Tea Party: the hippies of the 00's?

Inspired by the other thread, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=660753, *The GOP doesn’t seem to be a very healthy party these days. It’s just racist fury & cultural rage *

I love historical parallels, and I haven’t seen this parallel anywhere else. So I’m curious if the comparison is sound. So here it is.

Remember how widespread "leftism"was in the seventies? The pendulum has just swung back again.

In the seventies, the Dems were hijacked by extremists, yet the extremists viewpoints were popular among a broad segment of the population. Well, not the actual viewpoints themselves, but rather the “I’ll wear my hair long and smoke weed at parties and have a Che Guavara Poster in my dorm room and discuss Marcuse over a bowl of sangria” watered down version of it.

The way I see it, the right in the US currently has a similar outburst of popularity with irrational but attractive ideas.

Another parallel is the hostility the left felt, at the time for the right. “Fascist government dogs” almost was a term of endearment. The right didn’t go much further then “damn misguided hippie kids”.

Even those tables are turned. The right is the one foaming at the mouth now; the left in the US currently has the bigger percentage of reasonable people.

Anyway, that is my Dutch take on it. And it is the same in the Netherlands at the moment.

I don’t see the parallels. Hippies didn’t try to take away people’s voting rights, they were all about expanding voting rights and the 18 year old vote came about during that time. Hippies weren’t about denying others the rights they sought for themselves- free love didn’t mean you were forced to participate, nobody tried to force anyone else to take drugs, etc. The Teabaggers are all about making the whole of society conform to their religious views. Equating the two groups is an insult to the flower children of the 1960s.

Okay, so maybe the mainstream hippies were much more friendly and tolerant. But those days did see an amalgam of left-wing extremists. Mainly in the corner of people self indentifying as anarchists and communists. They certainly would have limited the freedom of other citizens to consume, to vote. Such extremists were not democratic. If thwarted, they’d strike, occupy, and smear.

Hippies =/= anarchists.

I think that the tea partiers are the antithesis of the hippies. If you look at the demographics a large number of them aged 60+ would have been the ones back in the 60-70’s who weren’t the hippies of that generation. They would have been the young republicans back then and felt they had no voice. And now, with the tea party, they won’t shut the fuck up. At least the ones I know.

I guess my main point is that in the seventies, left extremism was more in fashion, whereas now rightwing extremism is.

I don’t know that right wing extremism is necessarily in fashion, it’s just loud and well funded.

Um, Occupy Wall Street? Did we forget about that already?

I figure the tea-party types are more like slightly-less-racist latter-day Know Nothings.

I’d say no for one main reason: age.

The hippies of the 60s were predominantly younger.

The demographics of the Tea Party movement are quite different. They’re predominantly middle aged or older.

The hippies eventually grew up to become our parents and grandparents. Members of the Tea Party are already our parents and grandparents.

That’s not to say there aren’t younger members of the various Tea Party factions, but they certainly aren’t the driving force, nor are they a large fraction of their own youth demographic, who are more likely to identify with OWS than the Tea Party.

There have to be at least a few Tea Partiers who were hippies. While each is the major political movement of a particular period, the demographics make a big difference and they indicate the Tea Party isn’t going to have the kind of long-lived cultural impact the hippies did. Further, they’re not making hippie-quality music. :wink:

When did the hippies have any sort of control when it comes to the Democratic Party?

That’s because the hippies of the 60s were simply spoiled brats whose parents were messed up by reading Dr. Spock and believing his bullshit.

The Tea Party is people who are responsible, have jobs and pay way too damn much in taxes to support lamebrain social programs.

LOL… I thought most of them were retired and lived off the teat of the US gov. At least my father in-law is, laid off, collected unemployment, now on SS…

Trying to screw over hardworking middle-class families…

Those old bigoted, hypocrites just need to crawl off and let the world evolve.

Actually Hippies didn’t do politics. They dropped out of society. A lot of people who didn’t drop out adopted versions of the fashions and attitudes. The ones who didn’t drop out managed, with a lot of help of the Nixon people, to nominate George McGovern as the Democratic Party nominee in 1972. As wonderful a guy as McGovern was and is, he was a poor campaigner and got clobbered and ended the effectiveness of the far left wing of the party. Please note, he’s far too left for even me. But he seems to be a very decent fellow.

As for the Tea Partiers, a lot of the Republicans were disgusted by the Bush II years with the war and deficits and financial collapse and want to distance themselves from those legitimate failures. Those who liked it still realize the “brand” was horribly tarnished. So they took to calling themselves Tea Partiers. I’m okay with the sincere ones, they help keep the Democrats more honest when the Dems are in power and the Reps are in opposition. The ones who are just rebranding and not sincere are the heart of the problem.

Yep. They ask, ‘Why should I work if the government will give me everything free?’ This says a lot about them. The vast majority of people would rather work and live, rather than not work and just survive. The Teabaggers see no reason to work if they don’t have to.

Hippies wore sillier costumes.

I thought Occupy Wall Streeters were the hippies of the 00’s

When I think of Mitt Romney, the GOP’s current standard bearer, I think of many things, but “foaming at the mouth” isn’t one of them.

That seems rather arbitrary and unscientific. Cite?

I’m new, so maybe I just don’t understand yet, but …

I didn’t think such insults were kosher here. Can someone clarify for me?

They originated the name. It’s what they called themselves.

Insults of people who are not posters (or of groups of people that may include posters, like political parties) are generally kosher.