The 60s: Activism Into Tomorrow

In response to Monday's post on Activism, my friend Greg posted a comment that is an interesting starting point for today's post. Greg wrote:

Activism has had a difficult time getting the press it once did, and at least as far as the role the media played/plays in all of this is a significant factor. Protests receive scant media attention.

Yes, the activism and protests of The 60s did produce a lot of media coverage. It was new, different, man-bites-dog kind of stuff. And it gave great pictures. It started with those horrific shots of water-hosing protestors in Arkansas and went downhill from there. Of course it got attention. Today that doesn't happen- or when it does it is pictured as extremists at a world financial meeting or bicyclists in the Twin Cities. (Don't ask.)

But underneath that is the apparent fact that protests are at one and the same time, passe and dull today. They are the extremists because others have given up on the idea of public protest as basically a waste of time and energy. Does protest even work and what should we do with it today? Or are we simply looking back with nostalgia for the good old days of the 60s?

Well, I for one am not. My wife used to tell me that it didn't work then. While I was out protesting she was working with her students to increase awareness of the world and our impact on it. I would half-jokingly say that she was always more dangerous than I was. She was going to change things. And in that is the answer, I hope, to the issues of activism.

Activism is not the same as public marches and protests. I assume that they have their time and place and need to be done from time to time to show the extent of desire for change. But they won't bring about the change. Nixon watched football while we marched. Who knows what Bush would be doing. True activism works at much deeper levels. It works at that old cliched place called the grass roots, but it is true that the only way most of us can have a global impact is to work locally.

But all that begs the deeper question in this early 20th Century- why aren't we seeing more activism, more protests, more work being done to change things? Well, first, I think there is more than we see. Greg is right- it isn't getting the press. But the activist change work is being done outside the limelight. I am sure a quick surf of the Internet would find all kinds of groups- some fringe groups, some downright goofy, and many quietly plugging along.

But activism on a 60s scale, if it is at all possible needs leadership. Whether a media built image like JFK's or a charisma-based one like Martin Luther King, Jr's - it is a necessity to begin to rally people of all ages to a cause. That leadership has to be energetic and alive. There has to be a sense of going somewhere- or at least of having a vision of where we can go together. JFK got people doing exercises when he was basically stuck in his famous rocking chair so much of the time. The Peace Corps is still motivating people. Was this media hype? Sure, to a great extent it was. Ted White's Selling of the President series of books began with that 1960 campaign. But it worked.

Maybe we are little more jaded today. Maybe we are a lot more cynical and untrusting of politicians. Can anyone (except politicians) blame us? Nobody is talking our language. Nobody is empowering us. JFK's Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country sounds so old-fashioned- and no one is even thinking about saying such a thing. They might not get elected.

Sadly I see little on the political horizon that gives that energy and freshness. John McCain looked like that six years ago but, in spite of his Daily Show appearances has little street cred. Hillary? It just looks like a political dynasty in the making. Barack? We're still uncertain about him. Guiliani? The only time he looked good was when surrounded by destruction and I'm not sure we want that image. On and on it can go.

Who is going to empower us? Who is going to call us to activism, if not the work in the streets. It doesn't have to be someone young. Eugene McCarthy did it in 1968 at age 52 and he didn't look as young as he was. Barack is still in his 40s (46) and is being called "too young" although older than JFK was. It is frustrating. We are living in a time when activism- positive, hope-filled movement is needed badly. We are a deeply fracture nation in many ways.

But I don't believe we need to be. I don't have an answer, unfortunately. Nor do I see anyone at the moment who is able to bring that spirit alive in us- a progressive, supportive, positive spirit. Maybe someone will emerge. Maybe one of the candidates in this awfully long campaign will show up before we all give up. But let it not be another turn at the 60s. I'm am afraid we couldn't go through that again.