BTW, that was a lit quote...not a slam. I tremble in fear of a UT flame....please, in the name of that is good and holy....I throw myself upon your mercy....

Yeah, you're probably right.

In that case "Once upon a time" was like 1966. For those of you keeping score at home, that's 37 years.

IOW, people born *after* "Once upon a time" are now themselves over thirty. Probably better get over it.

At least you're in the "liberal establishment".

Actually I think some people probably would enjoy that... their own sycophantic band of yes-people to hang on their every word and tell them how fabulous and correct all their opinions are. I'm sure it'd be quite easy to find some bloggers who get quite put out when they're questioned. (Maybe I'm wrong.)

I remember it. I also remember one of the prime objectives was to get the gumint off our backs and out of our private lives. Guess that failed.:(

That seems more of a give and take situation. For example: the government gives us the Patriot Act, but then state sodomy laws are thrown out.

Wrong objective. Remember the attitude back then as the 60s started. Government could be trusted. Those born in the seventies will never know such a concept. Government, and especially the president, did tell the truth for the most part.

For example, Kennedy admitted his mistake in Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower's big lie was that Francis Gary Powers was not a spy pilot. Eisenhower eventually admitted otherwise. This honesty sharply changed with Johnson - Gulf of Tonkin. Gulf of Tonkin was an outright government lie that even decieved all but one member of Congress.

Nixon took lying to an all time record level that had never been seen in the 1900. His lie during the campaign that he had a secret plan to end the war. His treasonist backchannel communicaton with N Viet Nam to not make peace because Nixon, if elected, would offer a better deal. Nixon was lying so drastically that mail (and newspapers) both from and to the troops had to be censored. That's right. Americans in VietNam had their mail censored so that they did not get a full story from home. Even the troops in Nam universally knew their own brass could not be trusted. The 5 o'clock follies. That was when the older generation still maintained the President would not lie. So much so that Dean (President's personal lawyer) was universally demeaned by those over 30 for only saying what we now know to be the truth.

That was when a vocal minority of under 30 somethings said leadership could not be trusted. And so the younger generation discovered more lies from the 'establishment'. Mariguana was everywhere, in part, because the government even lied about that. Conflict even between age groups that did and did not smoke grass was quite explicit. Outright confrontation would occur between Sophmores who openly advocated mariguana verses Juniors who still believed mariguana was a 1st degree felonious crime. The breakdown in trust was that sharp and sudden. In reality, the vocal minority were problaby more correct they they really knew. But the majority of 30 somethings fully or mostly disagreed with those over 30 because the under 30 group had discovered that government lies - especially about VietNam, Watergate, drugs, and even the murder of students at Kent State.

We now know that minority was correct. Lying was so blatant that the public could not even be trusted with facts from the Pentagon Papers. It would have been business as usual if military troops would have stormed the NY Time and Washington Post offices because of the truth being exposed in those Pentagon Papers. Many actually made preparations at one time or another for a military coup. That really was the attitude created by lies from the Nixon administration. One reason why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wanted a unanimous verdict against the President on the tapes - he feared a military occupation of Washington. Times were that hot because government lied that much.

It was government attitude that the public could not handle the truth. Historical facts demonstrated the war and bombing were waged for reasons that did not exist. But the public could not be trusted. Outright government lying or deception was mostly a weekly occurance. That was the attitude of the 60s.

Most newspaper of that time would not report what Woodward and Bernstein were reporting. Back then, many over 30 editors could not believe that those Watergate stories were even possible. Too many over 30s still believed in a government before the 1960s - where such lying was not business as usual.

It had nothing to do with getting government out of our lives. That became the roll call of the 80s. The 60s were when America woke up to discover that even and especially the president was a crook. A man who would break into anyone's home or office - including Ellsberg's pyschiatrist and Dan Rather's. Watergate was but the tip of an iceberg that included VietNam, J Edgar Hoover, and some say even the murder of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. BTW even LBJ did not believe Oswald was the only shooter.

The 60s were when America learned how corrupt the government could really become. Nixon clearly the star crook. Getting government out of our lives was not a concept back then. The 60s were when Americans learned how much political leaders would lie to advance their own personal agenda - America be damned. Lying on this scale did not occur before the 60s.

(Having read The Fourth Turning...)

During the 30s-40s, the country was in a crisis mode, with the depression and WW2. In order to get through the time of crisis, the society adapted a more singular mind-set. Everyone was encouraged to think alike, and it was considered a good thing as it helped get through the crisis.

During the crisis period, the President might lie to the people -- but the people would not mind, figuring that it was necessary for the good of the country. At the same time though, during the crisis period, the President would actually be trying to do the right thing, with a lot of the stupid politics simply thrown out. During the crisis period, the political nonsense is unacceptable.

When the crisis was over, then, the slow unraveling of this unified mind-set is what led to "Don't trust anyone over 30", because it was important for the society to throw off this mind-set. Partly because it was no longer needed because the crisis was over, and partly because the mind-set was broken in many ways. Such as treatment of minorities for example.

If "Don't trust anyone over 30" was said in 1970, it really meant that the line of trust was those born as baby-boomers: Don't trust anyone who lived through the crisis and was indoctrinated by the unified mind-set.

I can tell you for certain that, by the time I got to college in 1981, "Don't trust anyone over 30" didn't really resonate. 30? Why 30? Since I was early in the first generation POST boomer, the counter-culture had become the culture. We didn't like the Stones because they were revolutionary and liberating. We liked them because they rocked.

Oh, get a grip, TW. You just wrote the entire political history (seamy side anyway) of the 60's. Real people (majority) were only vaguely aware of all this shit going down from the headlines. Coffee break discussions were of headlines, not details and the consequences that would only become apparent in retrospect. People bought the Sunday New York Times for the crossword puzzle not the journalism.

Hey Joe, ya think Nixon's lying?
Yeah probably, all the politicians lie, wanna donut?
Gimme a jelly...Ya know they ought to draft all them long haired hippies....the army would straighten them commie bastards out...who's pitchin tonight?
Dunno, check the paper. Black Panthers too, army barbers would fix them afros..ha, ha, ha.
Well, be thankful congress is too busy with this Watergate bullshit to screw us with more rules and regulations.
Yeah, by the time they're done, they'll have a camera in every bedroom and a white man won't be able to get a job.

There were damn few people who saw the big picture and they didn't sway the masses, they alienated them. They only kept the
press busy covering demonstrations and sit-ins. My parents weren't convinced Nixon lied and the war was wrong until the mid 90s. They weren't stupid people, but there was no "net" or cable. You were lucky to find more than 2 papers at the corner store
and network TV wasn't much help. People that are living comfortably aren't going out of their way to seek bad news that rocks the very foundation of everything they know and believe.

I think that "don't trust anyone over 30" schtick came back to a degree in the early to mid-90s: "I'm so miserable and full of angst...it's because of my parents and their generation and the fucking government! I'm going to go shoot up some smack now and listen to Nevermind and Ten 1500 times because Kurt and Eddie feel my pain. They know me!"

And that attitude by some morons in my generation (the one known as X) inflamed the generation before us. Then Gen X got pissed off at those people...vicious cycle, etc. etc. etc.

I think a lot of that died off with the passing of Kurt Cobain and the fadeout of grunge, but even moreso as Gen X'ers began to do good, particularly in the tech boom of the late 90s.

As I see the countless teenagers that reside in my neighborhood, I wonder if they view Gen X with the same contempt as some Gen Xers did with the generation before us.

So true and very well put.

How could you be that isolated? Back then there were newspapers everywhere. Daytime network TV - all four networks - was completely terminated during those many weeks of Watergate hearings. Every station - even the non-network TV stations - carried nothing but those Watergate hearings all day. That's right. Even the non-network station were hooked into network feeds because Watergate finally became that big. No intelligent person could exist back then and not be confronted by facts that might "rock their belief in government".

When was a Congressional committee meeting so racous as to suspend daytime TV for an entire day! Not today. But that is what happened when Sen Fulbright finally had enough of Dean Rusk. First CBS, then other commercial networks suspended all daytime programs to report the confrontation live. Only an ostrich would not know that something had seriously changed in government. And yes, too many "over 30's" remained so entrenched in their pre-1960s mentality to still believe Nixon was not a crook. They just did not want to believe.

The 1960s was not about keeping government out of people's lives. That movement did not start until the Reagan 80's. The sixties were about government becoming so corrupt as to wage war against a soveriegn nation without any justification - without any smoking gun.

Today a president lies about WMD. Back then the lie was the Domino Theory. Difference was that people back then never before knew government to lie so outrageously. Today, even the "under 40 somethings" know that government may lie because we all learned Nixon was a crook.

The sixties were definitely not about getting government out of peoples lives. Your statement totally misrepresents the 1960s.

[quote]Originally posted by tw
[b] How could you be that isolated? Back then there were newspapers everywhere. Daytime network TV - all four networks - was completely terminated during those many weeks of Watergate hearings. Every station - even the non-network TV stations - carried nothing but those Watergate hearings all day. Quote

That's easy. Most people were at work trying to make a living.

Quote
That's right. Even the non-network station were hooked into network feeds because Watergate finally became that big. No intelligent person could exist back then and not be confronted by facts that might "rock their belief in government". Quote

No intelligent person had a belief in government. Only a moron would think that politicians on any level were boy scouts. Real people weren't nearly as exited about watergate as the media and academia.
Watergate, oh no, constitutional crisis, the federal government virtually shut down. Well, the mail still came, the taxes were still collected, you could still get a passport, the Army was still on guard, so I guess it didn't much matter to real people, did it. They still had to go to work, mow the lawn, care for the kids and pay the bills just like before and after watergate.
Personally I hated Nixon with a passion and followed watergate closely but couldn't discuss it with anyone because nobody wanted to hear it. What really concerned them was the Civil Rights and Great Society legislation that had a direct impact on their lives. Not the abstract notion of constitutional crisis

And that will always remain in diagreement because I lived it and never stopped learning more about it. As America entered the 1960s, virtually everyone believed the government. The nation was that moronic. Even your parents refused to accept that government would lie until 1990s! That belief in government is why Johnson could outright lie about Gulf of Tonkin, so that all but one Congressman would vote for war against N VietNam. Back then, when the president said it was an unprovoked attack, then the nation had absolutely no reason to doubt. We believed the Federal government that completely.

Watergate is a watershed issue. For the first time, government outrightly lied and even tried to corrupt other government agencies (IRS, CIA, FBI) to expand criminal lies and coverup.

We will never agree. The 1960s were never a time when people demanded government out of their lives. The 1960s was the era when government, for the first time, lied *real* lies. Not some silly nonsense about sex with Monica. Lies as in to "destroy the US Constitution". Nixon was so mentally criminal that even his staff would pervert or corrupt this nation's government - as demonstrated by a classic, powerful, confrontation between Sen Sam Ervin and Erlichman. A daytime confrontation in an event so major that people even listened to Watergate hearings while at work. What was more important then? Work or the Watergate hearings? In most cases, people worked while still monitoring those hearings because for the first time in US history, a White House administration tried to subvert the US Constitution. For the first time, government really lied.

What did Erlichman claim? Basically that the Nixon White House was superior to the Constitution. And so that famous confrontation about the 4th Amendment. Even a knife could not cut that tension.

What changed in the 1960s? For the first time, top White House people, such as the president, would lie (everything from Cambodia and outright bribery to petty break-ins) and even violate the US Constitution - because their personal political agenda was more important that the nation. Not about getting government out of peoples lives. Those patriotic demonstrators on the streets of Chicago would be more accurate then anyone knew. The whole world would be watching because, for the first time in US history, a crooked president would subvert the US government. Nobody believed this could happen - until we got to the 1960s. Few today even know about Nixon's treason - to continue the VietNam war so Nixon could get elected in 1968.

In the 1960s, for the first time, government was that 'unworthy'. It is the legacy of the 60s. Not about getting big government out of people's lives. For the first time, government lied real lies. Lies we have not seen until another president lied about WMD - to justify another war.

I don't dispute your accuracy on the happenings in Washington during the 60's. Only that the common man (woman) cared very much because he (she) was to busy trying to cope with changing laws and social mores.
Christ, even my wife voted for Nixon the second time because she thought it would help her business, in spite of (or because of) my rants on what a bastard Nixon was.
So we'll have to agree to disagree, but after all isn't all history a matter of perspective. A shooting star is a beautiful display in the sky to everyone except the one it lands on. ;)