EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ill Fares the Land
Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty
years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material
self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever
remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost
but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial
ruling or a legislative act: Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it
right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world?
Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them.
The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears "natural" today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation, the cult of privatization and the private sector, the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all, the rhetoric that accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets, disdain for the public sector, the delusion of endless growth.
We cannot go on living like this. The little crash of 2008 was a reminder that unregulated capitalism is its own worst enemy: sooner or later it must fall prey to its own excesses and turn again to the state for rescue. But if we do no more than pick up the pieces and carry on as before, we can look forward to greater upheavals in years to come.
And yet we seem unable to conceive of alternatives. This too is something new. Until quite recently, public life in liberal societies was conducted in the shadow of a debate between defenders of "capitalism" and its critics: usually identified with one or another form of "socialism." By the 1970s this debate had lost much of its meaning for both sides; all the same, the "left-right" distinction served a useful purpose. It provided a peg on which to hang critical commentary about contemporary affairs.
On the left, Marxism was attractive to generations of young people if only because it offered a way to take one's distance from the status quo. Much the same was true of classical conservatism: a well-grounded distaste for over-hasty change gave a home to those reluctant to abandon long-established routines. Today, neither left nor right can find their footing.
For thirty years students have been complaining to me that "it was easy for you": your generation had ideals and ideas, you believed in something, you were able to change things. "We" (the children of the Eighties, the Nineties, the "Aughts") have nothing. In many respects my students are right. It was easy for us-just as it was easy, at least in this sense, for the generations who came before us. The last time a cohort of young people expressed comparable frustration at the emptiness of their lives and the dispiriting purposelessness of their world was in the 1920s: it is not by chance that historians speak of a "lost generation."
If young people today are at a loss, it is not for want of targets. Any conversation with students or schoolchildren will produce a startling checklist of anxieties. Indeed, the rising generation is acutely worried about the world it is to inherit. But accompanying these fears there is a general sentiment of frustration: "we" know something is wrong and there are many things we don't like. But what can we believe in? What should we do?
This is an ironic reversal of the attitudes of an earlier age. Back in the era of self-assured radical dogma, young people were far from uncertain. The characteristic tone of the 1960s was that of overweening confidence: we knew just how to fix the world. It was this note of unmerited arrogance that partly accounts for the reactionary backlash that followed; if the left is to recover its fortunes, some modesty will be in order. All the same, you must be able to name a problem if you wish to solve it.
I wrote my book Ill Fares the Land for young people on both sides of the Atlantic. American readers may be struck by the frequent references to social democracy. Here in the United States, such references are uncommon. When journalists and commentators advocate public expenditure on social objectives, they are more likely to describe themselves-and be described by their critics-as "liberals." But this is confusing. "Liberal" is a venerable and respectable label and we should all be proud to wear it. But like a well-designed outer coat, it conceals more than it displays.
A liberal is someone who opposes interference in the affairs of others: who is tolerant of dissenting attitudes and unconventional behavior. Liberals have historically favored keeping other people out of our lives, leaving individuals the maximum space in which to live and flourish as they choose. In their extreme form, such attitudes are associated today with self-styled "libertarians," but the term is largely redundant. Most genuine liberals remain disposed to leave other people alone.
Social democrats, on the other hand, are something of a hybrid. They share with liberals a commitment to cultural and religious tolerance. But in public policy social democrats believe in the possibility and virtue of collective action for the collective good. Like most liberals, social democrats favor progressive taxation in order to pay for public services and other social goods that individuals cannot provide themselves; but whereas many liberals might see such taxation or public provision as a necessary evil, a social democratic vision of the good society entails from the outset a greater role for the state and the public sector.
Understandably, social democracy is a hard sell in the United States. One of my goals is to suggest that government can play an enhanced role in our lives without threatening our liberties-and to argue that, since the state is going to be with us for the foreseeable future, we would do well to think about what sort of a state we want. In any case, much that was best in American legislation and social policy over the course of the twentieth century-and that we are now urged to dismantle in the name of efficiency and "less government"-corresponds in practice to what Europeans have called "social democracy." Our problem is not what to do; it is how to talk about it.
The European dilemma is somewhat different. Many European countries have long practiced something resembling social democracy: but they have forgotten how to preach it. Social democrats today are defensive and apologetic. Critics who claim that the European model is too expensive or economically inefficient have been allowed to pass unchallenged. And yet, the welfare state is as popular as ever with its beneficiaries: nowhere in Europe is there a constituency for abolishing public health services, ending free or subsidized education, or reducing public provision of transport and other essential services.
I want to challenge conventional wisdom on both sides of the Atlantic. To be sure, the target has softened considerably. In the early years of this century, the "Washington consensus" held the field. Everywhere you went there was an economist or "expert" expounding the virtues of deregulation, the minimal state, and low taxation. Anything, it seemed, that the public sector could do, private individuals could do better.
The Washington doctrine was everywhere greeted by ideological cheerleaders: from the profiteers of the "Irish miracle" (the property-bubble boom of the "Celtic Tiger") to the doctrinaire ultra-capitalists of former Communist Europe. Even "old Europeans" were swept up in the wake. The EU's free- market project (the so-called "Lisbon agenda"); the enthusiastic privatization plans of the French and German governments: all bore witness to what its French critics described as the new " pensée unique."
Today there has been a partial awakening. To avert national bankruptcies and wholesale banking collapse, governments and central bankers have performed remarkable policy reversals, liberally dispersing public money in pursuit of economic stability and taking failed companies into public control without a second thought. A striking number of free-market economists, worshipers at the feet of Milton Friedman and his Chicago colleagues, have lined up to don sackcloth and ashes and swear allegiance to the memory of John Maynard Keynes.
This is all very gratifying. But it hardly constitutes an intellectual revolution. Quite the contrary: as the response of the Obama administration suggests, the reversion to Keynesian economics is but a tactical retreat. Much the same may be said of New Labour, as committed as ever to the private sector in general and the London financial markets in particular. To be sure, one effect of the crisis has been to dampen the ardor of continental Europeans for the "Anglo-American model"; but the chief beneficiaries have been those same center-right parties once so keen to emulate Washington.
In short, the practical need for strong states and interventionist governments is beyond dispute. But no one is "re-thinking" the state. There remains a marked reluctance to defend the public sector on grounds of collective interest or principle. It is striking that in a series of European elections following the financial meltdown, social democratic parties consistently did badly; notwithstanding the collapse of the market, they proved conspicuously unable to rise to the occasion.
If it is to be taken seriously again, the left must find its voice. There is much to be angry about: growing inequalities of wealth and opportunity; injustices of class and caste; economic exploitation at home and abroad; corruption and money and privilege occluding the arteries of democracy. But it will no longer suffice to identify the shortcomings of "the system" and then retreat, Pilate-like, indifferent to consequences. The irresponsible rhetorical grandstanding of decades past did not serve the left well.
We have entered an age of insecurity-economic insecurity, physical insecurity, political insecurity. The fact that we are largely unaware of this is small comfort: few in 1914 predicted the utter collapse of their world and the economic and political catastrophes that followed. Insecurity breeds fear. And fear-fear of change, fear of decline, fear of strangers and an unfamiliar world-is corroding the trust and interdependence on which civil societies rest.
All change is disruptive. We have seen that the specter of terrorism is enough to cast stable democracies into turmoil. Climate change will have even more dramatic consequences. Men and women will be thrown back upon the resources of the state. They will look to their political leaders and representatives to protect them: open societies will once again be urged to close in upon themselves, sacrificing freedom for "security." The choice will no longer be between the state and the market, but between two sorts of state. It is thus incumbent upon us to reconceive the role of government. If we do not, others will.
The Way We Live Now
All around us, even in a recession, we see a level of individual wealth unequaled since the early years of the twentieth century. Conspicuous consumption of redundant consumer goods-houses, jewelry, cars, clothing, tech toys-has greatly expanded over the past generation. In the US, the UK, and a handful of other countries, financial transactions have largely displaced the production of goods or services as the source of private fortunes, distorting the value we place upon different kinds of economic activity. The wealthy, like the poor, have always been with us. But relative to everyone else, they are today wealthier and more conspicuous than at any time in living memory. Private privilege is easy to understand and describe. It is rather harder to convey the depths of public squalor into which we have fallen.
Private Affluence, Public Squalor
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
-Adam Smith
Poverty is an abstraction, even for the poor. But the symptoms of collective impoverishment are all about us. Broken highways, bankrupt cities, collapsing bridges, failed schools, the unemployed, the underpaid, and the uninsured: all suggest a collective failure of will. These shortcomings are so endemic that we no longer know how to talk about what is wrong, much less set about repairing it. And yet something is seriously amiss. Even as the US budgets tens of billions of dollars on a futile military campaign in Afghanistan, we fret nervously at the implications of any increase in public spending on social services or infrastructure.
To understand the depths to which we have fallen, we must first appreciate the scale of the changes that have overtaken us. From the late nineteenth century until the 1970s, the advanced societies of the West were all becoming less unequal. Thanks to progressive taxation, government subsidies for the poor, the provision of social services, and guarantees against acute misfortune, modern democracies were shedding extremes of wealth and poverty.
To be sure, great differences remained. The essentially egalitarian countries of Scandinavia and the considerably more diverse societies of southern Europe remained distinctive; and the English-speaking lands of the Atlantic world and the British Empire continued to reflect long-standing class distinctions. But each in its own way was affected by the growing intolerance of immoderate inequality, initiating public provision to compensate for private inadequacy.
Over the past thirty years we have thrown all this away. To be sure, "we" varies with country. The greatest extremes of private privilege and public indifference have resurfaced in the US and the UK: epicenters of enthusiasm for deregulated market capitalism. Although countries as far apart as New Zealand and Denmark, France and Brazil have expressed periodic interest in deregulation, none has matched Britain or the United States in their unwavering thirty-year commitment to the unraveling of decades of social legislation and economic oversight.
In 2005, 21.2 percent of US national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founder's family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the US population: 120 million people.
The UK too is now more unequal-in incomes, wealth, health, education, and life chances-than at any time since the 1920s. There are more poor children in the UK than in any other country of the European Union. Since 1973, inequality in take-home pay increased more in the UK than anywhere except the US. Most of the new jobs created in Britain in the years 1977-2007 were at either the very high or the very low end of the pay scale.
The consequences are clear. There has been a collapse in intergenerational mobility: in contrast to their parents and grandparents, children today in the UK as in the US have very little expectation of improving upon the condition into which they were born. The poor stay poor. (See Figures 1 and 2.) Economic disadvantage for the overwhelming majority translates into ill health, missed educational opportunity, and-increasingly-the familiar symptoms of depression: alcoholism, obesity, gambling, and minor criminality. The unemployed or underemployed lose such skills as they have acquired and become chronically superfluous to the economy. Anxiety and stress, not to mention illness and early death, frequently follow.
Income disparity exacerbates the problems. Thus the incidence of mental illness correlates closely to income in the US and the UK, whereas the two indices are quite unrelated in all continental European countries. Even trust, the faith we have in our fellow citizens, corresponds negatively with differences in income: between 1983 and 2001, mistrustfulness increased markedly in the US, the UK, and Ireland-three countries in which the dogma of unregulated individual self-interest was most assiduously applied to public policy. In no other country was a comparable increase in mutual mistrust to be found.
Even within individual countries, inequality plays a crucial role in shaping peoples' lives. In the United States, for example, your chances of living a long and healthy life closely track your income: residents of wealthy districts can expect to live longer and better. Young women in poorer states of the US are more likely to become pregnant in their teenage years-and their babies are less likely to survive-than their peers in wealthier states. In the same way, a child from a disfavored district has a higher chance of dropping out of high school than if his parents have a steady mid-range income and live in a prosperous part of the country. As for the children of the poor who remain in school: they will do worse, achieve lower scores, and obtain less fulfilling and lower-paid employment.
Inequality, then, is not just unattractive in itself; it clearly corresponds to pathological social problems that we cannot hope to address unless we attend to their underlying cause. There is a reason why infant mortality, life expectancy, criminality, the prison population, mental illness, unemployment, obesity, malnutrition, teenage pregnancy, illegal drug use, economic insecurity, personal indebtedness, and anxiety are so much more marked in the US and the UK than they are in continental Europe. (See Figures 3, 4, and 5.)
The wider the spread between the wealthy few and the impoverished many, the worse the social problems: a statement that appears to be true for rich and poor countries alike. What matters is not how affluent a country is but how unequal it is. Thus Sweden and Finland, two of the world's wealthiest countries by per capita income or GDP, have a very narrow gap separating their richest from their poorest citizens-and they consistently lead the world in indices of measurable well-being. Conversely, the United States, despite its huge aggregate wealth, always comes low on such measures. We spend vast sums on health care, but life expectancy in the US remains below Bosnia and just above Albania. (See Figure 6.)
Inequality is corrosive. It rots societies from within. The impact of material differences takes a while to show up: but in due course competition for status and goods increases; people feel a growing sense of superiority (or inferiority) based on their possessions; prejudice toward those on the lower rungs of the social ladder hardens; crime spikes and the pathologies of social disadvantage become ever more marked. The legacy of unregulated wealth creation is bitter indeed.[1]
As recently as the 1970s, the idea that the point of life was to get rich and that governments existed to facilitate this would have been ridiculed: not only by capitalism's traditional critics but also by many of its staunchest defenders. Relative indifference to wealth for its own sake was widespread in the postwar decades. In a survey of English schoolboys taken in 1949, it was discovered that the more intelligent the boy the more likely he was to choose an interesting career at a reasonable wage over a job that would merely pay well.[2] Today's schoolchildren and college students can imagine little else but the search for a lucrative job.
How should we begin to make amends for raising a generation obsessed with the pursuit of material wealth and indifferent to so much else? Perhaps we might start by reminding ourselves and our children that it wasn't always thus. Thinking "economistically," as we have done now for thirty years, is not intrinsic to humans. There was a time when we ordered our lives differently.
-This essay is drawn from the opening chapter of Tony Judt's newly published book, Ill Fares the Land (Penguin).
Notes
[1]The best recent statement of this argument comes in Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (Bloomsbury Press, 2010). I am indebted to them for much of the material in this excerpt.
[2]See T.H. Marshall and Tom Bottomore, Citizenship and Social Class (London: Pluto, 1992), p. 48.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
54 Comments so far
Show AllTony Judt presents the current state of affairs persuasively. The free market, driven by greed and the quest for more and more wealth to a few at the top, does not consider the well-being and morality of our nation.
"The free market, driven by greed and the quest for more and more wealth to a few at the top, does not consider the well-being and morality of our nation."
OK, but how "persuasive" do you have to be to make that kind of argument these days?
I mean, isn't the difficulty now not in convincing more people how bad the "free" market is--but to get more people to challenge that power based on a moral principle?
gregsdiary: yes but how do we get there? The politicians are BOUGHT by corporate wealth. The power brokers will not easily give up their control and wealth.
"how do we get there?"
The only thing I'm at least pretty sure of is the answer to that won't be showing up here in one of CD's essays.
Instead you'll get an endless stream of excellent analyses of what's wrong along with new and ever more clever arguments to convince and persuade.
Not so much on how to challenge power based on a moral principle.
I get the feeling that those writers on today's "Left"--liberals and progressives--are more interested in the intellectual exercise than actually opposing power.
If anything, what all the analyses and arguments end up doing is reinforcing the idea you have to accept "reality" and appeal to and work with those in power to get change.
Hence the need for "modesty" and "humility."
"I get the feeling that those writers on today's "Left"--liberals and progressives--are more interested in the intellectual exercise than actually opposing power. "
I have that same feeling too. I guess they're just confident about making more money than they are about their efforts to challenging power abuse and corruption paying off for themselves and the regulars on Main Street. There are also needs to be more self-confidence in each and every progressive and liberal fighting out there and there needs to be team confidence. One without the other will always guarantee failure. Most folks here have great self-confidence in being able to spot the problem and boldly speak out for the right solutions but there is no team confidence to succeed. The Kossacks and the Huffposters who kiss up to the centrist poop have no self-confidence in accomplishing anything progressive or liberal but when it comes to bolstering their candidates even if they're blue dog conservatives, the team confidence to help them win is always there. My relatives from Europe who visited recently indicated in their behavior that there is a lot of both self-confidence and team confidence on the Left for them to withstand the conservatives and even the conservatives are to the left of the American "Left" and yet don't feel grumpy and sinister like Limbaugh and Hannity. I think that the American Left needs to do some proper yinging and yanging together or we'll never succeed on progressive and liberal causes.
Two strong reading recommendations:
Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon S. Wolin tells us the current state of our sham democracy as "inverted totalitarianism".
The Real Wealth of Nations by Riane Eisler tells us what we need to do, beyond capitalism and socialism, to create a culture (including an economy) which nurtures people, instead of commodifying and exploiting them.
Bring America Back !!!!
****An out of control , and all powerful Military Industrial Complex. High concentrations of National Wealth in the Few societal Elites, to the detriment of all Middle America.
****Isn't it Ironic former President Dwight D Eisenhower warned and cautioned us exactly and precisely on these severe dangers, in his Farewell Speech of 1960 !!!!
****If the NY Book Review considers Tony Judt's new book
enlightened, or profoundly accurate, where were we as a
Nation 50 years ago when a Republican 5 Star War Hero, and
US President mouthed these exact conditions from which we
now suffer ????
****Were we too enamored and captivated with the prospects
of our Kennedy Era of Camelot to allow and heed Eisenhower's words, premonitions, and moreover to do something to prevent them coming true ???? Probably so !! Sadly.
****And so we now wallow in the realization that: Ill Fares the Nation...............
One should not confuse unregulated capitalism with croni-capitalism. Machiavelli made a point out of the corruption of societies. He says that if people have good habits, then just a few laws will be all that is required to keep the business running. If people have bad habits, that is, they have no honor, then no amount of legal language will keep them from stealing.
When the 1789 Constitutional Convention met, they knew that, regardless of the Constitution, it would be effective only if a free society which the individual members PLEDGED to live honorably. Without trust there cannot be freedom, and there cannot be trust without honor.
Please consider this, as embodied in the symbol of the United States.
Old Glory
Created in 1789
Colors:
White: Purity and innocence.
Red: Hardiness and Valor (worthiness)
Blue: Vigilance, Perseverance, & Justice
13 Stripes: 13 colonies
(7 red, 6 white)
A blue field with one white star for each state.
Old Glory
by
Timothy K. Price
Let me tell you a story,
About our flag, old glory,
The stars and stripes of red, white, and blue;
And of its creation,
ThIs symbol for our nation,
And what it mean to folks like me and you.
They took the purity of white,
The brightly shining light
All the colors in the spirit of our souls
For our banner of trust,
Our pledge of good intention,
For all who live beneath her to uphold.
They emblazoned her with red,
Stripes which clearly said
With a boisterous, cheering humor, “Have no fear”.
We are hardy souls of valor,
Worthy our intent,
To do good is the reason we are here.
We are many joined as one,
Honest folk, and fair,
For honor is the air that we breathe;
So to represent our nation,
Took a patch of blue sky
And placed on it a starry constellation.
With a star for every state
Each joining in its fate,
A union which no one will leave,
Finding happiness in freedom,
This flag is our dream
That none who live among us shall deceive.
Our flag is made from scraps,
For frugal is our way.
Simple living lets others simply live.
We will shame you for your riches,
Scorn your vanity,
If greed should get the better of your soul.
There’s salvation in compassion,
Poverty in greed,
So what we have we share with loving care.
We understand hard work,
Have no tolerance for cheats,
Politician in their office should beware.
When we pledge our allegiance,
We pledge a way of life,
To be true to the meaning of our flag.
We pledge a life of honor,
To be truthful and fair,
This is our way... here in the USA.
So this is my story,
About our flag, old glory,
The stars and strips of red, white, and blue.
And of its creation,
ThIs symbol of our nation,
and what it mean to folks like me and you
Timothy Price:
First, with regard to unregulated capitalism vs. crony-capitalism--they're the same thing-- and are referred to by many names: "un-fettered," "Free-market", "Reaganomics", "disaster-capitalism", "mafia-capitalism", et cetera. Outside of the US, it's generally referred to as neoliberalism. In the US, it's often called neo-conservatism....It serves elite interests through privatization, starvation of social programs, and cutting taxes on the wealthy. I suggest you read The Shock Doctrine.
Second, concerning the flag, please, put it away! You need a more sophisticated historical perspective. You would do well to start with the words of the late historian, Howard Zinn:
"[W]e would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power."
The entire essay, titled Put Away the Flags, can be viewed at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0703-29.htm
There's an irritating, consistent thread running through Mr Judt's piece and the above comments. It's the use of "we."...as in we were enamored of Camelot, etc.
Earth to everyone...WE didn't decide any of this. At the time of Eisenhower's speech the MIC was firmly in place, the CIA had become quite skilled at exterior subversion and were gaining mastery over the subtle propaganda techniques that have allowed all this mess to happen. We were (and are) fed a steady stream of lies, partial truths that allowed the top 1% to gain virtually complete control of the economy and the media.
The richies hire the best and the brightest (think Kissinger) to carry their water and make them even richer. They can't stop...power is addictive. They will keep going until the whole system collapses.
This kind of scolding/hand-wringing doesn't help. Frankly I don't know what will. But this definitely doesn't.
Let it collapse then. The sooner the better. Get it overwith.
Kissinger is the best and the brightest??? Yikes!!! He's one of the - if not THE - most evil, caustically putrid creatures on the planet. And like black mold, he refuses to go away.
A grammar point - "we" is a rhetorical device. It is the editorial "we", or the generalizing "we". There is also a royal "we". It is a device, not intended to be taken literally. I guess you cut that day in English class.
But our society has been atomized - consisting of individuals distrustful of and competing with each other. As a society, we do need to find a "we" again, so we can work in concert to improve things for each other and for ourselves.
Finally, of course, the MIC was in place already before your generation had a say in it. But stop blaming boomers - they had no say either, and the MIC was ticking along well by the time they were born also.
The plutocrats would like nothing better than to see us all squabbling with each other - in fact, they're counting on our mutual mistrust, as it disempowers us.
I hope you did not find the use of "us" or "they" inappropriate or offensive.
"Finally, of course, the MIC was in place already before your generation had a say in it. But stop blaming boomers - they had no say either, and the MIC was ticking along well by the time they were born also.
Ultimately, the boomers' fight did fail miserably. Pretending they didn't or that they are not to blame isn't going to help.
"The plutocrats would like nothing better than to see us all squabbling with each other - in fact, they're counting on our mutual mistrust, as it disempowers us.""
But one of the things the boomers did get right is they didn't seem to expect a whole lot in the way of real help from the older generation.
I mean, at least they had confidence.
I'm too old to be a boomer, but for me, the fight pretty much ended with Kent State. Innocence, optimism, confidence, youth, courage - ka-boom, and then a whole new turn of the screw.
I feel sad for the younger generations - they know something's wrong, but this class war is being fought in so many arenas, on so many levels, it's difficult to tease out the elements and deal with them. What I see is, on the one hand, unfocussed rage, and on the other, a retreat into infantilism/narcissism, with both camps somewhat aware of the insufficiency of their response, yet helpless to correct it. There's an emptiness inside - not their fault - that can augur only ill.
This article can be summed up by the following R.B.Fuller quote:
"If materialism wins, we are licked."
I disagree with generalcommentator. With articles like this "we" can reflect on the changes that have occurred in our lifetimes. I'm a farmer. During the height of the "farm crisis" in 1985, we learned that farmers who see their jobs as "a way of life" were increasingly going bankrupt. We had to farm like businessmen in order to survive. We increased our productivity. We no longer had sit-down meals during crucial times such as planting, for instance. For a while, we worried a great deal. I think it's good for people to go through things like this, but it concerns me that a great many people are in this situation for a long time. If hope goes, then it's pretty much a downward spiral. It's up to all of us to push policies that give everyone an honest opportunity. We may despise most of our politicians, but they do have varied policy ideas. Some of their ideas are less worse than others.
The social changes Judt describes did indeed occur over the last three decades. These changes apparently were driven by an economic elite pursuing its narrow self-interest. Nevertheless, contrary to what Judt states above, it was a weakness in the human condition that facilitated these changes. For most experts, that weakness remains unrecognized today.
As individuals, we were not sufficiently in touch with our value and autonomy to recognize that the country was taking a wrong term. As a people, we were ultimately passive. Through our passivity we allowed this corruption of national life to occur. We came under the influence of materialism and selfishness, and we lost ourselves in the pursuit of its false promises.
This happened because humankind is still strongly under the influence of a psychological condition called inner passivity. That condition is described in the book, The Phantom of the Psyche: Freeing Ourself From Inner Passivity.
Inner passivity, which affects men and women equally, is much more than just our difficulty in standing up for our rights. It is complex and mysterious, concealed in the psyche beneath feelings of being helpless, overwhelmed, indecisive, and defensive.
Inner passivity plays a role in procrastination, failure, and addictive and compulsive behaviors. It is a factor in hundreds of symptoms, including anxiety, worry, fear, anger, and depression.
Inner passivity facilitates and enables the inner critic. The primary inner conflict in many individuals is between inner passivity and the aggressive inner critic. When inner passivity is exposed in our psyche, we are able to overthrow the negative, irrational inner critic. Now our true self can emerge, and with it the establishment of inner mastery along with, on a national level, a united, conscious citizenry.
Free of inner passivity, people acquire the power to recognize truth and to be able to champion it in their family, community, and nation.
Thanks, that looked like a book that could be helpful to me, so I ordered it.
However, I think the particular rightward tilt that was initiated by Reagan was a 'gift' of the Vietnam War. The War, like all wars, did two things that killed the 'liberal' backbone of America: 1)It hardened and radicalized the right, who immediately developed a plan for 'revenge', 2)It bankrupted America (ie Carters inflation), which the right then used as an economic albatross to hang on the center-left.
ubrew12
"The War, like all wars, did two things that killed the 'liberal' backbone of America"
I've given this a lot of thought since you first posted it and I'm not sure you are quite right. I know a lot of guys came back less than "hardened and radicalized to the right" and I know many parents and others that insisted on the right stopping the war. They were the ones that stopped it.
Carter was a fool.
The War radicalized the right that never fought in it, as is true of all wars. Indeed, that is such a reliable outcome of war, it is probably in the figuring of someone thinking of starting a war, like GW Bush. THAT was my point. Just because you can't kill the Cong, doesn't mean you can't hate them, or their representatives in America, like the American left. The value of war, to the right, is that it gives the right a clear, undeniable enemy. Hence, anyone opposed to the war must be aiding that enemy, and must also be an enemy. That, essentially, is what I said, and I stand by it. Vietnam hardened attitudes in America, especially on the right, and those hardened attitudes were much less likely to look at Reagans economic platform (and its moral bankruptcy) than if they didn't have a clear, identifiable enemy to hate. No, Vietnam, more than anything else, explains Reagan.
This is different than 'stopping the war'. By 1970, EVERYONE knew it was an unwinneable war (at least, without holocaust by air) and, just as surely, everyone knew they hated the hippy left for being right about it from the get-go. The right simply used that hatred to elect Reagan.
Carter was not a fool. Carter, unlike Nixon/Ford, stepped up to PAY for the Vietnam War, and simultaneously PAY for the OPEC embargo. This proved to be political suicide (even though it was just the medicine the country needed). America undertook a foolishly expensive foray into a SE Asian country of no account, and allowed herself to become foolishly dependent on foreign sources of oil to boot. Carters 'crime' is that he took the Truman advice 'the buck stops here' to heart. If only his successors (ALL of them) had done the same, we'd be much better off today.
Just one example: Volcker was a Carter appointee. Even today, he looms as the epitome of fiscal prudence, against which Reagan appointee Greenspan can only feign membership. Bottom line: the Reagan recovery was built by Carter (Volcker), and he rode it to a second term. Good for Reagan... bad for America. I would point out that Reagan tripled the national debt, and that we've never even paid that, much less what has come later, but I presume you know that.
Yes, if I remember correctly, America's debt as a % of GDP was at its lowest point under Carter including the period from now to way before WW2.
Carter's inflation? He caused it? How? Don't you think the oil embargo had something to do with inflation back then? Oil cost more, therefore the cost of production increased. "Carter's inflation" sounds like Reagan propaganda.
Interesting. Sounds like a kind of inner laziness. When one looks at much of what passes for cultures and personalities, they seem heavily mortgaged in the past. A personal image is founded on past experiences and keeps one from being fully present in relationships. It's almost as if everyone is still working out of this primitive box probably due to the underlying fear of stepping out of the familiar into something altogether new. If truth has any relevance to us it must be because it is alive, not a dead thing. Whatever is known is by definition already in the past. Sadly, the human race seems intent on beating on this "dead horse" rather than living fully in relationship to themselves and others. The fact that most people are so caught up in this underlying defensive mode of avoidance only means that much of what must be overcome is self-imposed.
I get it. Kind of like what is torturing poor Marlon Brando in the famous scene from "On the Waterfront", where Terry(Marlon), after PASSIVELY taking a 'dive' because he's on the wrong side of his brother's bet, thereby guaranteeing a "one-way ticket to palooka-ville", admonishes his brother with the critically AGRESSIVE, "...I coulda been a contentah, I coulda been SOME body, instead of a bum, which is what I am, cuz'a YOU, Charley..."
There's something profoundly wrong with the advice this author gives:
"It was this note of unmerited arrogance that partly accounts for the reactionary backlash that followed; if the left is to recover its fortunes, some modesty will be in order."
As if those tyranized and made passive in today's market society need to be worried about humility when it comes to our freedoms and humanity.
That's just sad.
And pathetic.
The loss of our freedoms and our rights is not due to any "backlash"--not even in part.
It's simply due to the exclusion of justice in our society at the hands of those in power.
Changing that requires real struggle.
Not the weak soup of avoidance and tippy-toeing around the sensitivities and "prerogatives" of those in power in the hopes of not offending that this author seems to advocate.
You're misunderstanding what he's saying. The very success of the 1960s (civil rights, environmentalism, feminism) spawned a backlash, which culminated in the Reagan revolution and everything Judt is talking about. In essence conservatives freaked out at what happened in the 60s. And they got organized, and we've been living with the consequences ever since.
"In essence conservatives freaked out at what happened in the 60s."
Those in power (and I'd hardly limit it to Conservatives) saw an opportunity in the 60s to seize more power.
But their intention was to seize more power anyway. That intention has nothing to do with any "freaking" out about the 60s.
That's just the bullshit cover story you seem to have swallowed.
In fact, those with wealth and power grabbed power for the sake of grabbing power.
It's an old habit.
The idea that you could have influenced or mitigated those intentions with politeness is simply ludicrous.
Worse, what you and this author are doing is not only focusing on a red herring but to some extent changing the focus of the problem to one of working WITH those in power.
The problem is not one of offending or failing to appeal to those in power.
The problem is the inclination of those in power to want more power--at the expense of justice.
And any amount of convincing and persuading is not going to change that.
That is, the problem is getting people to challenge that power.
And the most meaningful way to challenge power is by fighting for justice. All out. That means getting the most people to focus their thoughts, energies and actions to that end.
No matter what those in power and their helpers happen to think.
Yes. And this began with Nixon, or Tricky Dick.
Summing up this article...Some good, some bad.
The Good:
"The little crash of 2008 was a reminder that UNREGULATED capitalism is its own worst enemy"
A liberal is someone who opposes interference in the affairs of others: who is tolerant of dissenting attitudes and unconventional behavior. Liberals have historically favored keeping other people out of our lives, leaving individuals the maximum space in which to live and flourish as they choose. In their extreme form, such attitudes are associated today with self-styled "libertarians," but the term is largely redundant. Most genuine liberals remain disposed to leave other people alone.
Liberals are NOT Leftists.
The Bad:
The absurd claim that "In short, the practical need for strong states and interventionist governments is beyond dispute."
"Even within individual countries, inequality plays a crucial role in shaping peoples' lives. In the United States, for example, your chances of living a long and healthy life closely track your income"
Or in any other country for that matter unless you want to bend the statistics.
Fairly typical article about a book that offers little new in thought or direction.
You write, "The characteristic tone of the 1960s was that of overweening confidence: we knew just how to fix the world. It was this note of unmerited arrogance that partly accounts for the reactionary backlash that followed; if the left is to recover its fortunes, some modesty will be in order."
This is pure bs. The 60s were a Spiritual Planetary Renaissance Wave that went far beyond the political. And it is most unfortunate that it got crushed and snuffed out by the ruling elite who were outraged at their loss of even a little power. In 1973, Samuel Huntington - of "Clash of Civilizations" fame wrote a position paper for the Trilateral Commission - a major elite think tank - called "Crisis of Democracy" which recommended pushing the country deliberately to the right to regain complete power over democratic forces. David Brock, in "The Republican Noise Machine" tells more of the same story.
I consider myself a 60s person even though I actually lived my personal "60s" in the mid-70s, and guess what dude? We were right about just about everything, AND, we were as cool about it as we could be. So dont you dare blame the reactionary backlash on arrogance because that is bs. We were as strident as we were because we were functioning as an evolutionary alarm clock, trying to alert humanity to the fact that our way of life was a dead end.
Had we gained enough political power to significantly alter the direction of this country, we would not be in the horrible postion we are in today, with Peak Oil and Peak Everything, including climate change - about to Crash global industrial civilization and we are almost totally unprepared for it.
I tell you, I am SO sick of people like you pushing this misinterpretation of the 60's, out of ignorance. Go listen to the Moody Blues album, "A Question of Balance": no "arrogance", just advocation of a spiritual renaissance.
Post script:
The "reactionary backlash" was planned as per the above mentioned sources. It resulted in the election of Reagan and represented the rise of the fundamentalist right in this country that has held this country hostage in dumbed-down stupidity ever since.
In other words, Reagan represented "The Empire Strikes Back". Youve atributed the "arrogance" to the wrong side you fool. Dont you see how you legitimize the Empire when you do such a thing?
Now this is a 60s (70s) dude worth listening to.
Yeah well, caveman was "in" back in the new age of aquarius. So after we're done burning up and blowing up the planet perhaps he'll get to make another comeback. Something tells me this one might last a wee bit longer than his last one...
Funny how a lot of those 60's hippies later became 80's yuppies.
Kitaj
"We were right about just about everything, AND, we were as cool about it as we could be"
Wow, perfection. I don't remember it as that good, nor quite as right. I thought it was much more confused.
Not to put to fine a point on it but not everyone thought the sixties and early seventies were quite the Nirvana you saw, nor was everyones experience quite so positive.
Perhaps a bit more tolerance of other viewpoints is in order? Just a thought.
I think what needs to be realized, in retrospect, is that the guys that took over the public discussion in the late '60s/ early '70s, weren't as wedded to power, as the guys who held it before then, or ever since. They were, it seems in restrospect, largely artists, uninterested in power, more interested in beauty.
Of course, the right will tell you that that is because they were naive. Yes, and no. Yes, in that Stalin certainly came from a similar tradition in Russia, and look what HE did. Yes, in that some (Jim Jones) of that period, used whatever power they could command to commit h*ll. And, also NO, in that many were committed leftists who understood, real and true, what a functioning society needed from both capitalism and government, and understood that America fell toward capitalism even when it shouldn't. They were FDR leftists, and we did the wrong thing by not listening to them because of the length of their hair, or the appearance of their clothing.
For whatever reason, America didn't listen to them. And America is, unarguably, in a sh*thole because of it. There's not a single 'fix' to our capitalism (from renewed regulatory powers to extreme anti-trust solutions) that wouldn't have been in their 'grab-bag' of solutions from the get-go.
How badly did we not listen to them? Here's a statistic: of 22 countries in the OECD (including France, Germany, Canada, UK, etc), where is America in the fraction of her population who own their own businesses? Next to LAST. Conclusion: so much for conservative 'individualism'. American's celebrate the 'free market', even though that market has enslaved them to corporations bigger than the Gilded Age could ever have imagined. (for reference, that's where the notion of 'anti-trust' first started: when Teddy Rossevelt first broke up JP Morgan). How big? Lets consider WalMart again: the WalMart family now owns more wealth than the poorest 40% of Americans combined, or 120 million people. Tell me, given this truth, that socialism is the problem, and that our 'hippy' socialists of the '60s, '70s, were not something we should have given some weight at the time, instead of rejecting outright with Reagan.
America is not suffering from excess socialism, but excess monopolization of the means of production. And its occuring in every consumable item out there. And the American laborer is on the cra_per because of it.
Now, this excellent comment by kitaj is what I call "waving one's Freak Flag high"!
And I mean that in a GOOD way! ;)
The "I consider myself a 60s person..." paragraph fits me like a glove. It may not be "uncanny", but it's a delightful concordance.
Even though I'm pretty much a "secular humanist" agnostic and skeptic, I too share an enduring view that something Kozmic and transcendental-- OK, "spiritual"-- was more present during that period than before and afterwards. This was only reinforced when I belatedly was turned on to Philip K. Dick and a certan Gnostic sensibility about ten years ago. I was shocked that I'd "missed" him for so many years!
I generally keep this to myself, because there's no way to bring it up without the idea being dismissed out of hand, not to say scorned, as mere sentimentality and nostalgia. Of course, I AM sentimental and nostalgic about the Woodstock Generation and the "Age of Aquarius", but there's more to it than that.
Like 9/11 "truth", it simply can't be discussed properly in web comments threads. But I have to risk yelping "Woo-hoo!"-- or should that be "Right On!"?-- to a kindred spirit.
Kitaj, Obedient Servant, and others, you tell it right. There was that brief window of hope in the 1960s which was slammed shut by 1980. Even the timid attempts at reform and at cleaning house instituted by the Carter administration (think CIA and the Church Commission) were due to the pressures created by the '60s tsunami. I, too, was too young to really be part of things until it was too late, but there was heady stuff in the air and it pierced my pre-adolescent mind.
And, incidentally, as for Judt, while I find some of his writings quite good and admirable, let us not forget that he claims that the Cold Warriors were "right," and is therefore a pretty diluted lefty. The present article I found too namby-pamby even to comment on, until I came across these more inspiring posts.
Peace, friends, and let's encourage our children and grandchildren to try it again.
Thanks for writing this.
More of us should stand up for the values & ethos of the 60s. I'm sick of this revisionist crap about its 'excesses,' writing off that whole shining era as poor judgement. What bullshit.
I'm not ready to stand down, shuffle apologetically and make lame excuses. Many of the social freedoms enjoyed today are a gift of the 60s, and there was room for more.
Years ago, Dr. Timothy Leary told me that what we call 'the 60s' ended in 1980 with election of Reagan. He was spot on. The 'Conservative backlash' has been a cruel, vicious and destructive chapter in our history. THAT was the 'mistake.'
This is a great thought provoking post. I can see both sides of this coin. There was a certain amount of hubris in the 60's counter culture. It was required because when you look at it, much of it was about destruction and tearing down the existing status quo. It didn't go about that business in a timid fashion. At the same time, there was a core element within the movement that embodied the humility and modesty you suggest. There was genuine concern about issues like human rights and the environment and these issues were first put into the American public's consciousness in the 60's.
If we do an honest autopsy of the 60's culture revolution, I think a number of things came into play. First, the war ended. Whether we want to admit it or not, many were in the ranks for self-preservation. There was a serious drain off at that point. A second aspect was the way drugs had threaded themselves into the movement at the very start. It was the prime symbol of rebellion in my mind's eye. Reality started to seep in and kids were dying and going crazy at a pretty good clip. I know that more people in my neighborhood died of drugs and alcohol than they did from fighting in the Vietnam war. Since drugs were an important part of the cultural revolution, that part of the movement became unsustainable.
That said, a significant number of people came out of the 60's and 70's with a fairly solid political vision. The stake in our hearts was the reality that boomer parents had a certain amount of resentment coupled with ever increasing numbers of people wishing to settle down and raise families. Because there were considerable excesses that had occurred as part of the cultural revolution, there was considerable drain off at that point. The beginning of the end in my mind's eye is the election of Reagan. It started the cultural de-evolution based on high tech and shiny plastic objects.
I agree that the core of the revolution had it right on just about everything. The last time I felt true optimism about the prospects of this society was back in those days. As a society, we are circling the drain and are in dire need of a stopper.
Another laundry list of ills and the call for a 'different way of life' without even a single posited solution with regards to achieving such a daunting goal.
I'd argue the author's premise is flawed: the problem is that Capitalism actually - and unexpectedly - succeeded.
For the most part, needs are satisfied - we got plenty of food, clothing and shelter. We also have, or have access to, anything we want - technology, gadgets, toys, etc. Tons of it.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Capitalism relies on constant growth and constant consuming. But now, the majority are obese - physically and materialistically - and, since no one ever saw this coming, no one came up with an After Capitalism plan.
Except me, that is. Here's the short version: consume the least amount possible, start enjoying all the other amazing things life has to offer...
Well said Kitaj. You are absolutely correct.
"To take advantage of sentiments, not wasting one's energies in futile efforts to destroy them". -Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto.
This is what was done to the subculture of the sixties and is done to everything that becomes a nuisance to the totalitarian machine. When something becomes a threat, the easiest way to pull its teeth is to "legitimize" it. So, turn protest music into pop music. Put a price tag on it and sell it instead of attempting to silence it. It becomes just another product.
My generation made only one big mistake. We stopped fighting. For some reason, after Nixon, after Nam, we just dropped the ball. We were the change the world needed but we were overwhelmed by the profit machine. We were on the cusp of a modern Renaissance and the marketing machine simply turned it into a "fad".
As long as profit is the motive, death will be the result.
BBGBs. BringBackGreenBacks. Restore the republic, restore free enterprise, restore the constitution. Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank, repeal the federal reserve act of 1913, restore control of currency to the people (real government), prohibit usury (interest) and use only government printed legal tender based on NO commodity. Money is an act of law, not a product of nature. The control of a national currency must NEVER be surrendered to private interests.
No for-profit corporations. Non-profit only, by federal charter and only for companies that provide for the general welfare of the entire nation. If corporations do not act in the best interests of all the people, their charters will be revoked.
The profit motive is the child of greed. A system spawned by greed, to serve the interests of greed will only concentrate all wealth and power in the control of a small group of the most greedy. This process will inevitably result in a society of only two classes; masters and servants.
Earth will soon be a third world planet.
"For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest".
Prior to 1980 we were all celibate monks and nuns with no families to support?
Of course. We were all like Mahatma Gandhi!
And I thought socialism was going well in Europe. Europe better not ask for deregulation like the US or the consequences could be worse than what the US is already facing. If the left wants to find its voice, we need to find ways to get more people confident in progressive thinking and electing thinkers like them on all levels. Along with that, team confidence is also needed among progressives. We can't just rely on one or two people protesting. We need more people confident in themselves and each other. If that could be worked out, we'll find fewer younger people living in iPod ignorance and more of them taking it to the streets with the rest of us elders ready to march with them.
The US is a predatory Capitalist Warfare State.
The US is Communism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.
The US is from each according to his need, to each according to his greed.
in the 1990's right up to the Iraq War..the Darling of neocons and "free marketeers" writer - Francis Fukuyama had declared that capitalism is the "end of history"...
that henceforth - history and human civilization had reached its ultimate, its apex, and everyone would just be perpetual consumers, the world getting richer and richer as the GIFT of Free market Capitalism...no other alternative and this was to be celebrated - and above all - the USA was to be celebrated for this GIFT .
he later "recanted" .....
but more to the point:
CAPITALISM is turning out and WILL turn out to be the DEATH of civilization and ANY semblance or hope or potential for a civilization that is worthy of being called one -- and what is inherent, and desired as a human endeavor worth existence:
the DECENCY of even being allowed to exist to build any civilization.
CAPITALISM DESTROYS wealth, it destroys humanity, it destroys the earth, it destroys conscience, it destroys humaneness, it destroys.
capitalism IS the worst invention ever created by humans because it destroys their best instincts and potentials while promoting their worst instincts and potentials.
this is not about "regulated capitalism" .
it is ONLY about "capitalism". an EVIL thing whose "benefits" are not only shortlived and temporary - but its predation and disastrous effects are prolonged and even permanent so long as it is allowed to function .
ANY 'regulation' of capitalism in any country should not be for the purpose of "living WITH" capitalism -- but to eventuallY DESTROY it and replace it with what is inherently humane and social and in commune with the earth and nature and what they give and allow us, including our potentials and creativity.
some erudite writers, only a few really -- have mentioned a curious but seldom noted FACT in history of civilization....
that DESPITE the many problems of civilization -
"the HISTORICAL TREND of civilizations has been to Gradually understand each other and come to a common destiny of sharing...but CAPITALISM , is in reality, an ABERRATION in this long evolution towards the BETTER development of human civilizations".
and - at that - an aberration that has the great potential to DESTROY civilization and what makes existence worth living....by enhancing human qualities which civilizations would otherwise tend to overcome - GREED, SELFISHNESS, and the Basest instincts of people.
capitalism - instead PROMOTES those barbaric qualities. and is an OBSTACLE to true human development and civilized life - and a life and existence that takes its meaning from what Nature gives as a gift to all of us, including ourselves.
"Much like the Great Depression, the Great Recession grew out of the Republican leadership's decisions to block government oversight of markets and eschew any role for government in addressing persistent economic problems in communities across America. The failed policies of George Bush were not merely tactical mistakes - they were the fundamental product of an ideology that places greed above social responsibility". (Deepak Bhargava)
Storm Clouds are gathering, unemployment, illegal wars, splinter groups cloaking themselves in Constitutional cloth feeding the winds of hatred and racism. We gird ourselves for the violence and disruption that comes with change, to endure the night, confident that morning will come and the Spirit builds anew.
I have not known the America I long for. I have seen glimpses, but mostly I have believed, the words that describe America, the beautiful words of Promise and Hope and Justice. I still believe that "one day America will rise up"...
Bhargava:
"...the Great Recession grew out of the Republican leadership's decisions to block government oversight of markets and eschew any role for government in addressing persistent economic problems in communities across America."
But equally, though Bhargava neglects to say so:
"...the Great Recession grew out of the Democratic leadership's decisions to block government oversight of markets and eschew any role for government in addressing persistent economic problems in communities across America."
Clinton signed: NAFTA and WTO; "end welfare as we know it"; "Effective" Death Penalty" act; "Anti-terrorism" legislation; Gramm's bill to deregulate hedge funds; the repeal of Glass-Steagall (i kept a copy of the next day's NYT for years - Clinton and the rich white Senators and Cabinet, in color front page above the fold, yukking it up at the signing ceremony), etc etc etc.
And Obama helped push the first bailout through the Senate, and as President has swept under the rug the trillions given to the banksters. Not to mention the utter corruption of Senate Democrats. Etc etc etc.
Judt's doing a lot of misreading of recent history. Just for starters
1. The 1960s did not as Judt say divide between between defenders of "capitalism" and its critics: usually identified with one or another form of "socialism.""
Not true. Most leftists in the 1960s weren't socialists but a minority were. Most U.S. leftists were 1) pro civil rights and 2.) anti-war. There was huge debates within both camps. If you could categorize 1960s leftists at all, most were against both U.S. economic policy and the Soviet Union (only a tiny number suuported USSR and a slighter larger group were Maoists). A larger group just supported 3rd world liberation struggles.
Judt's is wrong when he says "By the 1970s this [pro and anti capitalism] debate had lost much of its meaning for both sides;" It was in the 1970s that U.S. young radicals began to grapple with different kinds of socialism in the New American Movement and many small leftists splinter groups abounded.
Judt is making a silly statement when he says, "For thirty years students have been complaining to me that "it was easy for you" .... In many respects my students are right." Being a young radical in the late 1960s meant you saw people get killed all the time. In the Bay Area Bobby Hutton got killed and Black Panthers were murdered all over the country. The late 1960s were really scary for many.
Also Judt ignores the minority of young radicals (of course, a minority but an important voice) from the 1970s to today--the young people who acted in solidarity with Nicaragua Sandinistas and protested genocide in Salvador and Guatemala and the people who protested factory closures in the 1980s, the anti-sweatshop activists and the people who protested the WTO in Seattle in the 1990s, the anti-war activists particularly antiwar veterans. One could argue that the small U.S. left after the 1960s got more involved in class issues more and more and revived ideas of early 1900s American socialism. The anti-sweatshop group Common Threads I was in in L.A. 1995-6 modeled itself after the anti-sweatshop group Women's Trade Union Leagues of pre-World War I.
The quasi-religious veneration of all things military and the quasi-religious veneration of the 'free-market' principle are what's killing our America.
When things become religious, they're off-limits for legitimate criticism. 'Support our Troops' and 'Leftism is Communism, which stifles religion' are staples of thought on the Right. Thus, this veneration protects the flaws of militarism and Capitalism for their standard-bearers on the Right.
Even those on the Right who claim to see such flaws will ultimately overlook them to maintain solidarity with those wielding political & cultural power _ Republicans & Democrats, the Church and the very organized militant Right.
Those of us who espoused 60s values don't have a similar tendency, because one of those values was questioning our own religious traditions and tolerating those of others. There are those among us on the Left whose respect for Nature & Liberal interpretations of Judaism and Christianity enter into the religious realm, but with nothing like the strength of the Right.
The stranglehold of fundamentalism on military and economic thought has to be broken before we can reclaim sanity.
I believe the biggest problem of all is that a large majority of Americans would not admit a single sentence of the above to be true. I can't decide if the ones I have contact with are truly ignorant of the true state of the country or if, through fear, they are simply unwilling to admit it even to themselves. What I do know is that this collective denial is what will, in the end, destroy us. There will be no recognition of the truth until everything shatters and the facts can't be denied any longer.