There’s a reason we call it “ending up in Dutch.”
Hippies preached love; Teabaggers promote hatred.
Hippies embraced social liberties: sex, drugs, etc. Teabaggers want to impose strict morality.
Hippies were generally young. Teabaggers are generally old.
Hippies were in the forefront of civil rights, marching for blacks. Teabaggers are generally racist.
Hippies praised spirituality over money. Teabaggers pursue greed.
Hippies opposed stupid wars. The military is the one part of government Teabaggers support.
…
Yes, the parallels are overwhelming. 
As a former and current hippie, I find it somewhat off-putting to be compared to the members of the Tea Party.
But, as a human, I do as well.
The point is not that there are parallels, which there don’t seem to be many if any of, but that it’s becoming the predominant counterculture. That’s my reading of it anyway.
Yes. That is why, when they had already bought a bunch of shit on their credit card, they suddenly turned around and refused to pay the bill for it. That is why they are pushing for unsustainable solutions to non-existent problems. That is why they insist that the president is not a citizen, despite consistent and constant proof of the contrary. That is why they think it is reasonable to let our infrastructure crumble for the sake of saving a few bucks. This is why they are among those most likely to ignore and suppress scientific advancement, the costs be damned. “Responsible”. Yeah, get back to us when “Responsible” is redefined to mean “Completely without foresight; with no regards to anything but the here and now; very stupid”.
On topic: No. The hippies weren’t as consistently wrong about everything, nor as racist, nor as old. It also was not a completely phony astroturf movement started as a crazy political ploy to push the country further to the right. I see very few parallels between the hippie movement and the tea party, beyond “hippies were far left, tea party is far right”. But even that isn’t really a parallel – far left and far right are entirely different beasts altogether. It’d be like calling a person in favor of a free social democracy equivalent to a person in favor of a totalitarian state: really stupid.
And no, the tea party is not “counter culture”. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Tell me the next time you see tea partiers getting the fire hoses turned on them, will ya?
I don’t think you have to be lockstep with hippies to be a counterculture. You don’t have to smoke weed or be for peace or have firehoses turned on you to be a counterculture. Again, I see what the OP is getting at.
But they weren’t the more politically active ones like the SDS.
I am not comparing hippies to teapartier based on the content of their ideals; ir on their demographics; I know that those are virtually opposite.
What I am comparing is the wide spread popularity of “leftism” then and “rightism” now, even among people who generally are not that interested in politics but are happy to tag along endorsing irrational, but attractive ideas.
Also, that in the seventies most of the political extemism found a home on the left side of the spectrum, while now it seems to make camp in the right wing.
And yet again I have to ask: When did the “hippies” ever have any significant control of the Democratic Party?
Didn’t the Dems become much more left leaning in the seventies? They did end the Vietnam war, no? And on a lighter note: didn’t practically everyone, politicians included, let their hair grow longer then?
OMFG-This is your evidence that “hippies” controlled the Democratic Party to the extent that the Teapers do the Republican Party now??
I used to think Tea Party types were just a bunch of grumpy oldsters. But a 2010 Gallup poll showed that Tea Party age demographics closely match US age demographics.
Looking at the stats from that poll, I guess you are correct in saying that they’re “predominantly middle aged or older,” but you could also say that about the US population as a whole.
How left leaning? Please give some specific examples.
No, Nixon ended the Vietnam War–much too late & after much lying.
What does hair length have to do with anything?
I was a (very) young adult back then. My corner of the “counter culture” was less political than some–but we were aware of living in a city where the police & the Klan were allies. So we couldn’t be apolitical. The true “radicals” I knew were a bit upper class–the Marcus heir was into drama but the Neiman heir was a radical chick. When I voted, it was as a Democrat–hey Sissy Farenthold was great! But my friends & I were hardly among the powerful in the party…
Where were you at the time?
I don’t know enough about US internal politics to give examples.
For many people, such non-consequential things as hair length is about the extent of their political stance. That is precisely my point. It’s about the psychological niche that is filled by such social behavior, not about the actual content of the ideas. Flagwaving is the contemporay, rightwing version of the seventies collar-length hair. “I have Christian family values” is the 00’s version of the “Peace, man, chill out babe, free love” of the seventies. Extremists then wrote rabid political manifestos, demonized the other camp, or withdrew to self made communities; all that is a rightwing thing now.
The socialist/anarchist personal freedom babble of many hippies was just as irrational, yet attractive as the Tea Party counterpart is now.
wasn’t he forced to do so by the Dems?
Not quite. My point is more that both the hippies, the extremists on their side, AND the inportant political decisions of the time were all influenced by a leftwing atmosphere, a left-wing “cloud of ideas” taht hung in the air at the time, a left wing philosophical fashion.
And that the same fashion now is rightwing. ,
'Nuff said.
Hmn, that is interesting. Would you say it has fewer followers (in percentage) then their leftist couterparts at the time?
Do you think the media now gives more attention to the Tea party then the more rightwing media in the seventies gave to the hippie counterparts?
Why the annoyance? I never said that they are like each other; I merely speculated how different intellectual/political fashions may have filled the a similar social niche. What, you never speculate?
ETA: perhaps this thread is better suited for IMHO. Mods, can you move it?
Makes sense to me. Moved to IMHO from Great Debates.
I will say this: when’s the last time you saw the police tear-gassing and fire-hosing a tea party rally? I thought so. :rolleyes: