Old Hands Against War
IRAQ HAS become more savage (a rising tide of Iraqi blood, an air war escalating -- along with rates of American mortality); increasing numbers of US citizens have moved from dismay to action. (Only a few weeks ago, more than 300,000 people rallied in New York City, saying no.) On campuses, peace demonstrations have become more common, and when Bush administration figures have appeared at graduations recently, protests have been lodged.
But these manifestations have overwhelmingly been mounted by older people, with gray heads dominating the antiwar crowds. Faculty members have done more than students to spark university protests. Aging activists have taken the lead in ad hoc peace vigils, as well as on the Internet. Some younger people have emerged as charismatic leaders of the new movement (one thinks of fortysomething Amy Goodman, anchor of ''Democracy Now," or of thirtysomething Frida Berrigan, daughter of Philip Berrigan), but the generation of those who are actually at war has mostly kept its distance from the public questioning. Why is that?
Ready answers are offered: There is no draft, and so young people, feeling no personal jeopardy, feel no pressure to confront the issue. An uncertain economy makes its newcomers risk averse. They are harried by pressures to achieve or their concerns are trumped by entertainment culture or they just don't care.
But explanations like these, in addition to smacking of intergenerational condescension, seem off. For one thing, as high school and college records show, today's young people are given to unprecedented levels of community service. They volunteer as tutors, raise money for charities, embrace programs like AmeriCorps, City Year, and Habitat for Humanity. Their teachers consistently testify to a marked seriousness of purpose. There is no reason to regard the new breed as less idealistic, or less courageous, than those who have gone before. What then?
Perhaps the question is not what makes young people different, but what makes so many of their elders as they are? In the 1950s, Americans learned to live with a vivid sense of imminent disaster. Children glimpsed it under their desks, during ''duck and cover" drills. What was at issue, in that fresh era of nuclear anguish, was nothing less than the end of the world. That is why, through the 1960s dramas of Berlin, Cuba, and Vietnam, the watchword became ''Apocalypse Now!" Western civilization had long taken its narrative paradigm, the literary theorist Paul Ricoeur suggests, from a biblical framework that begins with Genesis and concludes with Apocalypse, but suddenly that scheme had entered history. You did not have to be a nut case to feel the wind blowing in from the Endtime.
It was not the draft that sparked the peace movement of that era or ''youthful idealism," but this awareness of nuclear threat. ''Ours [is] the first generation to live with the possibility of worldwide cataclysm," declared the foundational Port Huron Statement in 1962. That generation, with reason, saw the cataclysm coming. Unbridled fear for -- and of -- the near future is what drove so many of them into the streets, at first during the Vietnam protests of their youth and then, as they approached middle age, for the Nuclear Freeze movement (nearly a million demonstrators in New York in 1982).
The conclusion of the Cold War was foolishly designated ''the end of history" by some, yet there was a definite termination of the pervasive dread that had shaped consciousness. In America, it served the purposes of the national security establishment, and of the economic and political interests that depended on it, to encourage citizens to believe that nuclear Armageddon no longer threatened. With that pressure off, worries about war, even as the United States promptly went to war in Panama and Iraq, seemed passe. The catastrophe of 9/11 fell upon the national mind like an instance of the Apocalypse, as if the clouds rising up over New York were mushroom-shaped after all, but when that emergency passed, transcendent fear was sublimated -- domesticated -- under the numbing label ''terrorism."
It takes a habit of the heart to feel antiwar anguish now, and that is what has driven so many gray-haired ones into the streets. Not that the young care less, nor that they are more readily anesthetized. Older people, for better and worse, are grooved thinkers. It is not to our credit that we've been here, done this. We still recognize a worldwide cataclysm when it threatens, especially when mainly from Washington. And no, as it turns out, we never got over it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
IRAQ HAS become more savage (a rising tide of Iraqi blood, an air war escalating -- along with rates of American mortality); increasing numbers of US citizens have moved from dismay to action. (Only a few weeks ago, more than 300,000 people rallied in New York City, saying no.) On campuses, peace demonstrations have become more common, and when Bush administration figures have appeared at graduations recently, protests have been lodged.
But these manifestations have overwhelmingly been mounted by older people, with gray heads dominating the antiwar crowds. Faculty members have done more than students to spark university protests. Aging activists have taken the lead in ad hoc peace vigils, as well as on the Internet. Some younger people have emerged as charismatic leaders of the new movement (one thinks of fortysomething Amy Goodman, anchor of ''Democracy Now," or of thirtysomething Frida Berrigan, daughter of Philip Berrigan), but the generation of those who are actually at war has mostly kept its distance from the public questioning. Why is that?
Ready answers are offered: There is no draft, and so young people, feeling no personal jeopardy, feel no pressure to confront the issue. An uncertain economy makes its newcomers risk averse. They are harried by pressures to achieve or their concerns are trumped by entertainment culture or they just don't care.
But explanations like these, in addition to smacking of intergenerational condescension, seem off. For one thing, as high school and college records show, today's young people are given to unprecedented levels of community service. They volunteer as tutors, raise money for charities, embrace programs like AmeriCorps, City Year, and Habitat for Humanity. Their teachers consistently testify to a marked seriousness of purpose. There is no reason to regard the new breed as less idealistic, or less courageous, than those who have gone before. What then?
Perhaps the question is not what makes young people different, but what makes so many of their elders as they are? In the 1950s, Americans learned to live with a vivid sense of imminent disaster. Children glimpsed it under their desks, during ''duck and cover" drills. What was at issue, in that fresh era of nuclear anguish, was nothing less than the end of the world. That is why, through the 1960s dramas of Berlin, Cuba, and Vietnam, the watchword became ''Apocalypse Now!" Western civilization had long taken its narrative paradigm, the literary theorist Paul Ricoeur suggests, from a biblical framework that begins with Genesis and concludes with Apocalypse, but suddenly that scheme had entered history. You did not have to be a nut case to feel the wind blowing in from the Endtime.
It was not the draft that sparked the peace movement of that era or ''youthful idealism," but this awareness of nuclear threat. ''Ours [is] the first generation to live with the possibility of worldwide cataclysm," declared the foundational Port Huron Statement in 1962. That generation, with reason, saw the cataclysm coming. Unbridled fear for -- and of -- the near future is what drove so many of them into the streets, at first during the Vietnam protests of their youth and then, as they approached middle age, for the Nuclear Freeze movement (nearly a million demonstrators in New York in 1982).
The conclusion of the Cold War was foolishly designated ''the end of history" by some, yet there was a definite termination of the pervasive dread that had shaped consciousness. In America, it served the purposes of the national security establishment, and of the economic and political interests that depended on it, to encourage citizens to believe that nuclear Armageddon no longer threatened. With that pressure off, worries about war, even as the United States promptly went to war in Panama and Iraq, seemed passe. The catastrophe of 9/11 fell upon the national mind like an instance of the Apocalypse, as if the clouds rising up over New York were mushroom-shaped after all, but when that emergency passed, transcendent fear was sublimated -- domesticated -- under the numbing label ''terrorism."
It takes a habit of the heart to feel antiwar anguish now, and that is what has driven so many gray-haired ones into the streets. Not that the young care less, nor that they are more readily anesthetized. Older people, for better and worse, are grooved thinkers. It is not to our credit that we've been here, done this. We still recognize a worldwide cataclysm when it threatens, especially when mainly from Washington. And no, as it turns out, we never got over it.
IRAQ HAS become more savage (a rising tide of Iraqi blood, an air war escalating -- along with rates of American mortality); increasing numbers of US citizens have moved from dismay to action. (Only a few weeks ago, more than 300,000 people rallied in New York City, saying no.) On campuses, peace demonstrations have become more common, and when Bush administration figures have appeared at graduations recently, protests have been lodged.
But these manifestations have overwhelmingly been mounted by older people, with gray heads dominating the antiwar crowds. Faculty members have done more than students to spark university protests. Aging activists have taken the lead in ad hoc peace vigils, as well as on the Internet. Some younger people have emerged as charismatic leaders of the new movement (one thinks of fortysomething Amy Goodman, anchor of ''Democracy Now," or of thirtysomething Frida Berrigan, daughter of Philip Berrigan), but the generation of those who are actually at war has mostly kept its distance from the public questioning. Why is that?
Ready answers are offered: There is no draft, and so young people, feeling no personal jeopardy, feel no pressure to confront the issue. An uncertain economy makes its newcomers risk averse. They are harried by pressures to achieve or their concerns are trumped by entertainment culture or they just don't care.
But explanations like these, in addition to smacking of intergenerational condescension, seem off. For one thing, as high school and college records show, today's young people are given to unprecedented levels of community service. They volunteer as tutors, raise money for charities, embrace programs like AmeriCorps, City Year, and Habitat for Humanity. Their teachers consistently testify to a marked seriousness of purpose. There is no reason to regard the new breed as less idealistic, or less courageous, than those who have gone before. What then?
Perhaps the question is not what makes young people different, but what makes so many of their elders as they are? In the 1950s, Americans learned to live with a vivid sense of imminent disaster. Children glimpsed it under their desks, during ''duck and cover" drills. What was at issue, in that fresh era of nuclear anguish, was nothing less than the end of the world. That is why, through the 1960s dramas of Berlin, Cuba, and Vietnam, the watchword became ''Apocalypse Now!" Western civilization had long taken its narrative paradigm, the literary theorist Paul Ricoeur suggests, from a biblical framework that begins with Genesis and concludes with Apocalypse, but suddenly that scheme had entered history. You did not have to be a nut case to feel the wind blowing in from the Endtime.
It was not the draft that sparked the peace movement of that era or ''youthful idealism," but this awareness of nuclear threat. ''Ours [is] the first generation to live with the possibility of worldwide cataclysm," declared the foundational Port Huron Statement in 1962. That generation, with reason, saw the cataclysm coming. Unbridled fear for -- and of -- the near future is what drove so many of them into the streets, at first during the Vietnam protests of their youth and then, as they approached middle age, for the Nuclear Freeze movement (nearly a million demonstrators in New York in 1982).
The conclusion of the Cold War was foolishly designated ''the end of history" by some, yet there was a definite termination of the pervasive dread that had shaped consciousness. In America, it served the purposes of the national security establishment, and of the economic and political interests that depended on it, to encourage citizens to believe that nuclear Armageddon no longer threatened. With that pressure off, worries about war, even as the United States promptly went to war in Panama and Iraq, seemed passe. The catastrophe of 9/11 fell upon the national mind like an instance of the Apocalypse, as if the clouds rising up over New York were mushroom-shaped after all, but when that emergency passed, transcendent fear was sublimated -- domesticated -- under the numbing label ''terrorism."
It takes a habit of the heart to feel antiwar anguish now, and that is what has driven so many gray-haired ones into the streets. Not that the young care less, nor that they are more readily anesthetized. Older people, for better and worse, are grooved thinkers. It is not to our credit that we've been here, done this. We still recognize a worldwide cataclysm when it threatens, especially when mainly from Washington. And no, as it turns out, we never got over it.