Mail Call: A Turbulent Time

Readers of our Nov. 19 issue's coverage of 1968 were divided on how much that year still shapes the West. "We are who we are today in Europe thanks to the '68ers," one remarked. But another said, "I wonder if the true lesson of 1968 is that despite our efforts, we couldn't change our own shortcomings."

Why We Keep Coming Back to 1968
I was both warmed and saddened by your coverage of the legacy and relevance of 1968 in "The Year That Made Us Who We Are" (Nov. 19). Although I was inspired by the political and social passions of Martin Luther King Jr.'s followers, the activism of Robert Kennedy and the burgeoning of the feminist movement, I am disappointed by Americans' current ambivalence toward many of the same issues. I can't help but wonder if the true lesson of 1968 is that despite our efforts, we couldn't change our own national shortcomings. Ironically, the frustration of '60s idealism may have spawned the nonrevolution of today's passionless acceptance.
Etan Bednarsh
New York, New York

At the end of Mark Lilla's article "Eyes on the Past" (Nov. 19), I read: "The [European] '68ers, narcissistically focused on their own historical significance, simply aren't prepared for thinking about Europe's future. That will fall to a new, more mature generation." I felt once again what I feel when some American journalists talk about Europe as if they were middle-aged, down-to-earth, realistic people talking about an idealistic, naive teenager who has yet a lot to learn from real life. We are who we are today in Europe thanks to the '68ers, and new generations will not be more mature; they will just be different and will face different challenges. And after reading Geraldine Ferraro's article "How to Mend a Sick System" (Nov. 19), I wish American '68ers were still fighting yesterday's battles as Europeans do; perhaps universal health care would be a reality in the United States. This is an old battle that you have not even started yet.
Ignacio Salaberria Garcia
Malaga, Spain

Tom Brokaw may be reluctant to apply a definitive label to the boomer generation, but I'm not ("The Earth Behind a Man's Thumb"). How about "The Great Pretenders"? Back in the late '60s, Americans stood right on the precipice of true change for the better—we said that we believed in no more going to war, ending poverty, protecting the environment, eliminating the nation's racial and social divides, and saving our souls. Forty years later, the '60s are cold and dead, the '70s are blocked out in our collective consciousness like some embarrassing moment, and Martin, Bobby, Che, the kids at Kent State and Jackson State, and those noble self-immolating Buddhist monks and Czech student Jan Palach gave up their lives, and for what? The men and women who passed me joints on the beaches of southern California and whispered pledges that "things will be so much better when we take over" now drive SUVs, wear designer coats and don't give a damn about Dick Cheney or that their cell-phone records are not private. Cindy Sheehan is derided for having a broken heart, and these same boomers who protested the Vietnam War in college (while applying for military-service deferments) voted against John Kerry and apparently raised their kids to do so as well. We were right there and it was within our reach. What a bunch of phonies we proved to be.
Richard Raskin
Encino, California

Your story "The Year That Made Us Who We Are" was first-rate. A few European countries have successfully assimilated new immigrants, notably Britain and Norway. But the circumstances that sparked the French suburban riots in 2005 and the London bombings that same year seemingly justified the violence. The turmoil in France was ignited by the death of a young man being tracked down by the police. The fact that immigrant youths in suburban "ghettos" were also being treated like delinquents by Nicolas Sarkozy further inflamed the situation. The outburst was also due to the fact that the children of immigrants are consistently denied employment. In fact, if May 1968 in Europe was a movement against "the establishment," mostly by the French so that they could enjoy more freedom, then the condition of immigrants and their children has not improved today. They continue to be looked down upon by the French. The concept of liberty, equality and fraternity has been an empty promise so far. In London, the 2005 bombings could have been averted had the then Prime Minister Tony Blair not blindly followed President Bush into Iraq. Islamo-fascism may have been the result of the unfair policies of some European countries in the Middle East.
Dan Chellumben
Amboise, France

With its effective emphasis on the momentous and disruptive events of 1968, NEWSWEEK'S collection of articles on the impact and influence of the 1960s packs a wallop. Yet you fail to make one essential point: that the United States scorned the lessons of 1968. Four years later, in the presidential election of 1972, George McGovern, a thoughtful, honest man, understood those lessons, recognized the quagmire of a failed war, and dared to campaign on issues that could have restored America. But the country turned from McGovern's promise, opting instead, by a massive majority, to grant a second term to a president who had already demonstrated his ineptitude, dishonesty and blatant disregard of what 1968 had taught. What you refer to as "America's defining moment" occurred not in 1968 but in November 1972. Now we see, exemplified in the present administration, the ominous destination of the road then chosen. Is it too late to take seriously the lessons of 1968?
Roland A. Duerksen
Oxford, Ohio

Members of Germany's 1968 generation, males in particular, are a special breed, not really comparable with their counterparts in the rest of Western Europe or the United States. Their fathers, while busy rebuilding a country largely in ruins, would rarely come up with satisfactory answers when asked about their own roles in the Third Reich and World War II. Sons, perhaps more than daughters, grew suspicious of what might lie behind their fathers' prolonged silence, taking it for complicity in the regime's innumerable crimes. In many ways, their history teachers at school weren't much help either, most of them having gone through traumatic wartime experiences but are still incapable of coming to terms with the past, let alone opening up about it. Hence the younger generation's often incredibly skewed assessment of contemporary politics and their conviction that the United States, after what had happened in Vietnam, was little better than Hitler and his barbarous henchmen.
Werner Radtke
Paderborn, Germany

Enough with all the boomer worship! Many editors at NEWSWEEK must be boomers. And you'd like to think that if you weren't the greatest generation, then you were the coolest. Sure, boomer Zeitgeist sells, but what about those of us in our 30s and 40s—your readership for the next few decades? And, no, I'm not asking for articles on how amazing Gen-Xers are. I'm just saying all the articles on how great the '60s were are exhausting.
Sara Weinstock
Honolulu, Hawaii

What Will Happen Next in Pakistan?
Gen. Pervez Musharraf has always found a way out of situations that threatened his position of power, surviving each time a crisis stared him in the face ("Pakistan's Pinstripe Revolution," Nov. 19). This time, too, he had to play the state-of-emergency card as a survival strategy in order to circumvent an inconvenient judiciary. Now that he has agreed to return to civilian rule, skepticism remains as to whether he would readily accept a backseat position after arrogantly enjoying absolute power for eight long years. You can't turn a dictator with scant respect for democracy into a democrat overnight. Although the road map to democracy in Pakistan, prepared by the United States, appears to be a workable proposition, nothing can guarantee its success given Musharraf's recent blunders. Political analysts term Musharraf the best bet for Pakistan, but the general's support in his country has declined. Since siding with the United States after 9/11 he has considered himself to be on top of everything, and has completely forgotten that he needs the support of his people to keep things in check inside his fragile country. Shouting democracy from the rooftops is different from actually implementing it; for that you need to build democratic institutions. Musharraf has destroyed what little of these existed. Worse, almost all his decisions regarding taking on the terrorists militarily have ended in either complete failure or without much success. Such a record does not reflect well on someone who sports the label of ally in the so-called global War on Terror. And the situation inside Pakistan has become so volatile that the United States may find it difficult to prop up Musharraf much longer.
R. K. Sudan
Jammu, India

Fareed Zakaria has, in effect, written off General Musharraf for declaring a state of emergency. I don't disagree with what Zakaria said about Pakistan. But the sickness that ails Pakistan is such that a state of emergency was the right treatment for the illness—at least at that moment. No politician in Pakistan can stand up to what the nation faces: Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, jihadism, corruption, lawlessness and strident intolerance of others' opinions that borders on violence, combined with poverty and illiteracy. The utter desperation in which many citizens find themselves is making them support Benazir Bhutto. But she has also failed in the past, and the (now withdrawn) corruption charges against her show where she will lead the country should she succeed in gaining power again. The external tensions that face the nation in the region mean that the right thing is to support the general. The violent elements inside and outside Pakistan understand only the law of the gun—not democracy, the rule of law and elections. The most that can be expected now is for the general to bring peace to the country first, and then to gradually talk democracy.
Bhanudas N. Nadpurohit
Dombivli, India

For Fareed Zakaria to say that Musharraf has "no roots" is incorrect. His roots are firmly tied to the White House, which is bent on supporting a ruthless, resourceful dictator who has shot to shreds all norms of civilized conduct. If Musharraf's emergency proclamation, which gave the Army chief of staff the power to suspend the Constitution and the power of the judiciary, were to become a precedent, then we might consider a scenario in which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appears on TV, suspends the U.S. Constitution and sends the Supreme Court packing. One wonders why the International Court of Justice, which often takes up cases against deposed dictators, keeps a stony silence when self-serving dictators assume such totalitarian power as to crush the judiciary and muzzle the press.
Parvez Ali
Karachi, Pakistan

Pervez Musharraf, even without a uniform, will continue to connive to hold power. He has done unprecedented damage to the national polity and the rule of law over the last eight years. He started with the Kargil fiasco as Army chief and illegally usurped power by a coup d'?tat against the constitutional prime minister, which was tantamount to treason. He has sustained his power under the tutelage of George W. Bush, by partnering with the president's so-called War on Terror in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. However, Musharraf's ignominious actions of late—imposing emergency rule, installing his supporters as justices on the court and restricting the media—make an election seem farcical.
Abdullah Mehdi Mohammad
Jehlum, Pakistan

The Hybrid ' s Time Has Finally Come
Your article "The Green Car Domino Effect" (Sept. 24) reinforced the popular myth that electric cars are more fuel- and cost-efficient than conventional gasoline engines and also reduce greenhouse gases from personal transport, and that somehow electric power has no cost or carbon footprint. The reality is that when using fossil-fuel-generated electricity, electric-vehicle power simply moves the carbon footprint from vehicle exhaust to power-plant chimney, and increases it significantly overall, with a cost penalty. What is needed now is to stop wasting gasoline by restricting the size of vehicle engines for normal personal use and make them more efficient. This could easily produce a fourfold improvement in consumption for a five-seater family car in one stroke. It's down to whether voters really care about the next generation if conserving energy affects their convenience, or the media's telling the truth by using people who understand the issues directly rather than reciting P.C. propaganda from corporate mouthpieces and dissembling politicians who will do nothing to address the structural issues seriously.
Brian Catt
London, England