is the likely nominee of the opposition Democratic Party to challenge Bush for the presidency in the 2 November election.
Ribuffo says American university students today are far different from students of the 1960s and early '70s. A generation ago they were, for the most part, politically motivated and driven. Today's students, he says, are more materialistic and less concerned with geopolitical issues.
And student attitudes aren't the only differences between today and the 1960s, Ribuffo says. He argues that it is a mistake to compare the Iraq war and current American society with the Vietnam War and American society during the 1960s, which included an enormous population of college students born during the so-called "baby boom" of the years immediately after the end of World War II.
"The '60s really is a non-typical period in the history not only of the United States but also of American youth,” he says. “Partly it's the size of the 'baby boom,' partly it's the scale of the war and the draft, and it's really a mistake to take that as the norm."
But, like Frenzel, he says these differences over war protests could narrow if the United States does not disengage from Iraq soon, and if the killing escalates.
You nailed it here. This is why it is different. I will never forget this and it will shape my view of geopolitics forever.
Uh, gee not one word about the Towers being attacked or Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda.
Protesting against the war would entail putting oneself out into the open for all to see. DUers and the like can ride their keyboards in the privacy of their Democrat lit caves. The neighbors will never know that they are undermining our homeland security.
I think that there are no protests because for one, this is a voluntary military. Young people aren't seeing thier best friends being yanked to a foreign country with damn good odds they wouldn't be coming back. The casualty rate is also not as high as in that era.
And beyond that, there was no 09/11 before Vietnam so that people couldn't actually SEE the bogeyman.
Plus alot of the protests and hippie movement was about an "in your face" attitude and thumbing thier nose at authority and the shackles of society. It was far less about the actual war, but it was a good excuse to flip off thier parents.
>>
Missing from much of the 60's anti-war discussion is the fact that a great many who demonstrated were out to PARTY. They were there to flaunt their "sexual liberation" and drug use.
<<
You make a very valid point. I remember. I was about two years too young (18 in 72) to actually be a part of the so-called "Woodstock generation". I was basically conservative, even then and believed in the need to stop the spread of communisim, which is what I thought the war was about.
However, I did join in the anti-war, peace, love, and dope crowd because it was fun and exciting to challange authority and a lot of hippie chicks were easy.
Another reason: something besides the MSM is out there. We have talk radio, convervative news programs, the internet, and other means of hearing the truth. We don't have to rely on Walter Cronkite and his ilk anymore.
"THAT scene will NEVER EVER be erased in that young person's mind! AND THIS FOLKS PISSES THE HECK OUTTA THE LIBERAL BASTARDS!!"
Well, RoseofTexas, there's nothing Yellow about you! I like your passion.
"However, I did join in the anti-war, peace, love, and dope crowd because it was fun and exciting to challange authority and a lot of hippie chicks were easy."
LOL. I was 18 in '72 also. In '67 (7th grade) a few of us in Boy Scouts burned our Scout cards in the parking lot of the Presbyterian Church after a monthly Troop meeting. War protestors? No. Having fun? You bet!
And don't forget our own merry band of FR anti-war protesters...they're very noisy these days.
Everybody admits that Saddam was a hoodlum. And no matter how peaceful your inclinations are, you've got to be grateful he's gone
Wanna bet? The new liberal talking point is that Saddam Hussein at least kept the terrorism down in Iraq.
They like Saddam because he was a socialist who idolized Joe Stalin. The French liked him because they had lucrative business dealings with him.
Then again, I wouldn't characterize the leftists as having "peaceful" inclinations. The antiwar movement is an AntiAmericanWar movement, they support the Palestinian war against Israel.
But Ribuffo -- a professor of American history at George Washington University in Washington -- disagrees with Frenzel about the anger felt by those who oppose the U.S. military presence in Iraq. He tells RFE/RL that the anger overIraqThe Bush Family/the 2000 Election is intense, but is being channeled into a more conventional form of protest than demonstrations.
But, like Frenzel, he says these differences over war protests could narrow if the United States does not disengage from Iraq soon, and if the killing escalates.
If they are going to start the clock on the Vietnam War in 1954 then I will start the clock on the Iraq war in 1991. Saddam Hussein repeatedly broke the peace. War could have been avoided if he would have stepped down.
The speakers thought that since a lot of people were there that they had gathered to hear them.
Some admit that it was easy picking up on girls at the protests. I'll bet that the guys picked up a little something to remember the one night stands by. VD - the gift that keeps on giving.
Yeah, no kidding. "The kids these days aren't noble and idealistic like we were back in the 70's." You betcha. Mind you, he's right, and by the way, have I ever told you about how I had to walk 10 miles through the snow to and from school with no shoes, and it was uphill both ways? You betcha. ;-)
The absence of a draft is a huge difference, of course. And the Cold War is over, and the lushly-funded Soviet propaganda campaign has been taken over by a few feeble Euro media goose-steppers. But the biggest reason my antiwar friends (and I have a few) aren't in the streets is because deep down, however much they hate Bush (and they do) the honest ones have to admit that Saddam really was a monster the world is better off without. Uncle Ho wasn't seen as a repressive monster until after 1975, and most of the fervent antiwar types resolutely turned their eyes from it. Those who didn't, Joan Baez being one, were just as resolutely ostracized. Saddam had a track record and a huge number of inconvenient witnesses, including many of the antiwar folks's good guys: Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
One additional factor in my opinion was the backlash that took place in the 80's and beyond toward the unbelievably unjust treatment accorded returning Vietnam veterans by a "victorious" left. We won't be making that mistake again for at least a generation, although Lord knows they're trying.
BUMP
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a private, international communications service to Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East, funded by the United States Congress.
Can anyone explain to me why US Taxpayers are funding this antiAmerican commie crap?
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING list
All of the protestors are pretending to be reporters for the left wing media.
They are too busy trying to electronically lynch GW, and they have no time for street protests.
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.