Reliving the ’70s

Ross Douthat penned an interesting column in a recent issue of the Altantic saying that post-9/11 America has, culturally, returned to the paranoid style of the 1970s.

Conservatives such as Noonan hoped that 9/11 would bring back the best of the 1940s and ’50s, playing Pearl Harbor to a new era of patriotism and solidarity. Many on the left feared that it would restore the worst of the same era, returning us to the shackles of censorship and conformism, jingoism and Joe McCarthy. But as far as Hollywood is concerned, another decade entirely seems to have slouched round again: the paranoid, cynical, end-of-empire 1970s.

He then goes through many film genres and compares recent films to those made in the ’70s. He even gives shout-outs to some of my favorite television shows: The Wire and Battlestar Galactica.

. . . [T]he first great revisionist sci-fi serial, Battlestar Galactica, helmed by an ex–Star Trek writer and featuring enough sex, violence, and religious fanaticism to set Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave.

Most important, though, is that he questions the reason we have returned to such a style:

This last reality brings us to the question of how authentic our back-to-the-’70s moment really is. The Vietnam War was a cultural phenomenon in part because it couldn’t help being one—there was no way for Americans to keep the war at arm’s length, not with more than 50,000 dead, a million deployed over the course of the war, and every able-bodied teen and twentysomething at risk of conscription. In contrast, the Iraq War, a lower-casualty conflict fought by an all-volunteer military, takes place at a greater distance from the everyday lives of those Americans who don’t have a family member deployed overseas. The objective correlatives needed for a truly pessimistic era simply don’t exist for many Americans today. The last time around, we were participants; this time, we’re voyeurs.

It’s an interesting view. Read it yourself.

In other news, the Supreme Court has just ruled “that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.” This is just bad public policy that hurts the poor, minorities, the elderly and the disabled. Ugh.

4 Responses to

  1. Deborah says:

    Honestly - how can the government protect my right to vote if they can’t protect my identity?

    Identity theft is prevalent enough these days. How would you feel if you showed up to the polls only to find you had already voted?

    The article cites Indiana only, but MANY states have options for non-license photo identifications; especially after 9/11. Not sure why this is such a big deal.

  2. admin says:

    The problem is that photo identification costs money, and, by definition, requires one to provide a picture (usually by going to the issuing agency) — both of which may pose a problem for the elderly, the poor, minorities and the disabled. While SCOTUS disagrees with me, I find it to be a poll tax — and the only reason Republicans want it is because it will disenfranchise poor and minority voters, blocs that largely vote Democratic. It’s pure partisan politics aimed at gaining an advantage; not protecting our right to vote or promoting good public policy.

    And I’m not just saying that. The problem Voter ID legislation is supposed to solve is nonexistent.

  3. Jessie via Trackback:

    Jessie…

    C. It is a "network of networks" that consists of millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks,…

  4. Accounting Financial Calculators Bad Credit Credit Cards via Trackback:

    Accounting Financial Calculators Bad Credit Credit Cards…

    I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…

Leave a Reply »

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word