It's amazing to me that I can take lyrics written in 1966 and apply them to the present day.
Now, before any of you jump to any conclusions about what I'm trying to say, let me give you some historical context for the song and its creation.
Contrary to a popular belief, fed by movie licensing of the song for soundtracks to movies from Born on the 4th of July to Forrest Gump, this song wasn't written about the escalating tensions over Vietnam, the draft, or really anything to which is commonly associated in our present collective consciousness. It IS a work of protest about a high profile, for that time, public protest of over 1,000 people (a protest that even lead to the arrest of Peter Fonda.) but the protest wasn't about Vietnam, or even war.
Los Angeles and San Fransisco, in the mid to late 60's, and to a lesser extent today, were hotbeds of a so-called counter culture movement, which was really just an evolution of the Beat movement within literature and art, that attracted artists and pretenders alike to the Pacific Coast. Unlike the earlier migrations to California, for gold in the 1850's to the promise of shipping, manufacturing, or entertainment industry jobs in the early 20th Century, these people descended en masse for the beautiful weather, the surf culture that had been exported to the rest of the country through groups like the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean, and art education at places like the famed Film School at the University of Southern California. They were young, idealistic, and rebellious toward the buttoned down, suburban upbringing so many of them had experienced.
During this movement, myriad landmark bands of the time, and of modern musical history were formed. Bands like the Grateful Dead and Big Brother and the Holding Company in San Franscisco and The Doors in L.A. among many others would rise from this movement. One such band, Buffalo Springfield, would form in 1966 comprised of established, touring musicians from both the U.S. and Canada, and quickly become the house band at the famous Whiskey A Go Go on Hollywood's legendary Sunset Strip.
With any semi-drastic change in culture, resistance from the established culture is nearly guaranteed. The clubs and bars on the Sunset Strip were now featuring a less palatable music, at least for that time. The clientele of those establishments were experimenting with recreation drugs beyond the typical Jazz musician affiliation with marijuana, and onto more severe hallucinogens such as LSD and psilocybin and partied, influenced by those and other substances into the wee hours of the morning. This was the beginning of the Sunset Strip earning it's reputation as a 24/7 party. Local residents and business owners, began to lobby the LA City Council to impose a strict curfew of 10:00 pm, which was eventually ratified. This, of course, did not sit well with the artist scene.
On November 12, 1966 a protest of the curfew and loitering laws was organized and executed by over 1000 patrons of the local bar and music scene, which obviously lead to a standoff with the LAPD. These protests have since been deemed the "hippie riots" which might be the most ironic name ever, and similar clashes continued on into the 70's.
These protests against curfew and loitering ordinances are what inspired to Stephen Stills to write this song, not Vietnam, or the US Government's increasing commitment of resources to it. Also, to the best of my reading comprehension, I can't see that the lyrics support one side or the other. I will grant the Buffalo Springfield probably had a vested interest in the situation, given their status on the strip, but, the lyrics seem to be more descriptive of what Stills witnessed in those protests than which side was correct. In fact, they lyrics pretty much spell this out with "Nobody's right, when everybody's wrong."
Personally, I think this song was a commentary on human interaction, and especially disagreement. Stills seems to specifically point out that defeating your opposition, at some point in any conflict, becomes more important than the issue itself.
These lyrics, in particular, are, the most poignant:
"What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side"
The usual focus of the song's lyrics, at least when it has become the back drop to a popular movie, are the lines, "There's a man with a gun over there, telling me I got to beware." It makes perfect sense, when those lines are taken out of the context of the song and projected onto a specific and manipulative agenda. It's really no different that people focusing on the chorus of Springsteen's "Born in the USA" and thinking it's a patriotic anthem.
I said earlier I was amazed at just how easily this song can be applied to our current political climate, specifically the discourse within that climate. Amazed probably wasn't a descriptive enough word. This song is a nearly unquestioned generational anthem, and it's almost sad that the majority of that generation completely misunderstands or purposely ignores the meaning of the song.
By and large, this is the generation still leading this country, at least in name. Not a single one them really leads anything but cash into their pockets in exchange for their vote or name as a sponsor on a piece of legislation that will continue to destroy the nation their parents left them.
In spite of this, the media magnates from that generation are very quick to jump in and pat them on the back for all the great things they did, like the Summer of Love, which basically was just a bunch of people stoned off their ass and tripping their balls off having unprotected sex and creating new birth defects on children they'll either ignore or abandon. I don't usually make it a habit to agree with Ted Nugent on social issues, but the Nuge basically nails that one.
In the course of a single generation, we went from a country united through the struggle of the Great Depression and the winning of the Great War, who viewed themselves as individual members of a society that could potentially be great, and were willing to work and sacrifice to achieve that collective potential to a group of spoiled adult-children who expected the world to be handed to them. They didn't want to fight external enemies, because they rejected the idea of Communist Bloc nations as true enemies. They instead, collectively chose to fight the established policies of the prior generation, or only adopt the policies that better protected their own personal interests.
They deify Reagan for his tax cuts, and for defeating the Soviets without every sending a soldier to die. They ignore some simple facts of Reagan's time as President. Reagan cut taxes to help stimulate the economy from how stagnant it was in 81 and 82. He also grossly increased spending, specifically Defense spending, creating a larger budget deficit than all the Presidents before him COMBINED (does that sound familiar to you Tea Party folks?) The only thing is, Reagan had legitimate reasons for these actions, and he also had to gain bi-partisan Congressional support for these initiatives, because both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats.
He found a way to cater his policy initiatives to appeal to both sides of the aisle, and the other side of the aisle, in spite of their status as being in the "opposing party" actually worked with him. You see, back in those days, you only opposed a person based on party during the election cycle. Once you got to Washington, you acted in the best interests of your constituents and your country. Publicly admitting that your ultimate goal as Speaker of the House was to insure the sitting President was only a single term President was a level that even Newt Gingrich wouldn't sink.
Throughout our society, we can still see a similar mentality to the protesters from that Saturday in November, 1966. They want an all-or-nothing situation. Even they were supposedly pacifists in the 60's, that generation now views compromise as weakness.
Even though voting to completely repeal the bill now commonly known as Obamacare is essentially impossible to get through the Senate, let alone avoid a Presidential Veto, House Republicans have proposed, debated, and voted upon that very issue 33 times. It's symbolism over substance. If they truly want to correct the issues with the ACA as it stands, propose amendments that actually improve the bill rather than attempting, when you know it's in vain, to repeal it.
They then begat my generation, and completely fucked us up by raising us to think our only obligation was to ourselves, that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, there is no need for discussion, because changing your position or opinion at any point is betraying yourself. It's a sign of weakness, and the best way to resolve a potential disagreement is to talk over the person on the opposite, yell at them, or question their love for this country. The typical invite to move somewhere else is always in your back pocket, should your opponent be too stubborn.
Stephen Stills was warning his own generation of this in 1966, yet the didn't listen then, they're not listening now, and what's worse, their children are, by and large, a collection of Eric Cartmans, without the performing ability.
I know my parents are a part of that generation, but, when I speak generally, I do so knowing that there will be myriad exceptions to that statement. When I speak of generations, I speak of the majority, or at the least the controlling interest in that generation. I will examine my generation from a cultural/sociological perspective in the very near future, but I saw this analysis as the priority, to at least give a point of reference to the analysis on the Gen X, Y, Millenials, etc. If you want to know more about the Greatest Generation that begat our currently ruling generation, I believe Tom Brokaw did a comprehensive analysis. That is, of course, if you're willing to believe the writings of an obvious member of the "liberal media" as it relates to the true American heroes of the 20th Century...
