As a person who lived through the radical era of the sixties ( I was in the front row as John Kerry spoke against the Vietnam war and watched OTHER vets throw their medals on the Capitol steps for instance.) it always amuses me when I read the rants of wannabes. While we were raging against the war and secretly cheering the exploits of the Weather Underground and Bill Ayers as his organization killed people, little did I realize what that change we wanted portended. While the era was, in your words, a long-overdue revolt against the Vietnam war, against oppressive government and institutions. It has been replaced with much the same thing in the form of Liberal oppressive government institutions. Take a look at DHHS, LURC, the State Legislature just for starters. Never before in the history of our country has the US government so intruded into the private lives and private property of its citizens. Not even during the sixties was their so much government control. Now liberal government is picking winners and losers and nationalizing private companies. If I might quote an old cartoon. “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

Interesting post, vichet. I assume that you realize that the policies you don't like are as much carried out by Republicans as Democrats. Used to be that the Repubs were conservatives, but apparently you don't agree.

Both sides contribute to the problem, but the liberal democrat seems to be what is spawning most of it. The republicans in power today seem to know little of being a conservative.

Vichet: Thinking about it a bit more, I don't remember the sixties quite the way you do. The protests were against the war, which was basically the US inserting itself in a civil war, that only had peripheral connections to Communism (the VietCong and NVs needed somebody on their side, and they very much mistrusted the Chinese). So it was the wrong war for the US, and in that way like Iraq. The protests were also against oppressive acts by the US government, but I think most who protested then would not be against institutions like DHHS and LURC--or at least they would only be against some of the things they do, not their existence as institutions.

kleban, I was, of course, responding to the editors observation that in her words "the era was a long-overdue revolt against the Vietnam war, against oppressive government and institutions" . My point is that we have become as a society what some of us abhorred as young people . Then we opposed living our lives at the direction of our elders. Opposed the draft. Opposed secret wiretapping and surveillence. Oppossed what we saw as government intrusion in our lives. Today my generation has codified by law many of the things we, at that time, stood against. We have created state agencies with power ouside due process. LURC making it own rules (not by legislation) that property owners must obey. DHHS with the power to intercede into family life based on nothing more than rumor. No due process. The federal government nationalizing debt and privatizing wealth not unlike was done in the later years of the Wiemar Republic. I guess you could boil my point down to you get what you ask for and sometimes it is more than you expected.

Vichet, what you say is interesting, but from my point of view you seem to be lumping a lot of different things together under one label, "liberal", that doesn't really fit most (or hardly any) of them. Here's what I mean (I'm not trying to criticize you, just clarify things)

1. "living our lives at the direction of our elders" This is really a social value, not a government institution or program. In my experience, the families that do that tend to be conservative, not liberal, but there are lots of exceptions.

2. "the draft" As I recall, it was more a conservative idea than liberal in the 60s, although admittedly it was stopped by conservatives, mostly. In my opinion we'd be better off with one, since it makes wars harder to start and, if they are wrong like Iraq, easier to stop.

3. "wiretapping and surveillence" hardly liberal. Nowadays, its Bush, Cheney and Co who have pushed that, and got us where apparently everything (phone, email, you name it) is being looked at, with no warrants.

4. "LURC making it own rules" I'll pass on that one, I'm not so familiar with it.

5. "DHHS with the power to intercede into family life based on nothing more than rumor" This is really troubling, I agree, but I don't see it as liberal or conservative either. Not quite sure how to categorize it.

6. "No due process" This goes way beyond DHHS. Guantanamo and treatment of terror suspects come to mind. But this again has been done by W et al. Conservatives, not liberals. Obama says he will close Gitmo.

7. "The federal government nationalizing debt and privatizing wealth" Again mostly under Bush. Now we all own a piece of AIG, like it or not, for example.

I agree with the last point, always be careful what you ask for!

Good Morning Kleban, I am not lumping them all together. Upon reading this piece you can see the writer already did that. But in my opinion our liberal society goes beyond the specifics of a president or party. If folks continue to look to the right and left of a political debate about it you will miss the point. We have in our "liberal" society created institutions, either right or left that are not responsible to any authority or system of checks and balances. Guantanamo comes to mind but at least there was a chain of command. Not necessarily so with DHHS. I have recently watched this agency destroy a local family as the father tried to keep his young step-daughter that he cared for away from a family that included local hookers. The woman and her children will soon be left to the state to provide for and the young girl endangered. Another mission accomplished. Noone but the state gets what they wanted out of that one. As for surveillence and intelligence... a recent Wall Street Journal clip (Nov 11th) Obama plans to keep this power. As for wall street bailouts and Presidents ...I smell corruption on a grand scale. Goldman Sachs, (Bush's secretary Paulson former company) chief beneficiary of the crisis , gave the Obama presidential campaign $5.0 million after the bailout was concluded. McCain got only a pittance. I wonder what happened there. Again, my point is that my/our generation has forgottten what we believed in and created what we feared the most. Which was my chief comment on the editorial.

Vichet, I see what you mean. I only don't see why you call these things "liberal". Most of them don't fit my idea of that word at all.

Vichet what is your source for your Goldman Sachs assertion?

Vichet, all I can find is that employees of Goldman Sachs gave $379,000 to the Obama Campaign. Please tell us your source.

Guys My source was an early morning news report on CNBC business network.

The report had a nice graphic showing the millions from Wall St that went to the Obama campaign with Goldman heading the list. The graphic also showed side by side what McCain got. a much smaller pile. Now Wall street has the right to support anyone it wants.....and it only makes good business sense to go with the obvious winner, but was there a quid-pro quo beyond access to the President? I am not the one to say.

Vichet, you misheard the story. Employees of Goldman Sachs gave a total of $5 million to the presidential campaign, which includes all contributions to all of the candidates -- Republican, Democrats, and others -- over the past two years. So don't put it out there like Obama took a bribe from Goldman Sachs. From http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/us-election-will-cost-53-billi.html : "the top corporation in 2008 is once again Goldman Sachs. The global investment bank's employees and PAC have contributed at least $5 million to the '08 campaign. Citigroup is next at $4.2 million, followed by JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $4.1 million. The biggest-giving industry association is the National Association of Realtors, which has given nearly $3.2 million."

Thank you Bob for the clarification. Based on your data i probably did mishear it. I do clearly recall the comparative graphic though and the commentators tounge-in-cheek joking about the "lateness and timeliness"of the contributions to the Presidential campaign. I probably took the next logical step. I apologize.