Introduction
The middle of the 20th century in the US is marked by unprecedented growth in the human rights movement, as both feminist and racial equality perspectives became more appealing to the public. However, while described as the genesis of civilian liberty, the 1960s as well demonstrated various obstacles in the way of exercising one’s First Amendment rights and privileges. Thus, from 1964 to 1965, the public has no voice in the discussion of the US troops’ deployment to Vietnam, making decisions on behalf of nearly 180 million people (Logevall 406). Similarly, civilian rights and freedoms at the time were allowed to the extent acceptable by the state leaders. Thus, the historical sources in question shed light on the civil liberty of the 1960s. They resonate with the modern illusion of the freedom of speech and self-expression, which allows people to exercise some of their First Amendment rights while limiting their access to critical and life-changing decisions.
Vietnam War and Public Engagement
Decades after the event, the deployment of US troops to Vietnam is considered one of the most unsuccessful military operations in the history of the country. However, apart from the overall misunderstanding behind the intentions of Operation Polling Thunder, the primary issue was a failure to consult the community about the major decision to declare a military operation in another state. According to Logevall (406), the process of separation between the government administration and the public was a critical mistake during the Vietnam War. Not only did it undermine the public authority of the US citizens, but it also promoted mistrust for the public bodies that withheld the information about the war.
Thus, in the context of the Vietnam War, the civil liberty promoted over the years was hindered by the authorities’ desire to hold control over the information shared with the citizens. Meanwhile, the media wanted to render the truth to the masses. Unavoidably, the failure in Vietnam led to a durable and challenging debate about finding the person or body responsible for the operation. However, even during these discussions, the focus was shifted from the public opinion and regulated by the government (Logevall 403). Hence, instead of initiating a dialogue, US authorities proceeded with a monologue that would favor their narrative of the war. Furthermore, they emphasized the need to find a guilty figure to address instead of openly receiving criticism from the public. In the case of the Vietnam War, this figure was Lyndon Baines Johnson (Logevall 399). In modern US society, the pattern of focusing on one part of civilian liberty in order to limit the other has remained a growing tendency that affects people’s perception of national politics.
The incident of the Vietnam War clearly demonstrates that both nowadays and sixty years ago, the US remains in need for innovative approaches to public engagement. Learning from the examples of the past, modern legislators across the country need to accept the urge to initiate consistent patterns of interaction because history tends to repeat itself. Similarly, a country that limits one’s freedoms, even in the least noticeable way, tends to fall into old patterns without receiving exhaustive feedback from the civil population.
Liberalism in the 1960 and the Concept of Manners
While the 1960s were described as the times of racial and gender equality rights promotion, the central issue of American liberalism has been associated with tailoring the equality and freedom of speech according to the needs of the legislative and executive branches of the US. As a result, the public feel pressured into making decisions that, on the one hand, do not interfere with the freedoms of others and, on the other hand, undermine their First Amendment rights to exercise their power and express personal preferences (Cmiel 392). A major change of perspective, according to Cmiel, stated that “civility took precedence over civil rights” (392). Hence, the proposition to alter the First Amendment provisions in terms of the definition of civility in public places allowed for the authorities to deliberately choose which alterations would benefit the national image and liberal mood of the community.
Conclusion
Hence, the overall notion of liberalism, whether one tackles the 1960s or the reality of the US citizens, is a phenomenon that could never be exercised to its fullest. The reason for such dissonance is the fact that throughout history, the collective cognition of the population has been limited by the urge to co-exist within the terms of national and socio-cultural norms. Thus, in order to create a beneficial environment for everyone, the community needed to sacrifice one’s liberation not to violate the freedom of another person. The fatal mistake in the initiation of this process was rendering the responsibility to the leadership instead of providing them with an equal right to participate in the discussion.
As a result, modern patterns of collecting thinking and decision-making fall into historical patterns of the previous generations and lose their liberal nature. For this reason, the primary sources in question shed light on the civil liberty problems Americans face today. For example, when speaking of gender and racial equality, the government holds the right to control the means of addressing the issue, while citizens try to voice their concerns and solutions for decades. In order to combat this issue, people need to carefully examine the historic implications from decades ago and shift the public communication paradigm in favor of the community.
Works Cited
Cmiel, Kenneth. “Sixties Liberalism and the Revolution in Manners.” In Major Problems in American History (E. Cobbs & E. J. Blum), 2017, pp.391-398, Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.
Logevall, Frederik. “Vietnam: Flawed Decisions, Terrible Consequences.” In Major Problems in American History (E. Cobbs & E. J. Blum), 2017, pp.399-407, Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.