3 ms·

You are upset because you don't have a majority. Which means you completely missed the point Rushkoff is making: Winning did not require a majority and misgui

You are upset because you don't have a majority. Which means you completely missed the point Rushkoff is making: Winning did not require a majority and misguided efforts to establish a majority are backfiring to the extent that it contributes to the unprecedented political success of people like Trump.

wahern 8y ago
He says, "The core counterculture values of environmentalism, women’s rights, racial justice, and international peace were now simply accepted values. 'They’re looking to us for what’s going to happen, and how to be,' I explained. 'We are not counterculture, anymore. We are pro-culture.'" But nothing has changed to the degree he argues. The counterculture was chic in the '60s and '70s, too. Counterculture values are "mainstream" only in the sense that they've been partly internalized by the institutions of the elite, and most thoroughly by the cultural elite. But the elite weren't antagonistic to the counterculture, and the social elite were onboard from the beginning. Unlike [historically] in Europe, the preferences of the social elite aren't self-executing. So what has really changed? If you look at the arc of history in terms of civil rights, the counterculture had very little effect. The landmark Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, and Title IX in 1972. These are the pieces of substantive legislation upon which supposed countercultural values have been concretely manifested; they weren't passed on a whim--they reflected a popular if fleeting commitment to lofty ideals--yet they were passed long before the counterculture supposedly "won". Roe v. Wade (1973) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) are largely anomalous for multiple reasons, and using them to bolster the notion that countercultural values have won (even in the sense of aspirational morality) is particularly unpersuasive. What's really changed between now and then is that liberals somehow convinced themselves that they won. But the last 20 years has shown that they haven't won at all. Rather, as the political dominance of the Democratic party came to a close at the end up the 20th century, the Information Revolution increasingly permitted everybody to silo themselves into cultural bubbles. So liberals could believe they're winning Real social, political, and legal changes are following the same trajectory as they always have--halting and slow but generally improving. Some things have gotten objectively worse, like the never ending wars in the Middle East; ironically a recapitulation of the very thing that give birth to the counterculture--Vietnam. It's farcical, for example, to argue that an electorate who willingly and knowingly elected as President a man who boasted about sexually assaulting women and remained unrepentant has somehow internalized countercultural feminist ideals. Our society is more much inclusive of women these days, but that's been a 200+ year arc. 1968 was 50 years ago! If you stand back, the advancement of women in society between 1968 and 2018 is comparable to 1918 and 1968. To argue that the progress of the latter 50 year period is somehow uniquely reflective of '60s counterculture is rather short-sighted, self-serving, egotistical, and naive; it exaggerates the progress and discourse of this era and under appreciates the progress and discourse of previous eras.

wahern 8y ago

He says, "The core counterculture values of environmentalism, women’s rights, racial justice, and international peace were now simply accepted values. 'They’re looking to us for what’s going to happen, and how to be,' I explained. 'We are not counterculture, anymore. We are pro-culture.'" But nothing has changed to the degree he argues. The counterculture was chic in the '60s and '70s, too. Counterculture values are "mainstream" only in the sense that they've been partly internalized by the institutions of the elite, and most thoroughly by the cultural elite. But the elite weren't antagonistic to the counterculture, and the social elite were onboard from the beginning. Unlike [historically] in Europe, the preferences of the social elite aren't self-executing. So what has really changed? If you look at the arc of history in terms of civil rights, the counterculture had very little effect. The landmark Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, and Title IX in 1972. These are the pieces of substantive legislation upon which supposed countercultural values have been concretely manifested; they weren't passed on a whim--they reflected a popular if fleeting commitment to lofty ideals--yet they were passed long before the counterculture supposedly "won". Roe v. Wade (1973) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) are largely anomalous for multiple reasons, and using them to bolster the notion that countercultural values have won (even in the sense of aspirational morality) is particularly unpersuasive. What's really changed between now and then is that liberals somehow convinced themselves that they won. But the last 20 years has shown that they haven't won at all. Rather, as the political dominance of the Democratic party came to a close at the end up the 20th century, the Information Revolution increasingly permitted everybody to silo themselves into cultural bubbles. So liberals could believe they're winning Real social, political, and legal changes are following the same trajectory as they always have--halting and slow but generally improving. Some things have gotten objectively worse, like the never ending wars in the Middle East; ironically a recapitulation of the very thing that give birth to the counterculture--Vietnam. It's farcical, for example, to argue that an electorate who willingly and knowingly elected as President a man who boasted about sexually assaulting women and remained unrepentant has somehow internalized countercultural feminist ideals. Our society is more much inclusive of women these days, but that's been a 200+ year arc. 1968 was 50 years ago! If you stand back, the advancement of women in society between 1968 and 2018 is comparable to 1918 and 1968. To argue that the progress of the latter 50 year period is somehow uniquely reflective of '60s counterculture is rather short-sighted, self-serving, egotistical, and naive; it exaggerates the progress and discourse of this era and under appreciates the progress and discourse of previous eras.