Now a mere difference is not what is at stake but an antagonism. But let's examine that a bit.
First, a large majority of students and a large majority of patents supported the Vietnam War. Is that a gap.
Secondly, a large majority of white students and a large majority of white parents were against Jim Crow in its really vulgar forms, but they were equally agreed that the Black Movement had gone too far.
Now, a small minority of white students opposed the war in Vietnam. The leadership of that movement for the most part consisted in those above 30 or (if younger) the children of radicals. The student who founded SDS at ISU had first served 6 years in the (peacetime) Marine Corps. The student who followed him as leader o the group was the son of a leader of Women Strike for Peace. Nationally, a large number of SDS leaders were Red Diaper Babies.
It is simply Bullshit and vicious reactionary Bullshit to see the political activity of the '60s as focused or even significantly affected by an antagonism between parents and children. It exhibits both a naïve acceptance of right-wing propaganda and ignorance of the actual composition of the political movements of the '60s.
Shag inquires, "Out of curiosity, though, Carrol why does it matter if there is or isn't a generation gap - then or now? I mean politically - is there a reason?"
Several reasons it matters. This myth arose during the '60s and was quite deliberately used by conservatives to trivialize the substance of the movement. Morgan points out that media accounts of rallies NEVER said a thing about the content of speeches at those rallies or mentioned that most of the speakers were older men. (Sic: men -- a weakness of the movements.) Secondly, repetition of the myth _now_ reflects serious historical ignorance, and -- worse -- a serious anti-intellectualism among too many current leftists. They can't be bothered actually to learn something about the history of the left in the U.S.; they'd rather take it in small doses as dished out by the capitalist media.
Carrol