Interview with Susan Jacoby

Jacoby, Susan, 1945- ; McKiernan, Stephen

Susan Jacoby is an author and has written twelve books, including The Age of American Unreason. She is a graduate from Michigan University and she now lives in New York City, where she is the program director of the New York Branch of the Center for inquiry.

2010-09-10

In copyright

2017-03-14

McKiernan Interviews

173:52

McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Susan Jacoby
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: 10 September 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)

SM (00:00:03):
Testing one, two.

SJ (00:00:03):
Do you want test and see if you are getting it?

SM (00:00:12):
Oh, I know it will not. Testing. [inaudible] this one has already started.

SJ (00:00:14):
No problem.

SM (00:00:16):
I am going to read these to make sure that I get these right too. I am all over the place here. And the first question I was going to ask is that you wrote a piece in the Wounded Generation, which was a book that came out in 1980. It was a paperback on Vietnam.

SJ (00:00:32):
Back in the Dark Ages.

SM (00:00:37):
That was back in the Dark Ages. This is the only question I have on that because I have interviewed just about everybody else who was at the symposium. Women in the Vietnam War wrote a piece in the book, in the Wounded Generation on women in the war. How are boomer generation women wounded psychologically, personally, from that war? And how important were they in the anti-war movement?

SJ (00:01:05):
I will tell you honestly. I think that women who were older than the boomer generation were more important in the anti-war movement than women of the boomer generation. The contact that women of the boomer generation had with the anti-war movement, although there were lots of women obviously involved, just as there were lots of men, but the fundamental thing is the women were not subject to the draft, did not have any danger of having to fight in that war. So I think unless a woman had a brother or a husband who is actually in the fighting, and this would be very different, the attitudes of people who came from the social class that did most of the fighting, which then as now meant people who were not going to college, basically blue collar people, they were not as represented in the anti-war movement as were college educated boomer women. So I really do not think that that women were affected in the same way that men were, except that women in general were more anti-war than men. And that was true not just for boomer women, but for all women.

SM (00:02:26):
Right. Let me just... Here we go.

SJ (00:02:32):
Let me see if I can get this guy again.

SM (00:02:33):
Okay. Very good.

SJ (00:02:33):
That is done. My cell phone is back in my purse. That is it.

SM (00:02:40):
Okay.

SJ (00:02:43):
Okay.

SM (00:02:46):
I have read a little bit about your background from going on the web and also in the book, but how did you become who you are? In terms of, who were your mentors, your role models? I know you went to Michigan State starting in (19)63, but who are the people that influenced you the most in your early years?

SJ (00:03:07):
Do you mean by my early years, do you mean when I was a-

SM (00:03:09):
High school.

SJ (00:03:09):
Kiddo?

SM (00:03:10):
Yeah. Let us say high school, college.

SJ (00:03:17):
That is an interesting question. I will preface it by saying that I always wanted to be a newspaper reporter. I wanted to be a newspaper reporter from the time I was a kid. And I wanted to be a newspaper reporter because everybody in my family read newspapers and that is what I wanted to do. At Michigan State, my college career was somewhat different from other members of the boomer generation. I did not want to go to college. I was an idiot. I was a classic example of someone who was not at an age where I could most benefit from education. And unlike most people of my generation who stayed in school as long as they could, men because of the war and women for other reasons, I was determined to get out. I grew up in Okemos, Michigan, which is right near Michigan State. I went to Michigan State for one reason and one reason only. They had an honors college which enabled you if you kept up a certain grade point to take as many credits as you want and get through as fast as you could. I graduated in just a little over two years. At a better university, I would not have been able to do that. At Michigan State, I did. And the reason I did that was I knew that if I had to be in college for four years, I would become a dropout. And there was no way a woman was ever going to get a job as a newspaper reporter if she was a college dropout. I think this is important because I am just on the edge of the baby boom generation born nine months before it actually started. So when I went to college, it was between 1963 and 1965. This was before what people think of as "the (19)60s." When I entered Michigan State, there were parietal rules. I was almost expelled for being found doing nothing in a boys' off-campus apartment. That is what the real... In other words, this is a totally different experience from being that age five years later when all of that stuff had gone out the window. So in many ways, things for me at that age were more like what they were for people in the (19)50s than they were for the boomers who came of age only five years later. And I knew I could not stand living under this regime which kept you as a child, particularly if you were a woman. This is before feminism and so I wanted to get through as fast as possible. Nevertheless, I have to say, I took any course I wanted because that is another thing you could do at the honors college. I took Russian. I majored in journalism and there were some great journalism professors there. A lot of them were people who had been newspaper men in Wisconsin during the McCarthy era and had lost their jobs because of it. And John Hannah, who was then the president of Michigan State, hired a lot of those people. He was very strong about McCarthy. Did not like him. He was a liberal Republican, they were still liberal, and the chairman of the US Civil Rights Commission as well, which practically made you a communist to the eyes of the McCarthyites. Anyway, but the best thing my professors did for me was they made me realize I had to have a huge amount of professional experience by the time I got out of college to get a job as a woman. And I did. And they were my mentors. One of them was named George Huff, who is still alive. One of them was named Bud Myers. And so I went to work as a campus stringer for the Detroit Free Press.

SM (00:07:18):
Oh, okay.

SJ (00:07:19):
Michigan State was one of the two biggest universities in the state and it was a source of news. And when I went to interview at the Washington Post in the spring of 1965 for a job, I had a huge professional string book from the Detroit Free Press. So I would say that things worked out for me, although they should not have. My real education came later on.

SM (00:07:45):
Yeah. Gets me right into my next question here. As a journalist in the (19)60s and (19)70s, do you feel the media only went after what was sensational? And by that I mean the drug culture, the long hair, the clothes, the violence, the protests. And there was little coverage of the majority of the young people that were not involved in any of this kind of activism.

SJ (00:08:13):
I mentioned this in the age of American Unreason.

SM (00:08:17):
Right. Right.

SJ (00:08:18):
And it was not that they went after just what was sensational. That was as much a part of the (19)60s as anything else. It was that the media mostly, it is absolutely true, was then and is now, the media was liberal. Reporters who were close to the age of the students who were protesting shared their views. We did not know anything about the things we now know. I knew nothing about fundamentalist religion. And in fact, there was a whole other (19)60s. That whole other (19)60s is represented by George W. Bush and all of the neoconservatives who first got into government under Ronald Reagan and really began running things under George W. Bush. They were there in the (19)60s too and they were drawing quite different conclusions about what was going on around them than people like me who worked for the Washington Post were. I was not aware of what I now call the other (19)60s at all then. I have become aware of it in the last 20 years, but I never thought about it then.

SM (00:09:27):
Well, you brought it up. You are one of the few people that is really brought it up in any detail. When I interviewed Lee Edwards, a historian down in Washington, he said one of the things in all the books on the (19)60s is they do not ever talk about the conservative students and the Young Americans for Freedom, for example.

SJ (00:09:43):
That is right.

SM (00:09:44):
And other groups like that. And of course the importance of the Goldwater election and the links to Ronald Reagan. Why was that?

SJ (00:09:52):
As I said, I think why it was is that the social class of the media was very different from the social class... First of all, in the early 1960s, there was no intellectual right wing. There was William Buckley in the National Review and that was that. But there was not any... Now, there is a whole right wing intellectual establishment as well. There was no right wing intellectual establishment then. There was Bill Buckley and his followers, and that is who it was. But there is something else too, I think just as important as that, is the fact that the (19)60s were the years when the fundamentalists established their kindergarten through college network of education and began to train the generation that has had so much influence on public life for the last 30 years. We did not know those people.

SM (00:10:49):
Well, it is interesting cause you bring up the Campus Crusade for Christ. [inaudible].

SJ (00:10:54):
They were just getting started then.

SM (00:10:56):
Being a college administrator, actually, I have worked with many of those students. But it is interesting about how they used the dress of the (19)60s but they had a different point of view.

SJ (00:11:08):
Well, sure.

SM (00:11:08):
Yeah. And so a lot of people do not even think about the Campus Crusade for Christ when they are talking about the (19)60s.

SJ (00:11:14):
But they were in the (19)60s is when the Campus Crusade for Christ really, it actually was started in the (19)50s, but it did not really have any traction on anything but religious campuses until the late 1960s when they really got started. And one of the things that they were presenting themselves as was an alternative to the drug culture. You can be cool. You can be hip like the Jesus Electric Light and Power Company. You can be cool, you can be hip, but you do not have to share the views of all of those hippies about free love and all of that. And remember, also by the late 1960s, there were a lot of kids who had been involved in the drug scene and so on and were disillusioned with it, were looking for something else.

SM (00:12:02):
Right. You talk about what they call the grateful and the Ungrateful Generation. Define those.

SJ (00:12:10):
Well...

SM (00:12:10):
Because the people that are going to be reading these interviews may not have read your book.

SJ (00:12:14):
Well, the Grateful Generation was my parents' generation. I call them the Grateful Generation, not the Greatest Generation.

SM (00:12:21):
And they are not linked to the Grateful Dead.

SJ (00:12:23):
They are not linked. The Grateful Dead is part of the Ungrateful Generation. But my parents' generation, the World War II generation was the Grateful Generation. These were people who, my mother who is still alive, is a very typical example. Brought up in a blue collar family, first member of her family to go to college. My grandfather, her father, they were blue collar people. My parents, the generation that emerged from World War II as young adults, first of all... In the case of my father it was a little older, but a lot of them went to college on the GI Bill. They came from families where a generation earlier, they would not have been able to go to college. The Grateful Generation, what Tom Brokaw calls the Greatest Generation, they had a lot to be grateful for. One of the things they had to be grateful for is unlike people getting out of the service today, they got to buy houses with mortgages at 4 percent with VA loans. They went to school on the GI Bill. They came of age at a time when, although there were ups and downs, America's economic prospects were good. All of those members of the Grateful Generation who went to school on the GI Bill, enjoyed a standard of living which their own parents could never have dreamed of. So they had good reason to be grateful. And the idea, it was always taken for granted that they would send their own children to college. That was not even a question then. And the thing is-is they expected their children who had so much more than they had had when they were growing up during the Depression when they were coming of age during World War II, they expected their children to be thrilled with the middle-class life they had achieved and to which they so aspired. And why I called us the Ungrateful Generation then, again, only some, but particularly among those who are college educated, turned around and said, "We do not want your ticky tacky houses. We do not like these universities. We do not like what they are teaching. We do not like your war."

SM (00:14:54):
It is interesting. I interviewed Tom Hayden this past week at the follow-up interview that I had [inaudible] for... I interviewed him for almost two hours. And then of course about a year ago I interviewed Todd Gitlin. And they hate the term boomer generation. Both of them.

SJ (00:15:08):
Well, they are not boomers.

SM (00:15:09):
Yeah. Well, yeah, they were 42 and 40, I think.

SJ (00:15:13):
They are not boomers.

SM (00:15:14):
Todd's younger than Tom. But Tom Hayden, I would like your response to this. Because Tom said he does not like even Tom Brokaw's book The Boom, because he says boom is an indication of something being shot out, showing violence. And boom, that is way the Tom [inaudible]. And then the fact that it happened so fast that the boomer generation was insignificant. It was just a short time period in history. So he was attacking the term boom.

SJ (00:15:51):
Well, I think if you will pardon my saying so, he is being a bit of naturalistic in his interpretation. The word baby boom was used beginning in the 1940s, and it did not have anything to do with violence. All it meant is all of these people were having all of these children. Did not have anything to do with the idea of the boomer generation as it was taken over in the (19)60s. Tom Hayden, if he says that, his mind is still in the (19)60s, which does not really surprise me. And as for the boomer generation being a short moment in time, well, he does not know much about demography then. Now, there really are two boomer generations. 1957 was the highest birth rate in American history. It was the exact midpoint of the baby boom generation. After that, the demography tapers off a little. But there are really two halves of the boomer generation. One is people born between 1946 and 1957, the older boomers, and people born between 1957 and 1964, the younger boomers. There is a big difference between them. One of them being that it is only the older boomers who came of age in the late 1960s. The younger boomers came of age in a much more conservative era. And in fact, they are more conservative politically in many ways than the older boomers. Barack Obama is a younger boomer.

SM (00:17:23):
Right. 52 years old, I believe.

SJ (00:17:26):
He keeps trying to dis-identify himself from the baby boom generation, but he is a boomer. And here is the one thing that the older boomers and the younger boomers have in common. And again, Hayden and Gitlin are not boomers at all. They belong to that half generation born, really, between the middle of the depression and the end of the Second World War. And they have some different... Although you are right, they were involved in in fact, what people think of today as a lot of the activities of the boomer generation. But what the younger boomers and the older boomers have in common is this. They both grew up in spite of the recessions of the 1970s, in times overall that were a rising economy in which they expected and in fact did get access to a lot of things their parents never had. And this is true when you think about Barack Obama. In fact, the younger half of the boomer generation that was Black benefited a lot more from these things than the older Black baby boomers, simply because of the achievements of the civil rights movement that were won when Barack Obama was a baby. So the younger boomers and the older boomers have in common, it did not cost them a fortune to go to college. The real rise in college tuition did not happen until the mid 1980s, after even most of the younger boomers were through college. The younger boomers, Blacks and Hispanics benefited from scholarships and things that did not exist for Blacks, for the older boomers. And something else also, which is that the younger boomers... Again, the Obamas are perfect examples of this. They moved into a path that had been paved by the older boomers, which was if you were 20 in the 1950s, you were expected within two years of graduating from college, if you were a girl to be married, if you were a guy, you were not expected to be married till you were 30, if you were a guy to have a good job. And when the boomers who came of age in the (19)60s came along, they pioneered a path in which it was okay not to get married right away and it was okay to stay in school longer, to take some time out, find out what it was you really want to do. Now, when you look at Barack Obama's career in the 1970s, the timeout he took from school before he went back to law school, these are things that, for instance, a young Black man from the older part of the boomer generation, his parents would have gone nuts if he had said, "I want to wait to go to law school. I want to find myself."

SM (00:20:19):
Yeah.

SJ (00:20:21):
Yeah. These possibilities, which are that your life is not set in stone when you are 22, that was a way of living that was pioneered by the older bloomers. When Tom Hayden says this was just a moment in time, he was utterly wrong.

SM (00:20:38):
He was referring to that term boom and he was referring to Tom Brokaw's book. Yeah. So-

SJ (00:20:43):
This is a book being written 40 years after all of this is taking place.

SM (00:20:47):
Right-right.

SJ (00:20:48):
And I do not know what Tom Brokaw means by boom, but maybe Tom Hayden does not know that the term baby boomer became current in the 1940s. It was not an invention of the 1960s.

SM (00:20:58):
I know when I interviewed Richie Havens, Richie said, "I was born in 41, but I am really a boomer."

SJ (00:21:03):
Yeah.

SM (00:21:04):
Because of his spirit. And that is-

SJ (00:21:06):
Well, what happened with the boomers of Tom Hayden's age, and the pre-boomers is the things came along in the 1960s and they took advantage... You are absolutely right. A lot of what is thought of as the boomer activities of the late (19)60s was really carried out by this half generation to which both Todd Gitlin, whom I love, and Tom Hayden belong.

SM (00:21:34):
Yeah. And so did Richie.

SJ (00:21:35):
Yeah. And Richie too.

SM (00:21:36):
Yeah. One of the things that I was curious, you already made reference to it, before the real strong women's movement and feminism and so forth, and what was it like being a female reporter? You said you had two people who were really strong role models for you, men, who-

SJ (00:21:54):
Not role models. They gave me great advice.

SM (00:21:55):
They gave you great advice.

SJ (00:21:57):
They were not role models at all.

SM (00:22:01):
But what was it like to be a female reporter in the early or mid (19)60s?

SJ (00:22:05):
Well, I applied for a job at two places. The Detroit Free Press and the Washington Post. Fortunately, the Detroit Free Press did not hire me, so I was hired by the Post, which was great.

SM (00:22:17):
Right.

SJ (00:22:20):
The Free Press refused to hire me for anything but the society section. This is 1964. Although I had been covering regular stories for them for years because they said a woman could not be out at night if there were a story that came up at night. The Post was a different kettle of fish. They hired me as a regular reporter, but I was only the second reporter, female reporter who did not work in what was then called the society section. However, I think I would have encountered a lot more trouble at the New York Times then than at the Washington Post, because the Post was then expanding. It had a lot of really young reporters on it. It was not a disadvantage to be a woman in the same way as it would have been at the New York Times in the early 1960s.

SM (00:23:09):
I have a couple, you have a quote in your book, this book. "In this increasing illiterate America, not only the enjoyment in reading, but critical thinking is at risk." And the way I really want to ask this question is, is this a direct link to the (19)60s? Because a lot of criticism of today's young people today is they are smart, but they do not know their history.

SJ (00:23:42):
Blaming it on the (19)60s. Well...

SM (00:23:48):
Is there a link between this quote in the (19)60s.

SJ (00:23:55):
Yes and no. Yes and no. In the 1960s, books were still really important to all of us. I can remember when Portnoy's Complaint was published in 1969.

SM (00:24:05):
I read it. Yeah.

SJ (00:24:07):
I can remember. I had heard about this book. I can remember just rushing to the bookstore, just dying to read this book. I do not think anybody rushes to a bookstore dying to read a book at all today. I really think more than the (19)60s, although there is a connection with the (19)60s which I will circle back to, but I really feel that the older boomers belong more to the previous generation in terms of their attitudes toward reading. The younger boomers belong more to the next generation because there was not any internet. There were not any computers before the 1980s. So that we grew up in a society in which if you read, books were important. As far as not knowing history goes, this has gotten worse every year. It did not start in the (19)60s. There were actually some polls from the 1930s which show how little history Americans knew in the 1930s too. But I do think that what happened in the 1960s, nobody could have imagined the internet then. Nobody did. But there were certainly a lot more forms of entertainment began to intrude on time that had once been devoted to reading. Look. The transistor radio, the small portable transistor radio, I think played an important role in this. For the first time, although it was nothing like now, it was nothing like an iPod, it was nothing like computer access 24/7, but for the first time, you could bring your music with you everywhere. I think it was the beginning of a change which was a descending curve that was fairly soft in the (19)60s. I do not think it really takes a sharp downward turn until the 1980s. This is going to be a problem, I think.

SM (00:26:12):
We can move to...

SJ (00:26:13):
Well, there are not any tables.

SM (00:26:14):
[inaudible].

SJ (00:26:18):
Because this guy is talking awfully loudly. All right, well let us... They will not stay there.

SM (00:26:26):
Yeah. You were in the middle of [inaudible].

SJ (00:26:34):
No, that is the way it is. Okay. There is one aspect of the (19)60s that I think does have something to do. And it was really the late (19)60s, early (19)70s. I think in general, student demands are blamed in general by conservatives for watering down of the university curriculum. Now, it is true that students were demanding a lot of bullshit things in the late 1960s, early (19)70s. And I do not believe that their criticisms of the curriculum were justified at all, their criticisms the way universities were run was. But I think what happened in the (19)60s, it was bad that was entirely the fault of the faculty at that time is for some reason they were actually scared of these student demands. And you had two kinds of people. You had had younger faculty members, many of whom threw in their lot with the students who wanted to teach women's studies and so on. And you had older faculty members, the people who wanted to teach the way they always had. The dead white European male curriculum. And they both got their way. And I think it was a very evil and stupid compromise. What they did was they shunted it off, instead of developing a great African American studies curriculum which was taught to every student of American history, they shunted it off into minority studies departments. Instead of including women writers in every English class and making women's studies part of the whole, they shunted it off into women's studies departments. This pleased everybody on campuses. And I was an education reporter for the Washington Post at the time this was happening. It pleased the old guys because they could continue to teach their white studies, their white male studies exactly the way they always taught them. And it pleased the new people because it meant more jobs and more tenure. Everybody got what they wanted. It was bad for education in general. The kind of Balkanization of things that every kid ought to be learning started in the late 1960s. And it was not the fault of the students. It was the fault of the faculty who were supposed to be the grownups but they did not act like it.

SM (00:28:58):
Yeah. You mentioned in the book too, that tenure was something very important in the (19)50s on college campuses, and then when the (19)60s, mid-(19)60s in particular to maybe around the mid-(19)70s, tenure was not that important. It was basically they were involved in the reacting to the social movements that were happening.

SJ (00:29:18):
That is not what I said.

SM (00:29:19):
No?

SJ (00:29:20):
I did not say anything about tenure at all. But in fact, the way things worked out, the way things worked out, everybody got tenure. People who were involved in the social movements of the (19)60s are the tenured professors who will not leave because they cannot retire on college campuses today. Tenure did not have anything to do with whether you were fighting the establishment than at all. Those people got tenure too. Those women's studies professors got tenure, the African American studies... And there are campuses with African American studies departments. Harvard is one of them, [inaudible] where in fact, lots of kids of all races go. But what happened in most campuses was they became an enclave for minority students and meant that the minority students were not learning everything they should learn, and the white students sure as hell were not learning everything they should learn. But as for tenure, that is my whole point. Everybody got it. That is why everybody was happy with what happened.

SM (00:30:19):
You do a great job also in the book of the criticisms of the neocons toward anybody that was involved in any kind of protest or activism at that particular time. Bring up Irving Crystal and Norman, is it Podhoretz?

SJ (00:30:35):
Podhoretz. Well, they are ancient.

SM (00:30:39):
Yeah. And commentary. But they were the old left, and their attitudes toward the (19)60s. How do you react to the current neocons? When New Gingrich came into power in 1994, when the Republicans came in, he made some strong commentaries.

SJ (00:30:55):
Remember, the Newtster was coming of age of the (19)60s.

SM (00:30:58):
Yeah.

SJ (00:30:59):
He was part of that other (19)60s.

SM (00:31:00):
Yeah. Yeah. He was there and then you had the Bill Crystals of the world who were coming on. And then even today on Fox, you see a lot of the criticisms of the (19)60s. There is a lot of the reasons why we are having a problems in our society today was looking back at the drug culture.

SJ (00:31:27):
Well, by the way, those people in Fox do not know any more about the (19)60s than most of America knows about ancient Greek or Latin. They do not know anything about it. There is this image of the (19)60s frozen in time. I think that is probably really what Tom Hayden was objecting to. The idea that people who were protesting things in the (19)60s were just free lovers and dopers and that was it. And that is all there was to the (19)60s. People who wanted to do anything that they wanted to do.

SM (00:31:58):
One of the things, it is a generation gap. It was very obvious. I remember on Life Magazine, they had that front cover with that young man and he had his glasses on. In one side of the glass was his father pointing at him and he was pointing back at his dad. So the generation gap between parents and their kids was very obvious at that particular time. But also in that book, the Wounded Generation, Jim Wetton made a commentary at the symposium back in 1980 that the real generation gap was not between parents. The generation Gap was those who served in Vietnam, and when they were called to serve their nation, they went and those who did not.

SJ (00:32:38):
Well, that was not a generation gap. That is a culture gap.

SM (00:32:41):
But he called it a... And actually, he went even further by saying that oftentimes the (19)60s generation is supposed to be the Peace Corps generation, the Vista, the service, that they took the words of Kennedy and they used it whether to go into service or to go into the Peace Corps. He says they are not a service generation because they did not serve. A lot of them refused to serve.

SJ (00:33:05):
Jim Webb, by the way, is not a baby boomer, I believe.

SM (00:33:09):
I do not know. I think he is about 44.

SJ (00:33:12):
Yeah. He is very young. But I would say that that is true. That in general, all of the children of the (19)60s were not the service generation. But if you go back to Vietnam, to say that people who did not serve were just motivated by selfishness, that is not just wrong. It is true that they did not want to get shot at, but they did not want to get shot at for this particular thing. I do not know whether Jim Webb thinks the Vietnam War was worthwhile or not. I do not to this day think the Vietnam War was worthwhile. What did we get out of it except all of those dead? And Vietnam is now what it was always going to be. A communist country far from our sphere of influence. And the countries we are fighting in now, Iraq and Afghanistan, are going to be Muslim countries far from our sphere of influence when all of this is over. I do. But I think as somebody who remembers the Vietnam War, I think not just somebody who has heard about it, which is all Jim Webb has. He has heard about it. He does not remember the Vietnam War. He knows only what he has been told at the Military Academy about the Vietnam War. And I like Jim Webb.

SM (00:34:31):
Well, he served in Vietnam.

SJ (00:34:37):
He served in Vietnam?

SM (00:34:37):
Yes, he did.

SJ (00:34:37):
Oh. So he is not [inaudible] then.

SM (00:34:37):
No, he served in Vietnam.

SJ (00:34:37):
He did?

SM (00:34:39):
Yes.

SJ (00:34:40):
Are you sure?

SM (00:34:40):
Yes. And of course his son is serving in Iraq-

SJ (00:34:43):
Right.

SM (00:34:44):
Has done two tours.

SJ (00:34:45):
Well, if Jim Webb thinks the Vietnam War was worthwhile, I do not agree with him. And if he thinks that in order to be of the service generation you had to serve in Vietnam, I do not agree with him. You could call young Nazis members of the service generation too. They served the Nazis. And I do not buy that... These members of the service generation too, they served the Nazis. And by that, I assure you I do not mean that people who served in Vietnam were Nazis. I mean, because you do not choose a particular kind of way to serve. But I will tell you this, that I think far worse than anything that happened in terms of culture division in Vietnam is what is happening today. I think that to have an all-volunteer army, which of course was the direct result of the fact that so many people did not want to serve and used education and privilege to get out of the draft, I think the all-volunteer army is far worse. I think the reason that even now, I do not think America is paying any attention to these wars, to how many people are being killed, and I think the direct reason they are not paying any attention to it is that their sons and daughters do not have to go if they do not want to. My parents were moderate Republicans who opposed the Vietnam War. My father was a veteran. They did not think the Vietnam War was worth fighting. They opposed it because they were terrified that their son was going to get drafted, my brother. He did not, but I do not think they would have any position if they were the same kind of people today on the Iraq War. They would not have to worry about my brother being drafted. My father saw absolutely no analogy between Vietnam and World War II, and he was not a liberal.

SM (00:36:42):
When you look at the whole Jane Fonda situation, and I have interviewed-

SJ (00:36:49):
Jane is another one of those iconographic (19)60s people.

SM (00:36:52):
Yeah. We saw her when she was at the New School this past year, I think it was in February, talking about her whole career. It was unbelievable. It was a tremendous hour and a half program there. But when you look at... Oftentimes entertainers themselves are being criticized today. You should just be an entertainer. That is not your role.

SJ (00:37:13):
That is ridiculous.

SM (00:37:14):
When you go back to the (19)60s, you can always remember John Wayne, Martha Ray, Bob Hope, which would be-

SJ (00:37:22):
Of course.

SM (00:37:23):
...The gung ho for the troops. Then you had the Donald Sutherlands, the Jane Fonda, the [inaudible]

SJ (00:37:30):
There is no reason why entertainers should not use their celebrity any way that they want. And by the way, while I am thinking of it, this is not a question you are asking, but you know were asking about boomers and boom and all of that. I do not know about boom, but of course now the boomers... I have a new book coming out in February.

SM (00:37:53):
You do?

SJ (00:37:54):
It is called Never Say Die, the Myth and the Marketing of the New Old Age. And here is another thing, and here is why Tom Hayden is very wrong that this was just a moment in time. Oldest boomers turned 65 next year in 2011, the oldest boomers turned 65. By 2030, unless there is some kind of a catastrophe, which of course there always could be, there are going to be 8.5 million Americans over the age of 85, most of them boomers. Now, there is a... And this is related to the age of American unreason because there is also one thing older and younger boomers have in common: a kind of forever young state of mind, whether they are or not. This is hitting the boomers hard now, and this is what my next book is about. There is now the same kind of propaganda about the New Old Age that there was in about boomers being completely different from their parents, in that there is a mindset that says, if only we live right, if only we work hard enough, this phrase defying old age comes up all the time. It is a boomer mindset, a mindset in which... And it is also very much a mindset of the (19)70s after the (19)60s, the retreat into the personal growth kind of thing. But if you just work hard enough, if you live right, your old age is not going to be at 90. I went to this panel two years ago, three years ago called "90 is the New 50". Jane was in the audience, by the way. Well, I could answer you whether 90 is the new 50. It is not, but the boomers are going to be affecting ideas about old age thus far in a very unrealistic sort of way for quite a while. As far as a lot of boomers are concerned, the only people who get Alzheimer's disease are people who did not exercise enough and who ate too many carbs and got too fat. If you live to be more than 85, you have a 50 percent chance of getting Alzheimer's disease. It is evident. Facts cannot be denied. And that is something that a certain fantasy part of the boomer generation has always tried to do. The Boomer attitude toward old age now is exactly like the attitude of aging boomer women who wanted to have natural childbirth, which is they believed if they only it, childbirth would not hurt.

SM (00:40:37):
Well, I know that boomers do not want to have senior citizen centers.

SJ (00:40:41):
Hell no.

SM (00:40:44):
They want to get rid of that word senior citizen.

SJ (00:40:48):
Look, I used the word old in my new book. The word old is the word boomers hate. Hello, I am just 65. How many 130-year-old do you see walking around? I am not middle aged. They are not middle-aged. By 2030, none of us are going to be anywhere near middle-aged. We are going to be old.

SM (00:41:11):
It is interesting, you go to any park or any place, people are running, walking, exercising, biking. Doctors will say that will extend your lifespan.

SJ (00:41:22):
No they do not. They say it is good for you now. No good doctor says... It is good for you in a million different ways. Whether it will extend your life, your healthy lifespan, is completely unknown. I know the AARP which is now run by boomers, of course, the AARP for which I have written for many times, and God bless them, I love them. The AARP, the attitude about the new old age is this: it is okay to be old as long as you pretend you are not. So as the AARP concentrates on the 95-year-old sky diver, the 90-year-old who are having great sex, of course there cannot be very many of them among women because most women who are 90 years old do not have partners. And if you noticed ads for Viagra, which was actually intended either for people who had things like diabetes or for people over 65, 70, the people in ads for Viagra are all in their 40s. They do not want to present the real age at which Viagra is really aimed. What they want to say in these commercials is that if you take Viagra, it will be just like it was 20, 30 years ago.

SM (00:42:40):
Well, you hit on some...

SJ (00:42:41):
But this is related to the boomer generation.

SM (00:42:43):
Oh, yes.

SJ (00:42:45):
...Because the boomers are getting old.

SM (00:42:48):
And I think when they were younger, they felt... This is another thing too. When I was in school, there was this feeling that we were going to change the world, we were going to end the war, bring peace, end all the racism, sexism, homophobia, clean up the environment. There was this attitude that... Not a hundred percent of the people, but the activists had that they were going to make a difference in this world.

SJ (00:43:14):
And we did make a difference in a lot of ways. Look, would you rather be Black in America today or would you rather have been Black before the Civil Rights Movement? Would you rather be a woman in America today, or would you rather be a woman from Mad Men? These changes in women's lives, and I am not discounting for a minute that what we are seeing now is ugly, and the idea that this was kind of eradicated either then or now is ridiculous, and anybody with their brain in their head knows it. But the fact is the progress that was made in opportunities for minorities, the progress that was made in opportunities for women, is absolutely undeniable. It was not better to be African American or Hispanic or female in 1960 than it is today. It is much better to be all of those things today.

SM (00:44:06):
You talked a lot about –

SJ (00:44:06):
Wait until he gets done with this.

SM (00:44:16):
Busy park. How we doing time-wise?

SJ (00:44:18):
We have been at it for about-

SM (00:44:20):
45 minutes?

SJ (00:44:21):
Oh, more than that. We can go on. I am comfortable here and get this done maybe.

SM (00:44:26):
I forget what I was going to ask. Oh, I will come back to it. When you look at the period that boomers had been alive, which is 1946... Oh, I know the question I was going to ask. Many people have said to me during my interviews, when you look at Bill Clinton and when you look at George Bush number two, you can tell they are boomers. Just a general comment. You can tell they are boomers. What do you think they are seeing when they say that?

SJ (00:44:57):
I have no idea. I mean, they both behave like boomers politically in a sense. I do not know what they mean by that, if you look at them, you can tell that they are boomers. But I can tell that they are boomers because I know they are the age they are. They have to be boomers. I actually do not have any... I cannot venture a comment on that because I do not know what they mean. If they mean a style of politics which is a little less buttoned up, maybe that is what they mean, but I do not know what they mean by if you look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, you can tell they are boomers. Do they both smoke pot? Yeah, when they were young. I do not know what that says.

SM (00:45:43):
I think some were referring to George Bush as well, my way or the highway kind of mentality that some of the activists had in the (19)60s and Bill Clinton with his Monica Lewinsky.

SJ (00:46:00):
Well, yeah. As we know, politicians who are not boomers never have extramarital sex. This is ridiculous. There is this tendency on the part of the right to attribute everything they do not like, that they imagine to be true about the boomer generation to it being the boomer generation. How can anybody make this ridiculous statement about Monica Lewinsky being an example of a typical boomer mindset? Exactly what generation of politicians has not had sex scandals? The only difference was in the past is that the public did not know about it because the press did not write about it.

SM (00:46:38):
What did that period, 1946 to 1960, how did that shape the very, very young boomers with respect to the issue of fear? We already talked about McCarthyism, which was on television in the early (19)50s, so the front running boomers would have seen that. Then you had the-

SJ (00:46:58):
It affected... I remember the air raid drills when we would crouch under the desk, which was supposed protect us from radiation. I do not know a single person my age or who was a sentient being in the early (19)50s who does not remember the fear of the bomb. Exactly how much that shaped us, I do not know. The nature of being young is not to be fearful. I can remember the air raid drills and thinking it was silly, but I do not come from a typical family. My family, while they were not liberal or left at all, but they were sort of completely indifferent to that sort of sort of thing.

SM (00:47:46):
I think across the board, whether it is accurate-

SJ (00:47:51):
I think a lot of it would have depended on what kind of a family you came from.

SM (00:47:56):
Well, three adjectives that I lean on here in describing the early life of boomers as a whole is fear, and fear being that you talk about the bomb and growing up with the Cold War and obviously the communist, looking for communists everywhere. Naive, naivety, because I believe that (19)50s television was all about that, and you really had to read between the lines. And being quiet.

SJ (00:48:27):
Quiet?

SM (00:48:30):
Being quiet. I think that history thought boomers really never started speaking, I mean, being outspoken until the (19)60s.

SJ (00:48:41):
Well, first of all, boomers in the (19)50s were little kids.

SM (00:48:41):
They were in the junior high school, though, in the early (19)60s.

SJ (00:48:46):
We do not tend to take down the utterances of little kids, but I think you are very wrong about. I think you are conflating something, the silent generation, which was people who came of age in the (19)50s, with the boomers. I think on the contrary, child-rearing was much more permissive in the 1950s. I do not think people are wrong for good as well as for bad, to say that Dr. Spock's ideas about child-rearing, which while in some ways very traditional, were much freer than the kind of child-rearing people of my parents' generation were brought up with. I think in fact, although boomers, every little word was not taken as seriously as kids are today, I think that boomers grew up in a much freer, more outspoken atmosphere and said things that would not have been allowed for their parents to say when they were children, but I do not think... The (19)60s did not come out of nowhere. They did not come out of nowhere. It is not like a switch was turned on. And you have got to remember that the election of John F. Kennedy, the oldest boomers were 14 when John F. Kennedy was elected, in some ways, that was still the (19)50s, but in some ways too, that also felt like the dawn of a new day. I would say quite the opposite. Yes, there was the bomb and all of that. Did I really think anybody was going to drop a bomb on me when I was... I think, in fact, the boomers were brought up with a great deal more security and entitlement than their parents were. I would say it was quite the opposite of fear. Life was pretty nice for a child in the 1950s if you came from a middle class family. And I do stress that if you came from a middle class family life growing up in the 1950s. If you grew up in a ghetto, or if you were a poor white or black person growing up in the South... Bill Clinton's early life was very different from mine, but what was different by the time he got into college in the (19)60s is there were scholarships for bright young [inaudible]. Bill Clinton, he had been born in generation earlier, he had have been no one. He had have been white trash, because there would not have been any way for a boy like that to go to college.

SM (00:51:09):
Right. You cannot forget about Native Americans as well during the 1950s on the reservations.

SJ (00:51:15):
They were not on the radar at all, but the life of the poor and the middle class and the (19)50s was very different. It was certainly as different as it is today, and you just cannot... That is one of the reasons why a lot of the anger today was there... A lot of the other (19)60s were not just the rich people like the Bushes, it was also working-class people. And there are people who did not make it out of the working class in the 1950s and the 1960s. My family made it out of the working class in the 1950s and their children, there was never any thought that we were going to be part of that blue collar class, which was only a half generation away in our family. But a lot of Americans do.

SM (00:52:05):
This afternoon, I will be speaking to Marvin [inaudible]. He is going to talk about growing up African American in Detroit in the (19)60s.

SJ (00:52:12):
How old is he?

SM (00:52:13):
Oh, he has got same age as [inaudible]. He has got to be probably mid-(19)60s.

SJ (00:52:18):
He is the same age as I am.

SM (00:52:20):
Yeah, and he does not live in America anywhere. He lives in Mexico. He just happens to be visiting friends here.

SJ (00:52:25):
Well, that will be a very interesting interview because Detroit in the mid (19)60s was changing rapidly, and the mid (19)60s is a period when the whites just basically abandoned Detroit and Detroit was just abandoned. That should be a very interesting interview.

SM (00:52:42):
He and another person wrote a book on the labor unions in Detroit at that time and how they took on the black power and the Black Panther mentality in the labor union. In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end, and what was the watershed moment?

SJ (00:53:00):
Actually, I think the (19)60s really began around 1963, and not just with the Kennedy assassination. I think one of the things that you definitely felt when you were a teenager in the early 1960s, there is a big cultural change that started to happen. Although the early (19)60s, Man Men is not wrong about this. In some ways, they were more like the 1950s than they were the later prior to the (19)60s, but in some ways they were not. And one thing that happens in the early (19)60s is that, first of all, there begins to be strong concern in mainstream America about peace. You get movies like On The Beach, which was a big hit. Movies of the kind that would have been considered commie only five years before. You have 1964, you have two movies, Dr. Strangelove, which is an iconic movie, and Fail Safe. The Fail Safe movie came out just before that. What they both were about were movies suggesting that war might happen by accident, not by the evil of communism, and we do not want to be thinking about that. There is a very big change that starts in those early years of the (19)60s. Not exactly at 1960, but I would say that the minute John Kennedy began talking about nuclear disarmament, which coincided with this cultural moment when movies questioning whether war necessarily arose from the total evil of the enemy, I think that is where the (19)60s really begin. They end with the end of the Vietnam War. You have a lot of things. I consider the women's movement, which is really early (19)70s, really it is a (19)60s phenomenon. Although the women's women really does not begin to... Boy, they sure empty the garbage a lot, which is good. I think the (19)60s really end with the end of the Vietnam War and kind of the beginning of the consolidation of what the women's movement was gaining. [inaudible] and women's movement is really the late (19)70s, not the (19)60s.

SM (00:55:32):
Give us a watershed moment. Was there a watershed moment? [inaudible] to pick a moment that stands out.

SJ (00:55:49):
As to when the (19)60s ended?

SM (00:55:49):
No, just the whole period of the (19)60s.

SJ (00:55:49):
Well, to me, the watershed moment was... Of course there is document original about this, it is 1968. It was not when the (19)60s ended, but the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy within months of each other, it certainly changed my frame of mind about what was possible. This is followed right away by the election of Richard Nixon, and the election of Richard Nixon, it was not just old people who voted for Richard Dixon. The (19)60s were not going to turn out to be a turning point in history toward what I would have said were my values, this becomes pretty obvious by the end of 1968.

SM (00:56:33):
Do you remember the exact moment you heard that John Kennedy was killed. Do you remember the... Most people do. Where were you when you heard?

SJ (00:56:40):
I was buying a dress in a shop in East Lansing, Michigan, but what I remember more and what meant more to me is I also remember where I was when Bobby Kennedy was killed and when Martin Luther King was killed. And when Martin Luther King was killed, I was at home at my house on Capitol Hill, my apartment on Capitol Hill, and I just immediately jumped in a cab and went straight to the Washington Post because I knew that the city was going to go up in flames, which it did. I was a reporter for the post. When Robert Kennedy was killed, I was in Frankfurt Airport changing flames for Kenya where I was going to meet my fiancé. Everybody in Frankfurt airport was crying. And that is when I learned and I said to myself, this is the end of my hope. It was not, of course, but it felt like it.

SM (00:57:36):
As a person has written a lot of great books and analyzed America from different angles, when you look at the assassinations of Kennedy, King, and Kennedy again, what does it say about America? Is it that if you speak up too much, they are going to do you in, or what does it say?

SJ (00:58:11):
What it says to me, and believe you me, I have been thinking about a lot this week, what it said to me is that there is a lot of free-floating anger and rage in our culture, which I do not think it had anything to do with speaking up per se, but when you do become a lightning rod for people who feel threatened, there is no shortage of the true combination of craziness and evil that takes a gun out and shoots. And I have been thinking about that a lot. It feels to me, I am not saying it is, but what is going on right now feels to me very much like things felt to me in the late 1960s. Only worse because-

SM (00:59:06):
Hold that thought. I am want to turn my tapes over here.

SJ (00:59:17):
Well, it feels to me in 2010 as we approach this anniversary of the terrorist attacks, it feels to me, although it is not the same cast of characters, but I have the same really uneasy feeling I had in 1968, which is I have this feeling that anything could happen. That there is a lot of unfocused rage out there added to even more ignorance than existed in 1968 because I do believe people know us. I do believe that the 24-hour news cycle, the web and so on have made us stupider, not smarter. They have given us more information, but I believe in terms of logical thinking, in terms of the ability to remember anything that happened before 10 minutes ago, I think we have a worse and more stupid culture than we did in 1968. But I feel the same kind of anger around me. I am not saying I am right. I am saying it feels kind of the same to me now, which is bad. And that it feels the same to a lot of people who live through that time right now, I have this feeling that I do not know where the ground quite is beneath me, what is going to happen next. When some crackpot leader of a congregation of 50 people in Gainesville, Florida gets a call from the Secretary of Defense begging him not to burn the Quran, it makes me feel like almost anything could happen.

SM (01:00:58):
And also recently with-

SJ (01:01:01):
I hope that this is a feeling and not a fact.

SM (01:01:04):
Well, I have a feeling because I have been studying lately the football player that was killed by friendly fire.

SJ (01:01:11):
Pat Tillman.

SM (01:01:12):
Pat Tillman. Unbelievable. And the latest is that he was murdered because he was going to come back in the United States and be an anti-war protestor. He and his brother had, some of his close associates had seen enough. He was going to finish his time, but he was going to come back, and there was a worry that he would come back and that would be terrible to have the number one guy that everybody know about-

SJ (01:01:44):
Well, what I would say about this, that this idea is around, is part of what makes it feel like 1968. This is probably not true, probably it is just the Army covered its ass, as it always tries to do after friendly fire. But the fact that this rumor, that these conspiracy theories are all out there, and we see more of them on the right than on the left at the moment, but the existence of conspiracy theories in which a lot of people believe... Not saying whether they are true or not, but it is a sign that there is a lot of dangerous anger out there.

SM (01:02:22):
I agree. And of course we all worried about President Obama when he came into power as somebody wanted to knock him off.

SJ (01:02:30):
Well, I am still worried about that.

SM (01:02:32):
Who won the battles in the (19)60s? Who won the battle?

SJ (01:02:39):
Which battle are you talking about?

SM (01:02:40):
Basically the liberals versus conservatives. Who really won? It was very obvious-

SJ (01:02:46):
The left won the culture war, the political war was a draw as we see very well. If the left had won the political war, we would not have the kind of problems that we have today. Richard Nixon would never have been elected President. Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president. Loads of baby boomers voted for Ronald Reagan.

SM (01:03:10):
Yes, I know.

SJ (01:03:13):
So the left definitely did not win the political war, but I said the left won the culture war, it did in the sense that a lot of the lifestyle changes of the (19)60s were adopted on the right as well as the left.

SM (01:03:27):
Nixon always used the term silent majority, and the silent majority, there were a lot of young people that were in that silent majority as well.

SJ (01:03:35):
That is right, that is right.

SM (01:03:37):
And one of the criticisms of the (19)60s generation or the boomers or the activists, they always say that in the generation of 78 million, only about 15 percent were ever involved in any kind of activism. Even some of the strongest activists I have talked to have said 15? It is more like five.

SJ (01:03:58):
Yeah, I would agree with them. But that alone is not a measure because there are a lot of ideas which were shared by people who were not activists. Again, in a way I am atypical, but everybody says this. When I was 24 years old, I got married to the Moscow correspondent to the Washington Post and moved to Moscow with him for two and a half years where I wrote my first book, and did not go back to newspaper writing because I wanted to write books and magazine articles. But I was very affected by my time in Russia in this, that many of the cultural concerns of my contemporaries seemed very trivial to me when I came back. And it also affected me very much after [inaudible] some of the bad educational things that happened in the (19)60s. I was in Russia, a country where there was no such thing as popular entertainment that was bearable. If you wanted to do anything that was fun in Russia, it was listening to classical music, it was reading classics, because those were the only kind of good books that were available. And so that in a way, in Russia, I got the education that I missed when I was in college because there was no such thing as a popular entertainment culture there that was anything but anything but controlled by the party. So in a way, in Russia, I had to read poetry and classics with an intensity that I had never read before, and the only kind of music I could hear was good music. I just laugh. I just laugh when I see this silly book about Bob Dylan, that Sean Wilentz, who is another child of the (19)60s, just published. The idea of Bob Dylan is a great artist, to me, is ridiculous. And I know why it is ridiculous to me. Because when everybody else was listening to The Stones and Bob Dylan... I know who genius poets were. They were [inaudible] and [inaudible]. Bob Dylan is not a genius of a poet. And it is an example of a low educational standards of a lot of my generation, that this guy is taken seriously as anything but a singer of his generation, which in that respect, he was perfectly good.

SM (01:06:23):
What did you think of Rod McKuen?

SJ (01:06:25):
Rod McKuen was the worst.

SM (01:06:28):
How about the beat writers?

SJ (01:06:31):
The beat writers fall a whole different category. They were earlier and after something else. Al Ginsburg is a great poet. Rod McKuen is not. Rod McKuen was liked by both the left and the right, by the way. In a lot of pop culture of the (19)60s, you have a cultural... That is why I say the left and in general stupid won the culture war in the 1960s. 1960s is when you begin to see a lot of decline in a lot of things that I value. I am not sure if I had not spent... Ages 24 to 26, I was in Russia. These are very formative years. I was not listening to The Stones or Bob Dylan. There was a little pot in Moscow.

SM (01:07:24):
What do you consider to be the major failures of the movement? The movement or the movements?

SJ (01:07:40):
I do not think the Civil Rights Movement failed in any way, except in the sense that undermining something as potent as racial discrimination and racial stereotypes in a country that was founded upon slavery is not the work of 10 years or 20 years, or as we see now, to paraphrase John Kennedy, even in our lifetime on this Earth. I do not think the Civil Rights Movement was a failure at all. I think it was a complete success. They failed to persuade probably 25 percent of people in this country now as then that they were right is not a failure. They persuaded a lot of people that they were right. When we got through the Civil rights movement, you heard about anybody being lynched lately? No. I do not think the civil rights movement was a failure in any way. The anti-war movement was clearly a failure. It failed to end the war. It was not the movement's fault. The entrenched nature of what Eisenhower called the military industrial complex is too much for anybody burning their draft cards and American flags on college campuses. Clearly, the anti-war movement, in terms of changing a kind of reflexive respect for the military, was a failure. I would say that one of the greatest disappointments of my adult lifetime is, as far as I can see, to me, the war in Afghanistan resembles the futility of the war in Vietnam much more than any other, that we did not learn anything from our experience in Vietnam. We did not learn much about the limits of American power in a totally different culture, very, very far from home. And by the way, when you think about that war now, when you think about, let us say the Viet Cong and the Taliban, you understand the Viet Cong were practically kissing cousins in relation to us compared to the values of somebody like the Taliban. As we now see, we are a country with all sorts of commercial relations with- See, we are a country with all sorts of commercial relations with Vietnam. Vietnam is part of the world in which we live. The parts of the Muslim world controlled by people like the Taliban are not. But so I would say the anti-war movement was absolutely a failure, both in the short term in the war went on for years until 1975, and in the long term, in terms of making people more skeptical about this kind of careless exercise of American power. The women, the women's movement was a success in that it opened up a lot more educational and economic opportunities to women. Whether, I think it probably was, I would not say that the women's movement was a failure. People say things are still bad for women who want to raise a family and have a career. That is true, but I do not exactly see that as a failure any more than I see the fact that that Americans who hate Barack Obama will not admit that race has anything to do with it today. I do not see that as a failure of the civil rights movement any more than I see the fact that it is still tough to have a family and a career as a woman. I see those as entrenched structural problems that the civil rights movement and the women's movement made a good start on that nobody could have expected would be solved even by now.

SM (01:11:39):
You do not have to go into any sense of detail, but then you have got the Native American movement, which many people felt was only a four-year movement. With aim starting in Alcatraz and ending at Wounded Knee, although the Native American movement had been going on for a long time. And then of course you had the Chicano movement and farm workers and of course the environmental movement and the gay and lesbian movement, so they were all-

SJ (01:12:06):
Well, the gay and lesbian movement, it starts where the (19)60s end really. I mean, I am in the gay rights movement. I mean the enormous chance that has taken place that started at Stonewall, but it really does not begin to, all you need to do is look at the different attitudes of young people and older people and as the difference between people who are not old enough to be boomers and boomers too. Boomers have far more negative attitudes about gay than the next generation down. Our parents have far more negative attitudes about gay than the Boomers did. These things take a long time. I do not think that the gay rights movement has failed because a lot of people still hate gays, and I think that the one thing that has not changed in American society is the vast influence of a very retrograde form of religion, which is unique to the United States, which is something that progressives in every generation, beginning with the deists of the 18th century have thought were going to be gone by the next generation that has not. The influence of fundamentalist religion, and I do not mean evangelical religion, I mean fundamentalist religion, the kind of religion that takes seriously and believes that lives should be ordered by the writings In Sacred Books. The Taliban are fundamentalist Muslims. The fundamentalist Christians are fundamentalist Christians. The Jews out in living in their little Hasidic sheddles in Brooklyn, are fundamentalist Jews. They believe that all of this is to be taken literally, they are a real threat in American society. The biggest threat are the Christians, simply because the fun there are more fundamentalist Christians than there are fundamentalist anything else in America. It is unique. It is a failure. It is a failure. I will not go into a lot of this. Read Free Thinkers if you want to, but it is something that is, we are the only country in the developed world in which a third of our citizens do not accept that evolution is not a scientific reality.

SM (01:14:22):
You talk about the anti-intellectual atmosphere that came out of the (19)60s, but you did talk about how during John Kennedy's three years, there was a hope there that there was an intellectual development taking place because of the people that he hired, the thinkers, the idea people, and of course dealing with the sciences and Sputnik and all the other, but then you see the comparison. Mario Savio in 1964 said that-

SJ (01:14:53):
I still have a Savio for state senate.

SM (01:14:56):
Well, I like the guy. He was right on target and he said that the fact is that the battle in the university should the university's about ideas. It is not about being the corporate takeover of everything.

SJ (01:15:10):
Exactly.

SM (01:15:11):
And we are back to the corporate takeover of everything right now.

SJ (01:15:15):
Well back. We are at a worst place. Yeah, it is in relation to that than we ever were then. Yeah. Well, we did not know what a real corporate takeover of everything was then. We only thought we did.

SM (01:15:29):
Well, Clark Kurt talked about the knowledge factory, but what did the universities learn from the (19)60s that makes them better prepared to work with the student activist in particular today?

SJ (01:15:41):
First of all, there are not any student activists today. I mean, there are few, but the universities did not learn anything from the (19)60s as far as I can see, and what they learned, what the universities learned from the (19)60s was how to dumb down their standards enough to please stupid students that were among the activists as among everybody else. There were highly brilliant activists. I think Mario Savio was one of them, by the way. I had the greatest respect for him. Yes, Todd Gitlin too. There were student active-. There were two activists. He got less smart as he got older. There were student activists who were smart and there were student activists who were dumb. The university never had any ability to distinguish between those two groups at all. The reason they did what they did was they did not want any shortage of their gravy train. They actually, I do not know who told you 15 percent was too high an estimate, but they were right.

SM (01:16:43):
Several people, several people.

SJ (01:16:44):
But somehow the universities actually thought that parents were going to stop sending their kids to college if they did not shut up these activists on campus, which was never going to happen, and so they got the worst of all possible worlds when instead of truly reforming the curriculum in a good way, that would have added the knowledge that people need about every part of history to the general curriculum. They shunned it off into ghetto studies. By ghetto, I mean ghetto women's studies. Ghetto queer studies, which is ridiculous too. Whatever is necessary to know about any minority is necessary for everyone to know. It is not necessary only for the minority or the interested few to know.

SM (01:17:32):
After the Kennedy assassination, I think you said that things changed in the universities, that the Sputnik, and the science, and math, and the importance of those things. But then when he died and then the university, something happened within the university. Clark Clerk talks about it, the knowledge factory. It is like the IBM mentality.

SJ (01:17:50):
The emphasis on science did not change at all. That was right. That is when the money was always there for science, but what changed the late 1960s and largely as a result of faculty yielding to this pressure of this 5 percent or whatever it was, was that people were not required to learn a common core of knowledge. I think that, by the way, I think they are right, people like Diane Ravitch are absolutely right about that. And Arthur Schlesinger Jr, who of course came from the opposite political thing. I think that they are absolutely right about the decline of common core knowledge. I think that as far, I think that the faculty of the late (19)60s and early (19)70s covered itself with disgrace by settling for this non-solution of dumbing down general humanities courses. Telling students they could decide basically what they wanted to take, and there has been a swing the other way, but so much has been lost. So much has been lost in terms of what people have been not required to learn over the last 30 years, but I do not know if anything can ever-

SM (01:19:05):
Well it is a well-known fact-

SJ (01:19:06):
And computers have made it so much worse.

SM (01:19:09):
It was a well-known fact as I experienced it myself, that students of the (19)60s would make demands within the university knowing that if those demands were met, they would demand other things that they could not demand. So nothing would ever please them.

SJ (01:19:26):
Of course.

SM (01:19:26):
Do you think that kind of a mentality of that small percentage of activists who were really publicized highly by the media as the example of the (19)60s-

SJ (01:19:34):
The spokesmen.

SM (01:19:37):
Spokesmen of the (19)60s, has anything to do with the atmosphere that we had today, which was probably the same back then as not listening to each other? It is my way or the highway kind of mentality.

SJ (01:19:51):
Well, again, I think it is worse now beyond anything we could have imagined then. Again, I do mean in a way I agree that the power of the quote activists was exaggerated. Look, I mean, I know a lot of these people were thought to be flame throwing activists. Some of them turned into extremely intelligent great scholars by the end of the 1970s. Some of them did not. But I think what, what is going on now, I do not relate it in a direct line to the (19)60s at all. I think that people, I cannot imagine, for instance, anybody like Sarah Palin even being listened to in the 1960s. When if you think who was the conservative political hero in the (19)60s, Barry Goldwater, if you think about him and Sarah Palin, just put them in the same time. Put them in the same frame for a second, and if you want to see an example of the degeneration of political and intellectual culture, just see that. Barry Goldwater is a giant compared to Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is somebody who knows nothing and is proud of it. There were people like that in the (19)60s, but they were not proud of it. They did not build careers out of it.

SM (01:21:15):
I have a couple quotes here and we will end on these quotes.

SJ (01:21:19):
Okay, I got to stop for you because I am losing my voice.

SM (01:21:24):
You have a quote here. "The denigration of fairness has infected both political and intellectual life and has now produced a culture in which disproportionate influence is exercised by the loud and relentless voices of single-minded men and women of one persuasion or another."

SJ (01:21:41):
More true now in the second year of Obama than it was when I wrote them in 2007. Sadly, one of the most bewildering things that is that is happened is that Obama, forget about whether you agree with some of the things he does or not. Obama is clearly a man of reason. I think in many ways he got elected because people were sick of the dumbness of George Bush, but when people got him, the biggest criticism made of him is that he is too cerebral. He is out of touch with what ordinary people feel. I think undoubtedly Obama's great strength and weakness is that he is a reasonable man and I do not think he could really believe that so many of his countrymen are as unreasonable and irrational as they are. I think it is a difficult, I think then this could be fatal to him if he does not understand it, that he is dealing with a lot of people who cannot be reasoned with it all.

SM (01:22:43):
Would you also say, and I think you have said this in your book, that in the 1960s, at least on college campuses, when someone came in from a different point of view, students will be there in numbers protesting?

SJ (01:22:55):
Absolutely.

SM (01:22:55):
And challenging, whereas today it is all like-minded people.

SJ (01:23:02):
Absolutely. It is all like-minded people who go to your like-minded people.

SM (01:23:05):
I got two more quotes and then we are going to end. I love this and it is in the introduction here. "In today's America, intellectuals and non-intellectual alike, whether on the left or right, tend to tune out any voice that is not an echo. This obduracy is both a manifestation of mental laziness and the essence of anti-intellectualism."

SJ (01:23:29):
Yes, I agree with agree with that writer.

SM (01:23:31):
Yeah. I got a lot of quotes here and my last one here is you put Thomas Jefferson's quote at the very beginning. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

SJ (01:23:45):
That is right. Why do not they just replace In God We Trust on the coins with ignorant and proud of it? I do not think in this book, I do not think that you should neglect religion. I think that-

SM (01:23:56):
I am not going to.

SJ (01:23:58):
Now, I think there were, there is a lot, remember the big-time cover story in 1968, God is Dead. Well, that is a real big mistake we made in the 1960s, and again, the whole fundamentalist upsurge was not something that the media and in liberal intellectuals were aware of at all.

SM (01:24:18):
The Terry Falwells of the world-

SJ (01:24:21):
Unfortunately, not only is God not Dead, I would not care if he were alive for reasonable people, but a particularly unreasonable kind of God is not dead.

SM (01:24:33):
Last question and I know it is hard. Boomers are now reaching 65, as you say, and the youngest ones are getting towards 50. When we are long gone, when Boomers are long gone. What do you think the historians, people like yourself, sociologists, writers will say about this generation or better yet the period that they lived? What do they say about them?

SJ (01:24:59):
Well, a lot of it, like a lot of history, will be a crock. It will depend on which history books they are reading. It will depend on whether they are reading my version of the (19)60s or Todd's version of the (19)60s or Bill Crystal's version of the (19)60s. It will depend to some extent on what they think. But I will tell you one thing, and I think about this a lot as a writer and as a scholar. There is one thing I can say for certain. That getting any kind of a rounded picture of who our generation was is going to be much more difficult for a historian 50 years from now than it is for us say to get a picture of people who were born in 1920. Why? We stopped writing letters in the 1960s. This is before the computer. We stopped writing letters when long distance phone rates went way down and we have stopped writing them almost all together since the advent of computers. There is very little record, except for a video record, of the inner lives of people of our generation. The kind of inner lives, you can write an excellent history of what intellectuals and activists, too, in the 1930s were thinking. The record of what people were thinking except for those who actually wrote books stops around 1970. You will never find out, for example, what my life was like from reading my personal correspondence because I do not have any anymore. Because people stopped writing me back around 1975 and that is when I stopped writing that back. Email has done nothing about this. Email is a totally different, non-reflective, instrumental form of communication.

SM (01:26:55):
You are right on that.

SJ (01:26:55):
It is gone. I think this is one of the most important things is we are never going to have any sense of what the inner life of this generation was like. Historians are going to find it very difficult.

SM (01:27:07):
We took students to see John Culver, the former senator from Iowa who was a close friend of Teddy Kennedy, and this is back in the (19)90s, and he said, now that the interview's over, I want to take it back into my office. And he said, I want you to look at these. Have you ever seen these? These are letters, these are love letters between my mom and dad. Have you ever written a letter? No. And we are talking (19)90s now, right? This is in the (19)90s. So love letters. Have you ever sent a love letter to your girlfriend or boyfriend? No. So John Culver is saying, just you look at these and see how beautiful they are. I am going to end with this.

SJ (01:27:44):
I have just about had it.

SM (01:27:47):
Yep. Barney Frank said, it is in his book. He wrote a book-

SJ (01:27:50):
I love Barney Frank.

SM (01:27:51):
In his book, Speaking Frankly, he said, The Democratic Party to survive, must separate itself from George McGovern, the McGovernites, the people, the anti-war people, all those people that were involved in those movements. If it is to survive this Barney Frank, speaking frankly.

SJ (01:28:10):
What makes Barney Frank think anybody remembers George McGovern. That is why that would be my question to him.

SM (01:28:15):
Book in the (19)90s, Speaking Frankly though, he said, and he was saying, and he was not attacking it as a conservative, he was attacking it as a liberal basically saying, if we are going to survive, we have to disassociate ourselves from those people that were in the counterculture and the people that supported George McGovern in (19)72.

SJ (01:28:36):
And just where does Barney think his place in the party looks to people who think that the Democratic Party ought to disassociated self from people like Barney Frank. He is really, I will tell you, he has really got a nerve. I love him.

SM (01:28:51):
That was (19)92 though, so anyways. Testing. One, two.

(01:29:07):
I certainly will.

SJ (01:29:08):
College guys. Do you want test and see if you are getting a test?

SM (01:29:16):
I do not know about testing. I know this one is, this is my prize one. This one is. Double check.

SJ (01:29:22):
Testing one, two. But I am not going to be talking that loud. I could talk a lot louder out here than I can in the cubicle in the library. No, that is okay.

SM (01:29:35):
We are fine. I will be coming and this one has already started.

SJ (01:29:46):
No-no clapping.

SM (01:29:49):
I am going to read these to make sure that they, I get these right. So I am all over the place here, and the first question I am going to ask you is that you wrote a piece in the Wounded Generation, which was a book that came out in 1980. It was a paper back on Vietnam.

SJ (01:30:05):
Black In The Dark Age.

SM (01:30:07):
This is the only question I have on that because I have interviewed just about everybody else who was at the symposium. Women in the Vietnam War wrote a piece in the book on the, in the Wounded generation on women in the war. How are Boomer generation women wounded about psychologically, personally from that war, and how important were they in the anti-war movement?

SJ (01:30:37):
I will tell you honestly, I think that women who were older than the boomer generation were more important in the anti-war movement than women of the Boomer generation. The contact that women of the Boomer generation had with the anti-war movement. Although there were lots of women obviously involved just as there were lots of men. But the fundamental thing is the women were not subject to the draft, did not have any danger of having to fight in that war. So I think unless a woman had a brother or a husband who was actually in the fighting, and this would be very different, the attitudes of people who came from the social class but did most of the fighting. Which then as now meant people who were not going to college, basically blue collar people. They were not as represented in the anti-war movement as were college educated Boomer women. So that I really do not think that that women were affected in the same way that men were, except that women in general were more anti-war than men, and that was true not just for Boomer women, but for all women.

SM (01:32:02):
Let me just, I will check this one here to make sure.

SJ (01:32:03):
Let me see if I can get this guy.

SM (01:32:03):
Oh, okay.

SJ (01:32:04):
Well, my cell phone is blocking my purse. That is it. Okay.

SM (01:32:13):
Well, I have read a little bit about your background, from going on the web and also in the book, but how did you become who you are in terms of who were your mentors, your role models? I know you went to Michigan State starting in 63, but who were the people that influenced you the most in your early years?

SJ (01:32:33):
Do you mean by my early years? Do you mean when I was a kiddo?

SM (01:32:37):
Yeah, I would say high school, college.

SJ (01:32:43):
That is an interesting question. I will preface it by saying that I always wanted to be a newspaper reporter. I wanted to be a newspaper reporter from the time I was a kid. And I wanted to be a newspaper reporter because everybody in my family read newspapers and that is what I wanted to do. At Michigan State my college career was somewhat different from other members of the Boomer generation. I did not want to go to college. I was an idiot. I was a classic example of someone who was not in an age where I could most benefit from education, and unlike most people of my generation who stayed in school as long as they could. Men because of the war and women for other reasons, I was determined to get out. I grew up in Okemos, Michigan, which is right near Michigan State. I went to Michigan State for one reason and one reason only. They had an honors college, which enabled you if you kept up a certain grade point to take as many credits as you want and get through as fast as you could. I graduated in just a little over two years. At a better university I would not have been able to do that. At Michigan State. I did. And the reason I did that was I knew that if I had to be in college for four years, I would become a dropout, and there was no way a woman was ever going to get a job as a newspaper reporter if she was a college dropout. I think it is important because I am just on the edge of the baby boom generation, born nine months before it actually started, so when I went to college, it was between 1963 and 1965. This was before what people think of as quote the (19)60s. When I entered Michigan State, there were parietal rules. I was almost expelled for being found doing nothing in a boys off-campus apartment. That is what the real, in other words, this is a totally different experience from being that age five years later when all of that stuff had gone out the window. So in many ways, things for me at that age were more like what they were for people in the (19)50s than they were for the Boomers who came of age only five years later. And I knew I could not stand living under this regime, which kept you as a child, particularly if you were a woman. This is before feminism, and so I wanted to get through as fast as possible. Nevertheless, I have to say I went to, I took any course I wanted because that is another thing you could do at the Honors College. I took Russian and I majored in journalism, and there were some great journalism professors there. A lot of them were people who had been newspapermen in Wisconsin during the McCarthy era and had lost their jobs because of it. And John Hanna, who was then the president of Michigan State, hired a lot of those people. He was very strong about, not about McCarthy, did not like him. He was a liberal Republican. They were still liberal and the chairman of the US Civil Rights Commission as well, which practically made you a communist in the eyes of the McCarthyites. Anyway, but the best thing my professors did for me was they made me realize I had to have a huge amount of professional experience by the time I got out of college to get a job as a woman, and I did and were, my mentors, one of them was named George Huff, one of them who was still alive. One of them was named Bud Myers, and so I went to work as a camper stringer for the Detroit Free Press. Michigan State was one of the two biggest universities in the state, and it was a source of news. And when I went to interview at the Washington Post in the spring of 1965 for a job, I had a huge professional string book from the Detroit Free Press. So I would say that things worked out for me, although they should not have. My real education came later on.

SM (01:37:01):
Yeah. Gets me right into my next question here. As a journalist in the (19)60s and (19)70s, do you feel the media only went after what was sensational and by that, I mean the drug culture, the long hair, the crows, the violence, the sex, protests? And there was little coverage of the majority of the young people that were not involved in any of this kind of activism?

SJ (01:37:27):
Well, I mentioned that this In the Age of American Unreason. And it is not that they went after what was, just what was sensational. That was as much a part of the (19)60s as anything else. It is that the media mostly is absolutely true was then and is now. The media was liberal reporters who were close to the age of the students who were protesting, shared their views. We did not know anything about the things we now know. I knew nothing about fundamentalist religion, and in fact, there was a whole other (19)60s. That whole other (19)60s is represented by George W. Bush and all of the Neoconservatives who first got into government under Ronald Reagan and really began running things under George W. Bush. They were there in the (19)60s too, and they were drawing quite different conclusions about what was going on around them than people like me who worked for the Washington Post were. I was not aware of what I now call the other (19)60s at all then. I have become aware of it in the last 20 years, but I never thought about it then.

SM (01:38:39):
Well, you brought it up. You are one of the few people that is really brought it up in any detail. When I interviewed Lee Edwards, the historian down in Washington, he said one of the things in all the books on the (19)60s is they do not ever talk about the conservative students and the young Americans for Freedom, for example.

SJ (01:38:54):
That is right.

SM (01:38:55):
And other groups like that. And of course the importance of the Goldwater election and the links to Ronald Reagan. Why was that?

SJ (01:39:02):
As I said, I think why it was is that the social class of the media was very different from the social class. There was first of all, there was no, in the early 1960s, there was no intellectual right wing. There was William Buckley in the National Review, and that was that, but there was not any, now there is a whole right-wing intellectual establishment as well. There was no right wing intellectual establishment then. There was Bill Buckley and his followers, and that is who it was. But there is something else too, I think just as important as that is the fact that the (19)60s, where are the years when the fundamentalists established their kindergarten through college network of education and began to train the generation that has had so much influence on public life for the last 30 years. We did not know those people.

SM (01:39:57):
Well, it is interesting because you brought bring up the Campus Crusade for Christ.

SJ (01:40:00):
They were just getting started then.

SM (01:40:04):
Being a college administrator, actually, I have worked with many of those students, but it is interesting about how they used the dress of the (19)60s, but they had a different point of view.

SJ (01:40:15):
Well, sure.

SM (01:40:16):
Yeah. So a lot of people do not even think about the Campus Crusade for Christ when they are talking about the (19)60s.

SJ (01:40:21):
But they were in the (19)60s as when the Campus Crusade for Christ. It actually was started in the (19)50s, but it did not really have any traction on anything but religious campuses until the late 1960s when they really got started. And one of the things that they were presenting themselves as was an alternative to the drug culture, you know, you can be cool. You can be hip, like the Jesus Electric Light and Power Company. You can be cool, you can be hip, but you do not have to share the views of all of those hippies about free love and all of that. And remember also by the late 1960s, there were a lot of kids who had been involved in the drug scene and so on, and were disillusioned with it. We were looking for something else.

SM (01:41:07):
Right. You talk about what they call the grateful and the ungrateful generation. Define those. Because a couple of people that are going to be reading these interviews may not have read your book.

SJ (01:41:19):
Well, the Grateful Generation was my parents' generation. I call them the Grateful Generation, not the greatest generation.

SM (01:41:26):
And they are not linked to the Grateful Dead.

SJ (01:41:28):
They are not linked. The Grateful Dead is part of the Ungrateful generation. But my parents' generation, the World War II generation was the Grateful generation. These were people who, my mother is a very still alive, is a very typical example. Brought up in a blue collar family. First member of her family to go to college. My grandfather, her father, they were blue collar people. My parents, the generation that emerged from the World War II as young adults. First of all, it was not the case of my father who was a little older, but a lot of them went to college on the GI Bill. They came from families where a generation earlier, they would not have been able to go to college. The Grateful generation, what Tom Brokaw calls the Greatest generation, they had a lot to be grateful for. One of the things they had to be grateful for is unlike people getting out of the service today, they got to buy houses with mortgages at 4 percent with VA loans. They went to school on the GI Bill. They came of age at a time when although there were ups and downs, America's economic prospects were good. All of those members of the Grateful Generation who went to school on the GI Bill enjoyed a standard of living, which their own parents could never have dreamed of. So they had good reason to be grateful. And the idea, it was always taken for granted that they would send their own children to college. There was not even a question then. And the thing is they expected their children who had so much more than they had had when they were growing up during the Depression, when they were coming of age during World War II. They expected their children to be thrilled with the middle class life they had achieved and to which they so aspired. And I call that the Ungrateful generation, then. Again, only some, but particularly among those who are college educated, turned around and said, we do not want your sticky, crappy houses. We do not like these universities. We do not like what they are teaching. We do not like your war.

SM (01:43:54):
Well, it is interesting. I interviewed Tom Hayden this past week as a follow-up interview I had. I interviewed him for almost two hours. And then of course about a year ago I interviewed Todd Gitlin, and they hate the term Boomer generation, both of them.

SJ (01:44:05):
No, they are not Boomers.

SM (01:44:07):
Yeah. Well, yeah, they were 42 and 40.

SJ (01:44:10):
Yeah. They are not boomers.

SM (01:44:11):
Todd is younger than Tom, but Tom Hayden, I would like your response to this. Because Tom said he did not like even Tom Brokaw's book Boom. Because he says, boom is an indication of something being shot out, showing violent and boom, basically Tom. And then the fact that it happened so fast that the Boomer generation was insignificant, it was just a short time period in history. So he was attacking the term boom.

SJ (01:44:46):
Well, I think if you, pardon of my saying, so he is, he is being a bit of anachronistic in his interpretation. The word baby boom was used beginning in the 1940s and it did not have anything to do with violence. All it meant is all of these people were having, all of these children. Did not have any. As all of these people were having all of these children. Did not have anything to do with the idea of the Boomer generation as it was taken over in the (19)60s. Tom Hayden, if he says that his mind is still in the (19)60s, which does not really surprise me. And it is for the Boomer generation being a short moment in time. Well, he does not know much about demography then. Now there really are two Boomer generations. 1957 was the highest birth rate in American history, is the exact midpoint of the Baby Boom generation. After that, the demography tapers off a little. But they are really two halves of the Boomer generation. One is people born between 1946 and 1957, the older Boomers, and people born between 1957 and 1964, the younger Boomers. There is a big difference between them. One of them being that it is only the older Boomers who came of age the late 1960s. The younger Boomers came of age in a much more conservative era, and in fact, they are more conservative politically in many ways than the older Boomers. Barack Obama is a younger Boomer.

SM (01:46:15):
He is two years older, yeah.

SJ (01:46:16):
He keeps trying to dis-identify himself from the Baby Boom generation, but he is a Boomer. And here is the one thing that the older Boomers and the younger Boomers have in common, and again, Hayman and Gitlin are not Boomers at all. They belong to that half generation born really between the middle of the depression and the end of the second world war. And they have some different... Although you are right, they were involved in fact, what people think of today as a lot of the activities of the Boomer generation. But what the younger Boomers and the older Boomers have in common is this. They both grew up in spite of the recessions of the 1970s, in times overall that were a rising economy in which they expected, and in fact did get access to a lot of things their parents never had. And this is true when you think about Barack Obama. In fact, the younger half of the Boomer generation that was Black benefited a lot more from these things than the older Black Baby Boomers, simply because of the achievements of the civil rights movement that were won when Barack Obama was a baby. So the younger Boomers and the older Boomers have in common, it did not cost them enough fortune to go to college. The real rise in college tuition did not happen until the mid 1980s, after even most of the younger Boomers were through college. The younger Boomers, Blacks and Hispanics, benefited from scholarships and things that did not exist for Blacks, for the older Boomers. And something else also, which is that the younger Boomers, again, the Obamas are perfect examples of this. They moved into a path that had been paved by the older Boomers, which was if you were 20 in the 1950s, you were expected within two years of graduating from college, if you were a girl to be married, if you were a guy you were not expected to be married until you were 30, if you were a guy to have a good job. And when the Boomers who came of age in the (19)60s came along, they pioneered a path in which it was okay not to get married right away. And it was okay to stay in school longer, to take some time out, find out what it was you really want to do. Now, when you look at Barack Obama's career in the 1970s, the time out he took from school before he went back to law school, these are things that, for instance, a young Black man from the older part of the Boomer generation, his parents would have gone nuts if he had said, "I want to wait to go to law school. I want to find myself." These possibilities, which are that your life is not set in stone when you are 22. That was a way of living that was pioneered by the older Boomers when Tom Hayden says, "This was just a moment in time." He is utterly wrong.

SM (01:49:20):
He was referring to that term Boom. And he was referring to Tom Brokaw's book.

SJ (01:49:26):
This is a book being written 40 years after all of this is taking place. And I do not know what Tom Brokaw means by Boom, but maybe Tom Hayden does not know the term Baby Boomer became current in the 1940s. It was not an invention of the 1960s.

SM (01:49:39):
I know that I interviewed Richie Havens. Richie said I was born in 41, but I am really a Boomer because of the spirit.

SJ (01:49:47):
Well, what happened was the Boomers of Tom Hayden's day and the pre Boomers is that things came along in the 1960s and they took advantage. You are absolutely right. A lot of what is thought of as the Boomer activities of the late (19)60s was really carried out by this half generation, who was both Todd Gitlin, whom I love, and Tom Hayden belong.

SM (01:50:14):
And thought of Richie.

SJ (01:50:14):
Yeah, and Richie too.

SM (01:50:15):
Yeah. One of the things that I am curious, you already made reference to it, before the real strong women's movement and feminism and so forth, and what was it like being a female reporter? You said you had two people who were really strong role models for you. Men who treated-

SJ (01:50:32):
Not role models, they gave me great advice.

SM (01:50:34):
They gave great advice.

SJ (01:50:35):
We were not role models at all.

SM (01:50:36):
But what was it like to be a female reporter in the early or mid (19)60s?

SJ (01:50:42):
Well, I applied for a job at two places, the Detroit Free Press and the Washington Post. Fortunately, the Detroit Free Press did not hire me, so I was hired by the Post, which was great. The Free Press refused to hire me for anything but the society section, this is 1964, although I had been covering regular stories for them for years because they said a woman could not be out at night if there were a story that came up at night. The Post was a different kettle of fish. They hired me as a regular reporter, but I was only the second reporter, female reporter, who did not work in what was then called the society section. However, I think I would have encountered a lot more trouble with the New York Times then. But at the Washington Post, because the Post was then expanding, it had a lot of really young reporters on it. It was not a disadvantage to be a woman in the same way as it would have been at the New York Times in the early 1960s.

SM (01:51:45):
I have a couple... You have a quote in your book, this book, "This increasing alliterate of America, not only the enjoyment in reading, but critical thinking is at risk." And the way I really going to ask this question is, is this a direct link to the (19)60s? Because with a lot of criticism of today's young people today is they are smart. They do not know their history.

SJ (01:52:14):
Blaming it on the (19)60s.

SM (01:52:25):
[inaudible] Between this quote and the (19)60s.

SJ (01:52:26):
Yes and no. Yes and no. In the 1960s, books were still really important to all of us. I mean, I can remember when Portnoy's Complaint was published in 1969. I mean, can remember I had heard about this book. I can remember just rushing to the bookstore, just dying to read this book. I do not think anybody rushes to a bookstore dying to read a book at all today. I really think more than the (19)60s, although there is a connection with the (19)60s which I will circle back to, but I really feel that the older Boomers belong more to the previous generation in terms of their attitudes toward reading. The younger Boomers belong more to the next generation. Because there was not any internet, there were not any computers before the 1980s. So that we grew up in a society in which, if you read, books were important. As far as not knowing history goes, this has gotten worse every year. It did not start in the (19)60s. There were actually some polls for the 1930s, which show how little history Americans do in the 1930s too. But I do think that what happened in the 1960s, I mean, nobody could have imagined the internet then, nobody did. But there were certainly a lot more forms of entertainment began to intrude on time that had once been devoted to reading. Look, the transistor radio, the small portable transistor radio, I think played an important role in this. For the first time, although it was nothing right now is nothing like an iPod. It was nothing like computer access 24/7, but for the first time, you could bring your music with you everywhere. But I think it was the beginning of a change, which was a descending curve that was fairly soft in the (19)60s. I do not think it really takes a sharp downward turn until the 1980s. This is going to be a problem, I think.

SM (01:54:36):
We can move to...

SJ (01:54:37):
No, there are not any tables. Because this guy is talking awful loudly. All right, well, they will not stay there.

SM (01:54:47):
You were in the middle of [inaudible].

SJ (01:55:01):
No, that is the way it is. Okay. There is one aspect of the (19)60s that I think does have something to do, and it was really the late (19)60s, early (19)70s. I think in general, student demands are blamed, in general, by conservatives for watering down of the university curriculum. Now, it is true that students were demanding a lot of bullshit things in the late 1960s, early (19)70s. And I do not believe that their criticisms of the curriculum were justified at all. Their criticisms the way universities were run was. But I think what happened in the (19)60s that was bad and was entirely a fault of the faculty at that time is for some reason they were actually scared of these student demands. And you had two kinds of people. You had had younger faculty members, many of whom threw in their lot with the students who wanted to teach women's studies and so on. And you had older faculty members, people who wanted to teach the way they always had, the dead white European male curriculum. And they both got their way, and I think it was a very evil and stupid compromise. But what they did was they shut it off. Instead of developing a great African American studies curriculum, which was taught to every student of American history, they shunted it off into minority studies department. Instead of including women writers in every English class and making women's studies part of the whole, they shut it off into women's studies department. Now this pleased everybody on campuses and I was an education reporter for the Washing Post at the time this was happening. It pleased the old guys because they could continue to teach their white studies, their white male studies exactly the way they always taught them, and it pleased the new people because it meant more jobs and more tenure. Everybody got what they wanted. It was bad for education in general. The kind of vulcanization of things that every kid ought to be learning started in the late 1960s, and it was not the fault of the students was the fault of the faculty who were supposed to be the grownups that did not act like it.

SM (01:57:12):
You mentioned in the book, too, that tenure was something very important in the (19)50s on college campuses and then in the (19)60s, mid (19)60s in particular. So maybe around the mid (19)70s tenure was not that important. It was basically they were involved in the reacting to the social movements that were-

SJ (01:57:29):
That is not what I said. I did not say anything about tenure at all, but in fact, the way things worked out, the way things worked out, everybody got tenure. People who were involved in the social movements of the (19)60s are the tenured professors who will not leave because they cannot retire on college campuses today. Tenure did not have anything to do with whether you were fighting the establishment then at all. Those people got tenure too. Those women's studies professors got tenure, the African-American studies. And there are campuses with African- American studies departments, Harvard is one of them, where in fact, lots of kids of all races go. But what happened in most campuses was they became an enclave for minority students and meant that meant the minority students were not learning everything they should learn, and the white students sure as hell were not learning everything they should learn. But as for tenure, that is my whole point. Everybody got it. That is why everybody was happy with what happened.

SM (01:58:26):
You do a great job [inaudible] of the criticisms of the neocons towards anybody that was involved in any kind of protest or activism of that particular time. You bring up Irving Crystal and Todd Hortz.

SJ (01:58:47):
Todd Hortz. Well, they are ancient.

SM (01:58:48):
And commentary, but they were the kind of old left and their attitude toward the (19)60s. How do you react to, because the current neocons, when Newt Gingrich came the power in 1994 when the Republican came in, he made some strong commentaries.

SJ (01:59:01):
Remember the Newtster was coming of age of the (19)60s. He was part of that other (19)60s.

SM (01:59:02):
Yeah. Yeah. He was there and then he had... You had the Bill Crystals of the world who were coming on, and then even today on Fox, you see a lot of the criticisms of the (19)60s. There is a lot of the reasons why we are having the problems in our society today, just looking back.

SJ (01:59:33):
Well, by the way, those people on Fox do not know any more about the (19)60s than most of American knows about ancient Greek or Latin. I mean, they do not know anything about it. There is this image of the (19)60s frozen in time. I think that is probably really what Tom Hayden was objecting to. The idea that people who were protesting things in the (19)60s were just free lovers and dopers, and that was it, and that is all there was to the (19)60s. People who wanted to do anything that they wanted to do.

SM (02:00:01):
One of the things, the generation gap, it was very obvious. I remember on Life Magazine, they had the front cover with that young man, and he had his glasses on and one side of the glasses his father was pointing at him and he was pointing back at his job. So the generation gap between parents and their kids was very obvious at that particular time. But also in that book, the Wounded Generation, Jim Webb made a commentary at the symposium back in 1980s. But the real generation gap was not between parents. The generation gap is those who served in Vietnam, and when they were called to serve their nation, they went and those who did not.

SJ (02:00:49):
So that was not a generation gap, that is a culture gap.

SM (02:00:49):
He called it... And actually went even further by saying that oftentimes the (19)60s generation is supposed to be the Peace Corps generation, the Vista, the service. They took the words of Kennedy and they used it, whether it be go into service or to go into the Peace Corps. He says they are not a service generation, so they incur. A lot of them refused to serve.

SJ (02:01:04):
Jim Webb, by the way, is not a Baby Boomer, I believe.

SM (02:01:07):
I do not know. I think he is about 44.

SJ (02:01:11):
Well, he is very young, but I would say that that is true. That in general, all of the children in the (19)60s were not the service generation. But if you go back to Vietnam and to say that that people who did not serve were just motivated by selfishness. That is not just wrong. It is true. But they did not want to get shot at, but they did not want to get shot at for this particular thing. I do not know whether Jim Webb thinks the Vietnam War was worthwhile or not. I do not to this day think the Vietnam War was worthwhile. What did we get out of it except all of those dead. And Vietnam is now what it was always going to be a communist country, far from our sphere of influence. And the countries we are fighting in now, Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be Muslim countries far from our sphere of influence when all of this is over. But I think as somebody who remembers of Vietnam War, I think not just somebody who has heard about it, which is what all Jim Webb has, he has heard about it. He does not remember the Vietnam War. He knows only what he has been told at the military academy about the Vietnam War. I like Jim Webb.

SM (02:02:25):
Oh, he served in Vietnam.

SJ (02:02:31):
He served in Vietnam?

SM (02:02:32):
Yes, he did.

SJ (02:02:32):
So he is not in his 40s then.

SM (02:02:32):
Well, he served in Vietnam.

SJ (02:02:32):
He did?

SM (02:02:32):
Yes.

SJ (02:02:32):
Are you sure?

SM (02:02:35):
Yes. And of course, his son is serving in Iraq on two tours.

SJ (02:02:40):
Well, if Jim Webb thinks the Vietnam War was worthwhile, I do not agree with him. And if he thinks that in order to be of the service generation you had to serve in Vietnam, I do not agree with him. I mean, you could call young Nazis members of the service generation too. They served the Nazis, and by that, I assure you, I do not mean that people who served in Vietnam were Nazis. I mean, because you do not choose a particular kind of way to serve. But I will tell you this, but I think far worse than anything that happened in terms of culture division in Vietnam is what is happening today. I think that you have an all-volunteer army, which of course was a direct result of the fact, but so many people did not want to serve and use education and privilege to get out of the draft. I think the all-volunteer army is far worse. I think the reason that even now, I do not think America is paying any attention to these wars, to how many people are being killed, and I think there is direct reason they are not paying any attention to it is that their sons and daughters do not have to go if they do not want to. My parents were moderate Republicans who opposed the Vietnam War. My father was a veteran. They did not think the Vietnam War was worth fighting. They opposed it because they were terrified that their son was going to get drafted, my brother. He did not, but I do not think they would have any position if they were the same kind of people today on the Iraq war. They would not have to worry about my brother being drafted. My father saw absolutely no analogy between Vietnam and World War II, and he was not a liberal.

SM (02:04:30):
When you look at the whole Jane Fonda situation, and I have interviewed a lot-

SJ (02:04:39):
Jane is another one of those iconographic (19)60s people.

SM (02:04:40):
You saw her when she was at the New School this past year, I think it was in February, talking about her whole career. It was unbelievable. It was a tremendous hour and a half program there. But when you look at, oftentimes entertainers themselves are being criticized today, you are just being entertainers.

SJ (02:04:59):
That is ridiculous.

SM (02:05:00):
And when you go back to the (19)60s, you can always remember John Wayne, Martha Ray, Bob Hope, which would be gung-ho for the troops. But you had the Donald Sutherland, Jane Fonda who were against.

SJ (02:05:16):
Here is no reason why entertainers should not use their celebrity anyway that they want. And by the way, I would like, while I am thinking of it, this is not a question you are asking, but you know were asking about Boomers and boom and all of that. I do not know about boom, but of course now the Boomers... I have a new book coming out in February. It is called Never Say Die, the Myth and the Marketing of the New Old Age. And here is another thing, and here is why Tom Hayden is very wrong, that this was just a moment in time. Oldest Boomers turned 65 next year in 2011. The oldest Boomers turned 65, by 2030, unless there is some kind of a catastrophe, which of course there always could be, there are going to be 8.5 million Americans over the age of 85, most of them Boomers. Now, and this is related to the age of American unreason because there is also one thing older and younger Boomers have in common, a kind of forever young state of mind, whether they are or not. This is hitting the Boomers hard now and there is now, this is what my next book is about. There is now the same kind of propaganda about the new old age, but there was in the about Boomers being completely different from their parents in that there is a mindset that says, "If only we live right, if only we worked hard enough, the phrase defying old age comes up all the time." It is a Boomer mindset, a mindset in which, and it is also very much a mindset of the (19)70s after the (19)60s, the retreat into the personal growth kind of thing. But if you just work hard enough, if you live right-

SM (02:07:06):
[inaudible] exercise.

SJ (02:07:08):
...your old age is not going to be... At 90, I went to this panel two years ago, three years ago, called is 90 the new (19)50s. Gene was in the audience, by the way. Well, I could answer you whether 90 is the new 50. It is not, but the Boomers are going to be affecting ideas about old age thus far in a very unrealistic sort of way for quite a while. But as far as a lot of Boomers are concerned, the only people who get Alzheimer's disease are people who did not exercise enough and who ate too many carbs and got too fat. If you live to be more than 85, you have a 50 percent chance of getting Alzheimer's disease. It is evidence, facts cannot be denied. And that is something that a certain fantasy part of the Boomer generation has always tried to do.

SM (02:08:00):
Yes, exactly.

SJ (02:08:00):
The Boomer attitude toward old age now is exactly like the attitude of aging Boomer women who wanted to have natural childbirth, which is they believed that if they only wanted it, childbirth would not hurt.

SM (02:08:14):
Well, I know that Boomers they do not want to have senior citizen centers.

SJ (02:08:20):
No-no.

SM (02:08:21):
They want to get rid of that word senior citizens.

SJ (02:08:25):
I used the word old in my new book. The word old is the word Boomers hate. Hello. I am just 65. How many 130-year-old do you see walking around? I am not middle-aged. They are not middle-aged. By the 2030, none of us are going to be anywhere near middle-aged. We are going to be old.

SM (02:08:48):
It is an interesting, you go to any park or any place, people are running, walking, exercising, biking. Doctors will say, that will extend your lifespan.

SJ (02:08:58):
No, they do not. They say it is good for you now. No good doctor says it. It is good for you in a million different ways. Whether it will extend your life, your healthy lifespan is completely unknown. I know, I know. The AARP, which is now run by Boomers, of course, right? The AARP for which I written many times, and God bless them, I love them. The AARP, the attitude about the new old age is this, it is okay to be old as long as you pretend you are not. So as the AARP concentrates on the 95-year-old sky diver, the 90-year-old who are having great sex, of course there cannot be very many of them among women because most women who are 90 years old do not have partners. And if you noticed ads for Viagra, which was actually intended either for people who have things like diabetes or for people over 65, 70, the people in ads for Viagra are all in their 40s. They do not want to present the real age at which Viagra is really aimed. What they want to say in these commercials is if you take Viagra, it would be just like it was 20, 30 years ago.

SM (02:10:12):
You hit some-

SJ (02:10:14):
But this is related to the Boomer generation because the Boomers are getting old.

SM (02:10:19):
Yeah. And I think when they were younger, they felt... This is one thing too. When I was in school, there was this feeling that we were going to change the world. We were going to end war, bring peace, end all the racism, sexism and homophobia, clean up the environment. There was the supposed attitude of not 100 percent of the people, but the activists had, but they were going to make a difference in the world.

SJ (02:10:46):
And we did make a difference in a lot of ways. Look, would you rather be Black in America today or would you rather have been Black before the Civil Rights movement? Would you rather be a woman in America today, or would you rather be a woman from Mad Men? These changes in women's lives, and I am not discounting for a minute that what we are seeing now is ugly, and the idea that this was kind of eradicated either then or now is ridiculous, and anybody with a brain in their head knows it. But fact is the progress that is made in opportunities for minorities, the progress that was made in opportunities for women is absolutely undeniable. It was not better to be African American or Hispanic or female in 1960 than it is today. It is much better to be all of those things today.

SM (02:11:33):
You talked a lot about- How we doing time wise?

SJ (02:11:47):
Well, we have been at it for about-

SM (02:11:47):
45 minutes?

SJ (02:11:48):
Oh, more than that. We can go on. I am comfortable here and get this done maybe.

SM (02:11:52):
Yeah [inaudible] I will come back to it. When you look at the period that Boomers have been alive, which is 1946... Oh, another question I was going to ask. Many people have said to me during my interviews, when you look at Bill Clinton, and when you look at George's Bush number two, you can tell they are Boomers. Just a general comment. You can tell they are Boomers. What do you think they are saying when they say that?

SJ (02:12:24):
I have no idea. I mean, they both behave like Boomers politically in a sense. I do not know what they mean by that. If you look at them, you can tell what they are Boomers. But I can tell if they are Boomers because I know they are the age they are. They have to be Boomers. I actually do not have any... I cannot venture a comment on that because I do not know what they mean. If they mean a style of politics, which is a little less buttoned up. Maybe that is what they mean. I do not know what they mean by, if you look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, you can tell they are Boomers. Do they both smoke pot? Yeah, when they were young. I do not know what that says.

SM (02:13:06):
I think some were referring to George Bush as well, my way or the highway kind of mentality, but some of the activists had in the (19)60s and Bill Clinton with his Monica Lewinsky.

SJ (02:13:20):
Well, yeah, as we know, politicians who are not Boomers never have extramarital sex. But this is ridiculous. There is this tendency on the part of the right to attribute everything they do not like that they imagine to be true about the Boomer generation to have been the Boomer generation. How can anybody make this ridiculous statement about Monica Lewinsky being an example of a typical Boomer mindset? I mean, exactly what generation of politicians has not had sex scandals? The only difference was in the past is that the public did not know about it because the press did not write about it.

SM (02:13:58):
Look at that period, 1946 to 1960, how did that shape the very, very young Boomers with respect to the issue of fear? We already talked about McCarthyism, which was on television in the early (19)50s, so the front running Boomers would have seen that-

SJ (02:14:18):
It affected... I remember the air raid drills when we would crouch under the desk, which was supposed to protect us from radiation. I do not know a single person my age or who is a sentient being in the early (19)50s who does not remember the fear of the bomb. Exactly how much that shaped us, I do not know. The nature of being young is not to be fearful. I think I can remember the air raid drills and thinking it was silly, but I do not come from a typical family. My family, while they were not liberal or left at all, but they were sort of completely indifferent to that sort of sort of thing.

SM (02:15:03):
I think that across the board, whether it is that-

SJ (02:15:06):
I think a lot of it would have depended on what kind of a family you came from.

SM (02:15:12):
The three adjectives that I lean on here in describing the early light Boomers as a whole is-

SJ (02:15:21):
Fear?

SM (02:15:22):
And fear being what you talk about the bomb and growing up with a cold war, and obviously that the Communist, looking for Communists everywhere. Naive. Naive, hey, because I believe that (19)50s television was all about that, and you really had to read between the lines. And being quiet.

SJ (02:15:40):
Quiet?

SM (02:15:40):
Being quiet. I do not think Boomers [inaudible] thought Boomers really never started to do things. I mean, being outspoken, until the (19)60s.

SJ (02:15:48):
Not, well, first of all, Boomers in the (19)50s were little kids.

SM (02:15:48):
They were in junior high school, though.

SJ (02:15:59):
We do not tend to take down the utterances of little kids. But this I think you are very wrong about. I think you are conflating something, the Silent Generation, which was people who came of age in the (19)50s with the Boomers. I think on the contrary, child rearing was much more permissive in the 1950s. I do not think people around for good as well as for bad to say that Dr. Spock's ideas about child rearing, which while in some ways very traditional, were much freer than the kind of child rearing people of my parents' generation were brought up with. I think in fact, although Boomers, every little word was not taken as seriously as kids are today. I think that Boomers grew up in a much freer, more outspoken atmosphere then. And said things that would not have been allowed for their parents to say when they were children. But I do not think the (19)60s did not come out of nowhere. They did not come out of nowhere. It is not like a switch was turned on. And I mean, you have got to remember that the election of John F. Kennedy, the oldest Boomers were 14 when John F. Kennedy was elected. In some ways, that was still the (19)50s, but in some ways too, that also felt like the dawn of a new day. I would say quite the opposite. Yes, there was the bomb and all of that. Did I really think anybody was going to drop a bomb on me when I was... I think in fact, the Boomers were brought up with a great deal more security and intelligence than their parents were. I would say it was quite the opposite of fear. Life was pretty nice for a child in the 1950s if you came from a middle class family. And I do stress that if you came from a middle class family. Life growing up in the 1950s, if you grew up in a ghetto or if you were a poor white or Black person growing up in the south, Bill Clinton's early life was very different from mine. But what was different by the time he got into college in the (19)60s is there were scholarships for bright young boy. Bill Clinton, he had been born in generation earlier, he would have been no one. He would have been white trash because there would not have been any way for a boy like that to go to college.

SM (02:18:15):
You cannot forget about Native Americans as well during the 1950s on the reservations.

SJ (02:18:21):
They were not on the radar at all. But the life of the poor and the middle class in the (19)50s was very different. It was certainly as different as it is today, and you just cannot... I mean, that is one of the reasons why a lot of the anger today was that a lot of the other (19)60s were not just the rich people like the Bushes. It was also working class people. And there are people who did not make it out of the working class in the 1950s, the 1960s. My family made it out of the working class in the 1950s. And their children, there was never any thought that we were going to be part of that blue-collar class, which was only a half generation away in our family, but a lot of Americans did not.

SM (02:19:07):
This afternoon I will be speaking to Marvin Serff. He is going to talk about growing up African American in Detroit in the (19)60s.

SJ (02:19:07):
How old is he?

SM (02:19:07):
Oh, he is like same age as Alan Wolf. He has got to be probably mid (19)60s.

SJ (02:19:07):
Yeah, he is the same age as Alan then.

SM (02:19:22):
Yeah. But I think he does not live in America anymore. He lives in Mexico. He just happens to be visiting friends here.

SJ (02:19:28):
Well, that will be a very interesting interview because Detroit in the mid (19)60s was changing rapidly and the mid (19)60s are the period when the whites just basically abandoned Detroit and Detroit was just abandoned. That should be a very interesting-

SM (02:19:48):
Another person wrote a book on the labor unions in Detroit at that time, and how they took on the Black Power and the Black Panther mentality in the labor room. In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end? And what was the watershed moment?

SJ (02:19:57):
Actually, I think the (19)60s really began- Actually, I think the (19)60s really began around 1963 and not just for the Kennedy assassination. I think one of the things that you definitely felt when you were a teenager in the early 1960s, there is a big cultural change that started to happen. Although the early (19)60s, Mad Men is not wrong about this, in some ways they were more like the 1950s than they were the later part of the (19)60s. But in some ways, they were not. But one thing that happens in the early (19)60s is that, first of all, there begins to be strong concern in mainstream America about peace. You get movies like On the Beach, which was a big hit movie, movies of the kind that would have been considered commie only five years before. But, yeah, you have 1964. You have two movies, Dr. Strangelove, which is an iconic movie, and Failsafe. The Failsafe movie came out just before that. What they both were about were movies suggesting that war might happen by accident, not by the evil of communism, and we all ought to be thinking about that. There is a very big change that starts in those early years of the (19)60s, not exactly at 1960, but I would say that the minute John Kennedy began talking about nuclear disarmament, which coincided with this cultural moment when movies questioning whether war necessarily arose from the total evil of the enemy, I think that is where the (19)60s really begin. They end with the end of the Vietnam War, and we have a lot of things... I consider the Women's Movement, which is really early (19)70s really a (19)60s phenomenon. I think of it as... although the Women's Movement really does not begin to... they sure empty the garbage a lot, which is good. I think the (19)60s really end with the end of the Vietnam War and kind of the beginning of the consolidation of what the Women's Movement was gaining. The high-water mark of women's movement is really the late (19)70s, not the (19)60s.

SM (02:22:15):
What was the watershed moment? Was there a watershed moment? One particular moment that stands out?

SJ (02:22:15):
It was to when the (19)60s ended?

SM (02:22:15):
No, just the whole period of the (19)60s.

SJ (02:22:15):
Well, to me the watershed moment was of course, I mean you got the original about this, it was 1968. It was not when the (19)60s ended, but the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy within months of each other, it certainly changed my frame of mind about what was possible. This is followed right away by the election of Richard Nixon. And the election of Richard Nixon, it was not just old people who voted for Richard Nixon. The (19)60s were not going to turn out to be a turning point in history toward what I would have said were my values. This becomes pretty obvious by the end of 1968.

SM (02:23:20):
You remember the exact moment you heard that John Kennedy was killed? Do you remember?

SJ (02:23:20):
I sure do.

SM (02:23:27):
Most people do. Where were you when you heard?

SJ (02:23:32):
I was buying a dress in a shop in East Lansing, Michigan. What I remember more and what meant more to me is I also remember where I was when Bobby Kennedy was killed, and when Martin Luther King was killed. When Martin Luther King was killed, I was at home in my house on Capitol Hill, my apartment on Capitol Hill, and I just immediately jumped in a cab and went straight to the Washington Post, because I knew that the city was going to go up in flames, which it did. I was a reporter for the Post. When Robert Kennedy was killed, I was in Frankfurt airport changing planes for Kenya where I was going to meet my fiancé. Everybody in Frankfurt airport was crying, and that is when I learned, and I said to myself, "This is the end of my hope." It was not, of course, but it felt like it.

SM (02:24:33):
As a person who has written a lot of great books and have analyzed America from different angles, when you look at the assassinations of Kennedy, King and Kennedy again, what does that say about America? That, if you speak up too much, you are going to be in or what does it say?

SJ (02:24:53):
What it says to me, and believe you me, I have been thinking about it a lot this week. What it said to me is that there is a lot of free-floating anger and rage in our culture. I do not think it had anything to do with speaking up per se, but when you do become a lightning rod for people who feel threatened, there is no shortage of the true combination of craziness and evil that takes a gun out and shoots. And I have been thinking about that a lot. It feels to me, I am not saying it is, but what is going on right now feels to me very much like things felt to me in the late 1960s only worse because-

SM (02:25:46):
Hold that thought. I want to turn my tape here. Yeah, you are bringing up some very interesting-

SJ (02:26:01):
So one thing my throat is getting sore.

SM (02:26:03):
Yep. Okay.

SJ (02:26:07):
Well, it feels to me in 2010 as we approached this anniversary of the terrorist attack, it feels to me, although it is not the same class of characters, but I have the same really uneasy feeling I had in 1968, which is I have this feeling that anything could happen, that there is a lot of unfocused rage out there added to even more ignorance that existed in 1968 because I do believe people know-know us. I do believe that the 24 hour news cycle, the web and so on, have made us stupider not smarter. They have given us more information, but I believe in terms of logical thinking, in terms of the ability to remember anything that happened before 10 minutes ago, I think we have a worse and more stupid culture than we did in 1968. But I feel the same kind of anger around me. I am not saying I am right, I am saying it feels kind of the same to me now, which is bad, but it feels the same to a lot of people who live through that time. Right now, I have this feeling that I do not know where the ground quite is beneath me, what is going to happen next. And some crack pot leader of a congregation of 50 people in Gainesville, Florida get the call from the Secretary of Defense begging him not to burn the Koran. It makes me feel like almost anything could happen.

SM (02:27:44):
And also recently with the fact-

SJ (02:27:48):
I hope this is a feeling and not a fact.

SM (02:27:50):
Well, I have a feeling because I have been studying lately the football player that was killed by friendly fire.

SJ (02:27:57):
Pat Tillman.

SM (02:27:57):
Pat Tillman. Unbelievable. And the latest is that he was murdered because he was going to come back to the United States and be an anti-war protestor that he and his brother and some of his close associates had seen enough. He was going to finish his time, but he was going to come back, and there was a worry that he would come back and that would be terrible to have the number one guy [inaudible] else about.

SJ (02:28:28):
Well, what I would say about this is that this idea is around is part of what makes it feel like 1968. This is probably not true, probably it is just the army covered its ass as it always tries to do after friendly fire. But these conspiracy theories are all out there, and we see more of them on the right than on the left at the moment, but the existence of conspiracy theories in which a lot of people believe, not saying whether they are true or not, but it is a sign that there is a lot of dangerous anger out there.

SM (02:29:05):
I agree. And of course we all worried about President Obama when he came into power and somebody wanted to knock him off.

SJ (02:29:13):
Well, I am still worried about that.

SM (02:29:16):
Who won the battles in the (19)60s? Who won the battle?

SJ (02:29:21):
Which battle are you talking about?

SM (02:29:22):
Basically the liberals versus conservatives. Who really won? It was very obvious-

SJ (02:29:31):
The left won the culture war. The political war was a draw as we see very well. If the left had won the political war, we would not have the kind of problems that we have today. Richard Nixon would never have been elected President. Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president. Loads of baby boomers voted for Ronald Reagan.

SM (02:29:50):
Yep, I know.

SJ (02:29:52):
So the left definitely did not win the political war, but I said the left won the culture war. It did in the sense that a lot of the lifestyle changes of the (19)60s were adopted on the right as well as the left.

SM (02:30:05):
Well, Nixon always used the term silent majority and there were a lot of young people that were in that silent majority as well.

SJ (02:30:14):
That is right.

SM (02:30:16):
One of the criticisms of the (19)60s generation were the boomers, or the activists is they always say that in the generation of 78 million, only about 15 percent were ever involved in any kind of activism. Even some of the strongest activists I have talked to have said, "15? It was more like five."

SJ (02:30:33):
I would agree with them, but that alone is not a measure because there are a lot of ideas which were shared by people who were not activists. Again, in a way I am atypical, but everybody says this. When I was 24 years old, I got married to the Moscow correspondent of the Washington Post and moved to Moscow with him for two and a half years where I wrote my first book and did not go back to newspaper writing because I wanted to write books and magazine articles. But I was very affected by my time in Russia in this, but many of the cultural concerns of my contemporaries seemed very trivial to me when I came back. It also affected me very much apropos of some of the bad educational things that happened in the (19)60s. I was in Russia, a country where there was no such thing as popular entertainment that was bearable. If you wanted to do anything that was fun in Russia, it was listening to classical music, it was reading classics because those were the only kind of good books that were available. And so that in a way, in Russia, I got the education that I missed when I was in college because there was no such thing as a popular entertainment culture there. There was anything but anything but controlled by the party. So in a way, in Russia, I had to read poetry and classics with an intensity that I never read before and the only kind of music I could hear was good music. I just laughed. I just laugh when I see this silly book about Bob Dylan that Sean Wilentz, who was another child of the (19)60s, just published. The idea of Bob Dylan is a great artist to me is ridiculous and I know why it is ridiculous to me. Because when everybody else was listening to the Stones and Bob Dylan, I know who genius poets were. They were Osip Mandelstam and Joseph Brodsky and Boris Pasternak. Bob Dylan is not a genius of a poet, and it is an example of low educational standards of a lot of my generation that this guy is taken seriously as anything but a singer of his generation, which in that respect, what he was perfectly good.

SM (02:32:49):
What do you think of Rod McKuen?

SJ (02:32:51):
Well, Rod McKuen was the worst.

SM (02:32:54):
How about the beat writers?

SJ (02:32:55):
But Rod McKuen? Well, the beat writers fall a whole different category. They were earlier and after something else. Al Ginsberg is a great poet. Rod McKuen is not. Rod McKuen was liked by both the left and the right, by the way. You have a lot of pop culture of the (19)60s. That is why I say the left in general was stupid, won the culture war in the 1960s. 1960s is when you begin to see a lot of decline and a lot of things that I valued. Ages 24 to 26 I was in Russia. These are very formative years. I was not listening to the Stones or Bob Dylan. There was a little Pat and Oscar.

SM (02:33:47):
What do you consider to be the major failures of the movement? The movement or the movement?

SJ (02:34:01):
I do not think the civil rights movement failed in any way except in the sense that undermining something as potent as racial discrimination and racial stereotypes in a country that was founded upon slavery is not the work of 10 years or 20 years or as we see now. To paraphrase John Kennedy, even in our lifetime on this earth, I do not think the civil rights movement was a failure at all. I think it was a complete success, but they failed to persuade probably 25 percent of people in this country now as then that they were right is not a failure. They persuaded a lot of people that they were right. We got through the civil rights movement. You heard about anybody being lynched lately? No, I do not think the civil rights movement was a failure in any way. The anti-war movement was clearly a failure. It failed to end the war. It was not movement's fault; the entrenched nature of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex is too much for anybody burning their draft cards and American flags on college campuses. Clearly, the anti-war movement in terms of changing a kind of reflexive respect for the military was a failure. I would say that one of the greatest disappointments of my adult lifetime is, as far as I can see, to me, the war in Afghanistan resembles the futility of the war in Vietnam much more than any other. But we did not learn anything from our experience in Vietnam. We did not learn much about the limits of American power in a totally different culture, very, very far from home. And by the way, when you think about that war now, when you think about the Viet Cong and the Taliban, you understand the Viet Cong were practically kissing cousins in relation to us compared to the values of somebody like the Taliban.

SM (02:36:12):
Yes.

SJ (02:36:12):
As we now see, we are a country with all sorts of commercial relations with Vietnam. Vietnam is part of the world in which we live, with parts of the Muslim world controlled by people like the Taliban are not. So I would say that the anti-war movement was absolutely a failure both in the short term, in that the war went on for years until 1975, and the long term in terms of making people more skeptical about this kind of careless exercise of American power. The women's movement was a success in that it opened up a lot more educational and economic opportunities to women. I would not say that the women's movement was a failure. People say things are still bad for women who want to raise a family and have a career. That is true, but I do not exactly see that as a failure any more than I see the fact that that Americans who hate Barack Obama will not admit that race has anything to do with it today. I do not see that as a failure of the civil rights movement any more than I see the fact that it is still tough to have a family and a career as a woman. I see those as entrench structural problems that the civil rights movement and women's movement made a good start on, that nobody could have expected would be solved even by now.

SM (02:37:47):
You do not have to go into any extensive detail, but then you have got the Native American movement which many people thought was only a four-year movement with AIM starting at Alcatraz and ending at Wounded Knee. The Native American movement had been going on for a long time. Then of course you had the Chicano movement, the farm workers and of course the environmental movement and the gay and lesbian movement, so they are all-

SJ (02:38:08):
Well, the gay lesbian movement, it starts where the (19)60s end really. I mean, I am in the gay rights movement. The enormous change that has taken place that started at Stonewall. All you need to do is look at the different attitudes of young people and older people, and it is a difference between people who are not old enough to be boomers and boomers too. Boomers have far more negative attitudes about gay than the next generation down does. Our parents have problem negative attitudes about gay than the boomers did. These things are take a long time. I do not think that that the gay rights movement has failed because a lot of people still hate gays. I think that the one thing that has not changed in American society is the vast influence of a very retrograde form of religion, which is unique to the United States, which is something that progressives in every generation, beginning with the ideas of 18th century, have thought, "We are going to be gone by the next generation." That has the influence of fundamentalist religion. I do not mean evangelical religion, I mean fundamentalist religion. The kind of religion that takes seriously and believes that lives should be ordered by the writings in sacred books. The Taliban are fundamentalist Muslims, the fundamentalist Christians are fundamentalist Christians. The Jews out living in their little Hasidic shtetls in Brooklyn are fundamentalist Jews. They believe that all of this is to be taken literally. They are a real threat in American society, the biggest threat of the Christians simply because there are more fundamentalist Christians than there are fundamentalist anything else in America. It is unique. It is a failure. It is a failure. I will not go into a lot of this. I read free thinkers if you want to, but we are the only country in the developed world in which a third of our citizens do not accept that evolution is not a scientific reality.

SM (02:40:19):
You talk about the anti-intellectual atmosphere that came out of the (19)60s then, but you did talk about how that during John Kennedy's three years, there was a hope there that there was an intellectual development taking place because of the people that he hired, the thinkers, the idea people, and of course dealing with the sciences and Sputnik and all the others-

SJ (02:40:42):
Well, you know they-

SM (02:40:42):
Do you see the comparison? Mario Savio in 1964 said that the-

SJ (02:40:47):
I still have a Savio for state senate bumper sticker!

SM (02:40:52):
Well, I like the guy. He was right on target and he said that the fact is that the university's about ideas. It is not about being the corporate takeover of everything, and we are back to the corporate takeover of everything right now.

SJ (02:41:07):
We are back. We are at a worst place in relation to that than we ever were then. We did not know what a real corporate takeover of everything was then. We only thought we did.

SM (02:41:23):
Clark Kerr talked about the knowledge factory, but what did the universities learn from the (19)60s that make them better prepared to work with the student activists?

SJ (02:41:31):
They are not-

SM (02:41:33):
In particular, today.

SJ (02:41:37):
First of all, there are not any student activists today. I mean, there are few, but the universities did not learn anything from the (19)60s as far as I can see. What the universities learned from the (19)60s was how to dumb down their standards enough to please stupid students. There were among the activists, as among everybody else, there were highly brilliant activists. I think Mario Savio was one of them, by the way. I had the greatest respect for him. Todd Gitlin too. There were student activist-

SM (02:42:02):
Tom Hayden was smart, too.

SJ (02:42:03):
There were two activists. Well, he got less smart as he got older. There were student activists who were smart and there were student activists who were dumb. The university never had any ability to distinguish between those two groups at all. The reason they did what they did was, they did not want any shortage of their gravy train. I do not know who it was that told you 15 percent was too high an estimate, but they were right.

SM (02:42:30):
Several people.

SJ (02:42:31):
But somehow the universities actually thought that parents were going to stop sending their kids to college if they did not shut up these activists on campus, which was never going to happen. So they got the worst of our possible worlds. When instead of truly reforming the curriculum in a good way, that would have added the knowledge that people need about every part of history to the general curriculum. They shunted it off into ghetto studies, and by ghetto, I mean ghetto women's studies, ghetto queer studies, which is ridiculous too. Whatever is necessary to know about any minority is necessary for everyone to know. It is not necessary only for the minority or the interest in you to know.

SM (02:43:16):
After the Kennedy assassination, I think you said that things changed in the universities, that the Sputnik and the science and math and the importance of those things. But then when he died, something happened within the universities. Clark Kerr talked about the knowledge factory. It is like the IBM mentality.

SJ (02:43:38):
The emphasis on science did not change at all. That is when the money was always there for science. But what changed the late 1960s and largely as a result of faculty yielding to this pressure of this 5 percent or whatever it was, was that people were not required to learn a common core of knowledge. By the way, I think people like Diane Ravitch are absolutely right about that, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who of course came from the opposite political thing. I think that they are absolutely right about the decline of common core knowledge. I think that the faculty of the late (19)60s and early (19)70s covered itself with disgrace by settling for this non-solution of dumbing down general humanities courses, telling students they could decide basically what they wanted to take, and there has been a swing the other way, but so much has been lost. So much has been lost in terms of what people have been not required to learn over the last 30 years, but I do not know if anything can ever-

SM (02:44:43):
It is a well-known fact-

SJ (02:44:44):
And computers have made it so much worse.

SM (02:44:46):
It is a well-known fact as I have experienced them myself, that students of the (19)60s would make demands within the university knowing that if those demands were met, they demand other things they could not demand, so nothing would ever please them. Do you think that kind of a mentality of that small percentage of activists who were really publicized highly by the media as the sample of the spokesman of the (19)60s?

SJ (02:45:07):
[Inaudible]

SM (02:45:07):
Has anything to do with the atmosphere that we had today, which was probably the same back then as not listening to each other, my way or the highway kind of mentality?

SJ (02:45:24):
Well, again, I think it is worse now beyond anything we could have imagined then. I do, in a way, I agree that the power of the quote activist was exaggerated. Look, I know a lot of these people who are thought to be flame-throwing activists. Some of them turned into extremely intelligent great scholars by the end of the 1970s. But I think what is going on now, I do not relate it in a direct line to the (19)60s at all. I cannot imagine, for instance, anybody like Sarah Palin even being listened to in the 1960s. When you think about who was the conservative political hero in the (19)60s, Barry Goldwater, if you think about him and Sarah Palin, just put them in the same frame for a second. If you want to see an example of the degeneration of political and intellectual culture, just see it. Barry Goldwater is a giant compared to Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is somebody who knows nothing and is proud of it. There were people like that in the (19)60s, but they were not proud of it. They even built careers out of it.

SM (02:46:45):
I had a couple quotes here and we will end on these quotes.

SJ (02:46:47):
Okay. I have got a spot for you because I am losing you.

SM (02:46:51):
You have a quote here. "The denigration of fairness has infected those political and intellectualized and is now produced a culture in which disproportionate influences exercised by the loud and relentless choices of single-minded men and women of one persuasion or another."

SJ (02:47:07):
More true now in the second year of Obama than it was when I wrote them in 2007. Sadly, one of the most bewildering things that that is happened is that Obama, forget about whether you agree with some of the things he does or not. Obama is clearly a man of reason. I think in many ways he got elected because people were sick of the dumbness of George Bush, but when people got him, the biggest criticism made of him is that he is too cerebral. He is out of touch with what ordinary people feel. I think undoubtedly Obama's great strength and weakness is that he is a reasonable man and I do not think he could really believe that so many of his countrymen are as unreasonable and irrational as they are. I think this could be fatal to him if he does not understand it that he is dealing with a lot of people who cannot be reasonable to [inaudible].

SM (02:48:05):
Would you also say, and I think you said this in your book that, in the 1960s, at least on college campuses, that someone came in from a different point of view, students will be there in numbers protesting-

SJ (02:48:16):
Absolutely.

SM (02:48:16):
And challenging us today. It is all like-minded people.

SJ (02:48:21):
Absolutely. It is all like-minded people who go to your like-minded people.

SM (02:48:26):
I got two more quotes and then we are going to end. I love this and it is in the introduction here. "In today's America, intellectuals and non-intellectual alike, whether on the left or right, tend to tune out any voice that is not an echo. The obduracy is both a manifestation of mental laziness and the essence of anti-intellectualism."

SJ (02:48:47):
Yes, I agree with agree with that writer!

SM (02:48:52):
I got lot of quotes here and my last one here is you put Thomas Jefferson's quote at the very beginning. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

SJ (02:49:03):
That is right. Why do not they just replace "In God we trust" on the coins with "Ignorant and proud of it." I do not think, in this book, that you should neglect religion. Remember the big Time cover story in 1968, "God is dead". Well, that is a real big mistake we made in the 1960s and again, the whole fundamentalist upsurge was not something that the media and liberal intellectuals were aware of at all.

SM (02:49:35):
The Jerry Falwells of the world.

SJ (02:49:36):
Unfortunately, not only is God not dead, I would not care if He were alive for reasonable people, but a particularly unreasonable kind of God is not dead.

SM (02:49:43):
This is the last question. Boomers are now reaching 65, as you say, and the youngest ones ever getting towards 50. When boomers are long gone, what do you think the historians, people like yourself, sociologists, writers will say about this generation or better yet the period that they live? What do they say about them?

SJ (02:50:11):
Well, a lot of history will be a crock. It will depend on which history books they are reading. It will depend on whether they are reading my version of the (19)60s or Todd's version of the (19)60s or Bill Kristol's version of the (19)60s. It will depend to some extent on what they think, but I will tell you one thing, and I think about this a lot as a writer and as a scholar. There is one thing I can say for certain that getting any kind of a rounded picture of who our generation was is going to be much more difficult for a historian 50 years from now than it is for us to get a picture of people who were born in 1920 are. Why? We stopped writing letters in the 1960s. This is before the computer. We stopped writing letters when long distance phone rates went way down and we have stopped writing them almost all together. Since the advent of computers, there is very little record except for a video record of the inner lives of people of our generation. You can write an excellent history of what intellectuals and activists too in the 1930s were thinking. The record of what people were thinking except for those who actually wrote books stops around 1970. You will never find out, for example, what my life was like from reading my personal correspondence because I do not have any anymore because people stopped writing me back around 1975, and that is when I stopped writing. Email has done nothing about this. Email is a totally different, non-reflective, instrumental form of communication.

SM (02:51:57):
Wow, you are right on that.

SJ (02:51:59):
I think this is one of the most important things is we are never going to have any sense of what the inner life of this generation was like. Historians are going to find it very difficult.

SM (02:52:09):
We took students to see John Culver, the former senator from Iowa who was a close friend of Teddy Kennedy. This was back in the (19)90s, and he said, "Now that the interview's over, I want to take it back into my office". And he says, "I want you to look at these. Have you ever seen, these are letters, these are love letters between my mom and dad. Have you ever written a letter?" No. And we are talking (19)90s now, right? She was in the (19)90s, so it is love letters. Have you ever sent a love letter to your girlfriend or boyfriend? No. So John Culver is saying, "Just you look at these and see how beautiful they are." I am going to end with this.

SJ (02:52:46):
I am just about had it.

SM (02:52:47):
Yep. Barney Frank said at the very end, he wrote a book-

SJ (02:52:50):
I love Barney Frank.

SM (02:52:51):
In his book, Speaking Frankly, he said the Democratic party to survive must separate itself from George McGovern, like McGovernites, the anti-war people, all those people that were involved in those movements if it is to survive. Mr. Barney Frank is speaking frankly.

SJ (02:53:08):
What makes Barney Frank think anybody remembers George McGovern? That would be my question to him.

SM (02:53:13):
In his book in the (19)90s, speaking frankly though, he was not attacking it as a conservative, he was attacking it as a liberal, basically saying, if we are going to survive, we have to disassociate ourselves from those people that were in the counterculture and the people that supported George McGovern in (19)72.

SJ (02:53:31):
And just where does Barney think his place in the party looks to people who think that the Democratic party ought a disassociated itself from people like Barney Frank. I am sorry, he has really got a nerve. I love him.

SM (02:53:46):
Well that was (19)92 though, so anyway. Okay. Well, thank you.

(End of Interview)

2010-09-10

Stephen McKiernan

Susan Jacoby, 1945-

173:52

English

Binghamton University Libraries

audio/mp4

Sound

Audio

Authors; Jacoby, Susan, 1945--Interviews

Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly.