Why do Republicans Trash the 1960's?
July 30, 2001
by Michael S. Reilly
As an amateur historian I've
always been intrigued by the 1960's and the people who
represented this decade. I
wasn't alive back then but have a well-established appreciation
for the intellectual works,
causes, music, figures and ideas of the era. While romanticized
by some, this period has also
been slandered by others; namely, the Republican Party.
Given that the most
well-renowned themes of the 1960's were peace and love; "live and
let live;" smiling on one's
brother and so forth, one might find it difficult to understand how
such ideals could come under
fire. But the Republicans are admittedly quite adept at
finding ways to condemn
concepts such as compassion, tolerance and understanding
under the guise of promoting
morals and decency.
It goes without saying that the
GOP has no shortage of targets to rail against and assign
blame to for all of society's
ills, but members of the leftist movements of the 1960's are
particularly despised. The lack
of "personal responsibility" that allegedly trademarked the
era is a common complaint from
conservatives. According to Republican dogma, great
damage to our society was
caused by "if it feels good, do it" dirty hippie lowlives with no
work ethic, whose insidious
influence perpetuated a decline in marriage and a rise in
promiscuity/unwanted pregnancy,
drug use, and anti-American sentiment that undermined
our values and caused us to
lose the war in Vietnam. Various icons of the era such as
Charles Manson and Ira Einhorn
who "went bad" are held up by the right wing as
examples of the supposed
poisonous nature of this movement. In short, Republicans have
attempted for decades to
convince people that the gentle "free love" mindset of the 1960's
was a failed, immoral disaster.
As far as causing damage to our
society goes, I think the disgusting abuses of power and
public disillusionment that
occurred during the Nixon years as well as the massive
unemployment, homelessness and
deficits spawned by the Reagan administration caused
much more harm to America than
kids toking up in a VW bus, chanting mantras and
"doing their own thing." Though
they'll never admit it, I'm sure that Republicans secretly
agree, which explains their
constant need to point fingers in all other directions to turn the
spotlight away from their sins.
Make no mistake, the lectures of Republican arbiters of
morality who rail against
hippies are based purely on a self-serving agenda, and not due to
any integrity or ethical
standards. Let's tackle the issues to examine the actual reasons for
the never-ending quest by the
right wing to discredit and condemn the hippies of the
1960's.
1. "Personal Responsibility."
This is a favorite catch phrase
of the Republicans and like any mindless advertising slogan
it means absolutely nothing.
This is a party that cannot boast of a single member - up to
and including their figurehead
president - who has ever taken personal responsibility for
anything in their lives.
Republicans who commit adultery or father children out of wedlock
are routinely ignored by their
own party amidst their fervor to point fingers at Democrats
for the same thing. Republicans
who commit crimes are continually excused or protected
amidst a smear campaign against
those who exposed them (the phrase "youthful
indiscretion" is a favorite so
long as it applies to wealthy white conservatives) as meanwhile
they attempt to dredge up
whatever dirt they can on Democrats.
Even mistakes made in the
course of Republican leadership, such as bad policy decisions
or economic plans, are
inevitably laid at the doorstep of any Democrats they can find like
an unwanted baby dumped on a
church stoop. This last effort has resulted in the infamous
Republican claim that the
deficits of the 1980's were all the fault of the
Democratic-controlled Congress
but the economic boom of the 1990's was thanks to
President Reagan's magical
influence. If you believe that then you must be sitting on a
pocket full of wooden nickels.
"Personal Responsibility" is
merely a concept that nonconservatives must adhere to;
conservatives themselves appear
to be universally exempt from such an inconvenient
requirement. Therefore, this
hypocritical party has no business even mentioning the phrase
"personal responsibility" (nor
any other that involves morality), for it will earn the ridicule it
deserves.
2. "Dirty lazy potsmoking hippies having sex"
According to the Republicans,
the love generation of the 1960's were smelly slobs who
engaged in non-stop "free love"
orgies in between massive bong hits and acid trips.
Laziness, drug use and
promiscuity are some common criticisms from the conservatives (I
won't even dignify the
stereotype of "dirty" by addressing it). Accusing past hippies of
having no work ethic (tell that
to the ones who worked on communal farms from sunrise to
sunset!) doesn't exactly
transform clean-cut conservatives into icons of industrious
dedication. George W. Bush, for
instance, is not only famous for but proud of his brief
workday and afternoon naps (not
to mention his paucity of scholastic achievement) and
yet he has somehow escaped
criticism from members of his party. Furthermore, when I
think of hard workers I
envision the people who scrub floors, flip burgers, and ring up
groceries for minimum wage,
working double shifts to put food on the table for their kids.
Yet strangely enough
Republicans never seem interested in rewarding their work ethic with
an increase in the minimum
wage, choosing instead to issue tearful (yet thoroughly-refuted)
hand-wringing predictions that
any such increases will harm the economy.
As far as drug use goes,
certainly the use of marijuana, LSD, and similar substances is
illegal, and while I don't
condone breaking the law I also think people will make up their
own minds regarding what to do
with their bodies. Republicans cannot take the high road
here because their attitude, as
evinced by their fawning protection of Jenna Bush during
her underage drinking debacle
earlier this year, is that "stupid laws can and should be
broken" - even laws fomented by
members of their own political party, apparently. We
must thank the Republicans for
leading by example here because based on their own
philosophy they cannot condemn
anyone for illegal drug use. Certainly those who perform
it disagree with the laws
involved and the conservatives have indicated that this all that is
required to get the go-ahead to
break the law. As for morality, there is no morality
involved with imbibing or
inhaling substances; it is a biological activity performed for
purposes of intoxication,
nothing more. Whether you drink coffee, smoke cigarettes, gulp
tequila or shoot heroin, you're
a drug user any way you slice it and it's all the same as far
as the chemical aspects of
these biological processes work.
So we're down to promiscuity,
which is not restricted by legislation (as long as money is
not exchanged). It's a subject
one can only interpret and decide upon for themselves. I
choose not to engage in
promiscuous behavior because that is what's right for me, and the
realm of my decision-making
capabilities extends solely to myself. I believe other people
can make up their own minds
without needing me to instruct them. I do hope those who
decide to be promiscuous
protect themselves and their partners and have as much
education as possible
concerning these matters. That is as far as my involvement in the
matter should go. That's what
constitutes freedom; the ability to determine the course of
your own life so long as you do
not harm or infringe upon the rights of other people. What
you do with your body or
another consenting adult is your business. Now, Republicans
are fond of freedom when it
comes to owning guns, being able to discriminate or pollute,
not having to pay taxes and
pushing their religion into political affairs. But when it comes to
people making personal
decisions that conservatives disapprove of, suddenly they want to
mind everyone else's business.
Their derision against tree huggers, vegetarians,
nonconformists, and other
groups they find objectionable shows that a "live and let live"
philosophy is anathemic to
conservatism - and so is actual freedom. For all their talk about
"individualism" they certainly
are against those individuals who don't resemble them or
share their values.
The fact remains that hippies
made their own choices concerning their lifestyles, based on
the freedom asserted in the
Declaration of Independence - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." Granted,
consequences of one's behavior can and should be expected no
matter what the scenario,
whether lost brain cells, unwanted pregnancies or venereal
disease. That is why truthful
education concerning drugs and sexuality as well as proper
use of birth control and other
safeguards are important. The Republican strategy of
propaganda and scare tactics
has proven unsuccessful and most people understand that
marijuana is less harmful than
alcohol or tobacco, and having premarital sex (or
cohabitating, another favorite
target of the GOP) does not lead to prostitution or welfare
dependency.
As for the Republican gripes
about the so-called deterioration of the institution of marriage
thanks to the liberals of the
1960's, this is baseless nonsense. According to the
Department of Health and Human
Services the rate of marriages was actually higher
between 1960 and 1970 than it
was between 1980 and 1990 during "Reagan's America."
3. Charles Manson/Ira Einhorn
Republicans point to these
individuals as proof that hippies were all murderous thugs with
no regard for life. In
actuality, most hippies preached nonviolence and tolerance while a
few bad apples got all the
publicity. Furthermore, whereas Ira Einhorn was admittedly a
part of leftist infrastructure
who failed to live up to his self-promoted ideals, Charles
Manson was no hippie; rather he
was an amoral opportunist who took advantage of the
culture of the times to
brainwash followers into accepting his intolerant philosophy of
anarchistic mayhem. To decry an
entire movement based on the actions of one negative
individual would be sophistic
and Republicans certainly object when Timothy McVeigh or
John Salvi is described as their posterboy.
4. The Vietnam War
At last we have come to the Big
Kahuna; one of the primary reasons the hippies of the
1960's have had such scorn
heaped upon them by conservatives. Vietnam has always
been a cherished cause for the
right-wing and even 30 years after the end of the war they
cannot bring themselves to
admit what the rest of society knows: it was a colossal,
wasteful mistake. Despite the
fact that former U.S. Secretary of State Robert
MacNamara, who was partially
responsible for the escalation and promotion of this war,
publicly recanted his beliefs a
few years ago the Republicans still insist on clinging to this
rather grimy teddy bear. Part
of the reason is due to their continued use of the communist
specter in promoting an "us
versus them" mentality to feed off of. The remainder of their
motivation is based on an
inherently immature inability to admit wrongdoing or mistake. In
the conservative view this
military endeavor was a just war to fight the evil communists,
and those who used their First
Amendment right of free speech to object to it were
somehow traitors. This tenet
requires conservatives to discredit the other side by any
means necessary, so they can
continue to fantasize and rewrite history to justify U.S.
presence in Vietnam. Like
Fonzie's hilarious inability to utter the word "liver," the
expression "I was wrong" is
quite difficult to extract from the mouth of a conservative.
This is predictable yet
somewhat perplexing given the fact hippies of that era and
conservatives of our day have
one thing in common: both criticized the government as
untrustworthy and corrupt and
sought to educate people that our leaders are not always
beyond reproach. One might
think modern day right-wingers would appreciate this shared
sentiment at the very least,
but the difference is the government in question back then was
Republican-controlled and it
was doing something the Republicans approved of. Certainly
the hippies were proven correct
by the Watergate scandal, which conservatives are still
fuming over since it brought
down a Republican President, and that was part of the
rationale for their
never-ending attempts to smear President Clinton. As always, their
beliefs and ethics are entirely
conditional, depending on the political affiliation of those
involved. This is exemplified
by the miraculous transformation of conservatives into
flower-waving peaceniks when
Clinton sent troops into Bosnia - an act that resulted in not
a single U.S. casualty, I might add.
When discussing Vietnam it's
important to take a look at those who continue to rabidly
promote the war, for you will
almost inevitably find a man (or woman) who did not serve
in it. From Rush Limbaugh to
Pat Buchanan to Dan Quayle to Tom Delay to George W.
Bush, the chickenhawks all
scavenged various excuses to stay home because they just
couldn't find the time to
commit to this cause (other than empty-headed rhetoric years
later), although sending others
to fight was perfectly acceptable. Now take a look at those
who actually served, such as Al
Gore and John Kerry and chances are you will see a
person who has doubts about the
justification for this conflict, who lost friends over there,
and who is opposed to such
terrible fiascos occurring again in the future. In short, the right
wing dismisses the views of the
veterans of this war in favor of their own feverish
propaganda.
5. The changing of the status quo
We may conclude with the final
- and perhaps most significant - reason right-wingers are
still so upset about the
1960's. They have freely admitted that life under Ike during the
1950's is their ideal vision
for America, and it's not hard to see why. Women wore
starched dresses, baked
cookies, kept quiet when their husbands were speaking and
accepted beatings when
delivered. Blacks carried baggage, did lawn work, and kept to
their own kind. Gays stayed way
in the back of the closet; those who wandered out were
castigated and vilified without
fear of reprisal. Similarly, most people went to church and
faithfully accepted what they
were told. The free thinking that characterized the 1960's,
which led minorities to clamor
for equality, kids to reject conformity, and people to
question authority, was nowhere
in sight. The social consciousness that characterized this
era (and which contributed
vastly to the modern-day Democratic Party) that promoted
respect for the environment,
aid to oppressed people at home and abroad, and activism
against big business hasn't
gone over well with the Republican Party. They have fought a
losing battle for almost forty
years to keep the women in the kitchen and the blacks at the
back of the bus. That's the
scope of what they know, for conservative views have been so
firmly entrenched for the past
several decades that they just can't seem to accept that other
perspectives have moved
forward. More significantly, they have fought tooth and nail to
pretend that opponents of
Republican-promoted ideals have not been vindicated over the
years.
In order to hide the fact they
have no meaningful answers to issues both past and present,
conservatives rely on smearing
the opposition in order to pretend their views continue to
offer validity. They complain
quite often that liberals want to limit freedom, tell people how
to think (this last is a
frequent gripe when conservatives are told they cannot target some
group they loathe), or tear
apart the fabric of society. Yet it is the right-wing that has
performed all three based on
the core of their belief structure. There must always be an
enemy in the right-wing mindset
(as evinced by their rather sloppy love affair with
firearms), whether it be
communists, hippies, liberals, or some other group; it does not
matter if "they" are foreigners
5000 miles away or fellow Americans living next door.
Try as they might,
conservatives will never be able to rewrite or eradicate the lessons of
the 1960's. As Plato's Cave
demonstrated, knowledge and understanding moves us in a
progressive direction, rather
than regressive. What is collectively understood cannot be
unlearned; society continues to
move forward regardless of the evolutionary recidivism on
the part of a vociferous, embittered few.
And now if you'll excuse me, I
have to put on my sandals, find my tie-dyed shirt, grab my
Dead tapes, and hop on the next
flight to San Francisco for a free concert in Golden Gate
Park.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Aug 06 2001 - 19:25:55 EDT