|
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 minorites 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.
View
All Articles
|
