The undergraduates speak up America s Angry Young Men ALLAN CHARLES BROWNFIELD For a number of years as I presented what I considered to be a conservative political position in the William and Mary College student newspaper, THE FLAT HAT, I was often puzzled when national news-magazines discussed trends in student thinking in terms of those young people who involved themselves in sit-ins and (6 peace marches and equated the current generation with that of the ~O S, calling them militant, idealistic, and socially conscious. Perhaps the observers of student activity found themselves writing of the outward manifestations of activity that they found, for there is certainly more news in a sitin demonstration than in an after-hours beer party at which young men and women Modern Age 197
sit around and talk about what they really think. The magazines featured lengthly articles about a religious revival, noting that campus churches were filled, and implying that, to somc dcgrec, there was a return to God. Now, for someone writing week-in and week-out of the basic conservatism of young people, this material was disconcerting. I considered, in fact, that it was clearly misleading and touched only the surface of what was truly the case. But even more disturbing is the current discussion of the campus conservatism with which I have involved myself for some time. Much of this current flurry of articles, lectures, and presentations is also misleading, and a lot of it is equally superficial. For it is always harder to search within situations than to view them from the surface, and many who are beyond the age of the college student can do no more than view them as an outsider, without real communion. Campus conservatism today is not a reversion to the philosophy of the John Birch societies, and for all of the outward support given to Barry Goldwater and William Buckley, the real basis of campus conservative thought is deeper and more complicated. For even those young people who have no political interest whatever are involved in the basic movement, and the prophet of this philosophy, I think, is more likely author J. D. Salinger than John Tower or Harry Byrd. On the political side young people are disillusioned with the answers they receive in the class room. Their professors are trying to solve the problems of the 60 s with the cliches of the ~O S, and in a world about to collapse, it seems futile and unimportant to discuss health benefits for the aged. The role of government seems to have harmed, rather than helped, the individual, for today man is merely a part of a collective society which informs him of what he will do, where he will do it, and how much he will pay in taxes for the privilege of so being directed. The pioneer spirit on the college campus is gone, for in what areas may a man now pioneer? He may go to the moon, perhaps, but there is little campus enthusiasm for such an expedition. College students blame their parents and professors for limiting their opportunities. In an effort to solve a great depression, all that was accomplished was the building up of an enhanced central government, and those who often criticize << conformity in the young are the ones most guilty of producing it within society as a whole. Young people tend to believe in the Constitution as written, but find few others in their society who do. What of Barry Goldwater? Young people see in him a man who is not motivated by the desire to please others, a man who will not say what he does not believe because it will produce votes. It is not because Barry Goldwater is always right that he is so popular; it is because he is willing to be somewhat wrong honestly, and as a man. And Barry Goldwater, like the students who support him, is questioning the society he lives in, for he too, finds in it a certain lack of meaning, direction, and vitality. This lack of vitality, perhaps, results from our steady movement toward a condition in which collective society takes the responsibility from us, and leaves us merely to exist -men without meaning. The political liberals view the campus conservative movement as a great danger to America, a kind of retrogression. This is unfounded, and, in fact, the opposite can be more reasonably argued. I am not saying this because the political conservatives are right and the liberals are 66 wrong. What I mean is that the conservative students are, more than their liberal counterparts, truly concerned with their society, and their future. They are disillusioned with what they see about them, 198 Spring 1962
and some are actively engaged in effecting a change. The liberal, on the other hand, has seemingly accepted in totality the viewpoint he finds in the classroom. How can the Cold War be won? he is asked, and his answer is, By more federal aid to education. The conservative wants to go beyond today and tomorrow and to see what this policy of government control will lead to, and he does not like the result. If conservatism is regressive, it is no more regressive than a police force fighting murder, for what modern liberalism has done is to murder not only our American society but also our values. This viewpoint, however, is limited to the campus conservative leaders, the editors of the newspapers, the officers in student governments, those politically aware and concerned. I have heard students in bull sessions in New York, in Boston, in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, Texas, and North Carolina all say that they are conservatives. In England, the group of literary figures such as Kingsley Amis, Colin Wilson and John Osborne have been called Angry Young Men. I would contend that the campus conservatives of the United States are also angry young men, and that the two groups have a genuine kinship. It is a kinship we will hear more about as America s current rebelsy grow to maturity. The average student, not aware of either conservatism or liberaiism, is nevertheless aware of the world in which he lives. He is aware of H-bomb tests, and he shares the fear of imminent destruction. He has decided, in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, that the world cannot be saved, especially not by his effort. Therefore, an adequate goal for life is to be happy, successful, and honorable yourself, and let the world deal with its own problems. This is why I believe that J. D. Salinger is the real prophet of the campus today. In A Catcher In The Rye he captures the disillusion of young people, and Holden Caulfield is me and he is you-rejecting a world of phoniness and false values. Salinger has taken his own advice, and he lives as a recluse. Those young people who read him and believe him are also taking his advice, although they are doing it within the mass society of our cities and towns. Some have termed them irresponsible, but that is a misleading term. To understand youth you must not only understand the kind of society this is to grow up in, but you must understand their own view of what might have been, and of what this world might be like, as well as of where it is going. Such cogitations rarely lead to optimism. To this extent the atmosphere of the campus is a negative one. It favors early marriage and limited security simply because it cannot nurture real freedom. And, of course, some of the less imaginative have accepted the welfare-state philosophy and are happy in their mediocrity. But there will always be the mediocre, and it seems useless to glorify them. America has, in wide areas, forsaken a striving for excellence, and we are often told that one man is as good as another. Many colleges work to produce the wellrounded individual, and current sentiment on the campus is to downgrade the truly superior student. All this is the kind of thing which these angry young men of today are disturbed about. They are convinced that America cannot survive unless it stimulates truly outstanding achievement, and excellence is more to be pursued than either popularity or uniformity. Perhaps it can be said that, when viewed in its entirety, the campus conservative of today is really the liberal of yesterday, rebelling against the false values of his society and striving to replace them with meaningful ones. This, of course, is a definition which current liberals would consider erroneous. Modem Age 199
But whether it is erroneous, or not, will be for the future to decide. When Colin Wilson spoke in Virginia recently, he said that he was not really angry, and that he disliked being referred to as an angry young man. But, different from Mr. Wilson, today s campus conservatives are angry, and they do not deny it because they feel that a righteous anger is what is needed today. Americans take things casually, and they rarely become angry. For example, when Charles Van Doren s escapades on a television quiz program were made public, a general comment was: But what a nice young man he is. We see graft and ignore it; we see our freedoms bartered away, and we encourage it; we see our country appease its enemies, and we say that it will lead to peace. We do not get angry any longer because we have no real values that we object to seeing broken. And a society lacking values is something to get disturbed about, or at least many young people think that it is. Someone must take the responsibility in the future for a strong America. I wish that the authors and reviewers who are concerning themselves with the attitudes of young people might come to see that the young conservatives of today are really drmative, for they support strength, honesty, and liberty. It is those people who urge government welfare, international compromise, and morals of relativism who are really negative. For they no longer believe in man as man. They think that man must be led. They call it democracy but do not believe in each man s taking the responsibility for his own life. How then can they, mere men themselves, take the responsibility for other men s lives? THESE ANGRY YOUNG MEN are publishing magazines at the University of Pennsylvania, in Mississippi, at Harvard, and in Wisconsin. They have organized a Young Americans for Freedom for themselves, and the liberal who takes them lightly and condemns them viciously is making a grave error. The campus conservatives represent a source of leadership for America, and in their continued anger, I think, rests a hope for the nation. There is, however, a problem in all of this which conservatives themselves do not like to discuss. Discussion, however, as well as self-criticism can only do more good than harm and I have never believed that keeping disputes in the family ever really helped. Often it means that the merits of the case are never resolved. With wide-spread publicity, what was a movement for individualism, as exemplified by the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, has become institutionalized. No longer can the individual conservative really think for himself. He is being dogmatized and organized. He is being asked to participate in picket lines, against more liberal pickets, and what began as a spontaneous feeling of antagonism toward the liberal establishment is more and more being cashed in on by professionals who are trying to harness the movement, if it can be so-called. But if there is hope in this conservatism, this rebellion, this anger, it is in the belief that it is an entire generation really growing up. If political hacks impose on this conservatism, its growth will be stunted and its idealism destroyed. I would say, then, that the liberals are wrong to condemn it and the conservatives wrong to organize it. Let it grow, and let us hope that this generation will be capable of assuming the responsibilities of leadership their fathers seem so well to have shirked. Behind the rituals of spring vacation in Florida, formal dances, football games, and cocktail parties, there is a real tide of feeling on the campus today. I would call it not only disillusion but quiet anger. Society is, as James T. Farrell has said, a world I never made. But it is a world I can re- 200 Spring 1962
make, we think, and if the pioneer spirit in America exists anywhere, it exists on the campus, and here and in the world outside of it, it can grow to fruition. The liberals may be horrified, for they have always considered students and young people their natural allies. But it is their excesses which have caused this rebellion, and perhaps before long there will be a choice for America, and then we can debate again the old questions-but in the hope that new answers will be forthcoming. Modern Ape 20 1