http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/1...x.html?npt=NP1

This is the article from CNN that I got the title from (obviously) and I just wanted to see some feedback about this generation and people's personal opinions on it.

I agree with nearly everything in the article, especially this comment:

Our single greatest failure was to sustain the idea that corporate America is the biggest threat to a vibrant democracy, and today the power of corporate wealth over our politics has never been more absolute.

The only thing that I was disappointed by was the fact that the author didn't point out that some of the structural changes to the american military body (particularly the elimination of conscription) are part of the root cause of why america was/is able to be in two simultaneous wars for a decade+

I have to disagree - I think the 60s got social issues out into the open, but in no way 'cured' the problems that had until that point been under the surface. The author talks about things like the civil rights movement, gay rights, etc, but there are still major flaws around those things today - just look at the debate around gay marriage and all the homophobia it brings out, especially from people on the political right.

I'm not going to write anything too lengthy, I'm a bit burned out by forum posting, but I have one thought to contribute.

In my opinion, the article mentions some things that are good and some things I consider to be bad for us (in particular, the changing media and young children that many attribute as having begun with the 60s).

What I dislike about the article (irrelevant to the question itself) is that it permanently intertwines such issues. Especially the ending, I acknowledge that the author was trying to have a "powerful" closing statement, but I don't know...

What it doesn't address is the possibility of liking parts and hating others. Like sure, it can ask us to size up the pros and cons for ourselves and strongly suggest that the pros outweigh the cons...but it just didn't feel like that's what they did to me. "You either love the 60s or hate them, and if you hate them you're dumb." (not in those words of course, but that's how it felt to me while reading it). Anybody else feel that way?

I think its silly to put all the emphasis on one decade as the cure all (besides the fact someone mentioned that America is not 'cured,' it became more liberal, but not cured). Anyone who's taken a history course could tell you all the stuff he mentioned had long term causes, and consequences we're still dealing with right now (homosexual marriage, for one).

Now, if cure = more liberal, than maybe we have a talking point. But the author seems to assume liberal is always better than conservative. For example - abortion is treated as entirely positive by the article, while there is still a heated debate about it. That sort of bias/inattention knocks his credibility for me. Never mind that he confuses causes and effects.

This whole article just seems like a lazy listing of all the stuff that happened in the sixties and an end saying 'see? it was the best.' The facts are pretty glossed over and it suggests a lack of knowledge. The bias kills credibility.

tl;dr Sixties were just dramatic than the other decades, and treated a few symptoms, but didn't cure the US. Article is meh and has enough holes that I need a shovel.