Can the 1960s counterculture be blamed for contemporary conservatism?

[Meursault]

I'm thinking in particular of Adam Curtis' argument in the third episode of Century of the Self, "There Is A Policeman Inside Our Heads - He Must Be Destroyed", that the counterculture of the Vietnam War period, with its emphasis on being an authentic Self and its hostility to established institutions, made possible the rise of anti-scientific neoliberalism in the late 1970s.

I've hashed this out with Naso before, who holds to the more traditional view that Reaganism/Thatcherism was partly a reaction against the counterculture. But I view it dialectically: conservatism before the late 1960s - like liberalism - had pretentions to being an objective, administrative public philosophy. Reaganism differs from Eisenhower's Man In The Grey Flannel Suit-style Modern Republicanism in being more concerned with the individual than with the public weal.

What do you think? A plausible genealogy?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

That is certainly a plausible explanation for the unique characteristics of the neo-liberal acendance of the late 20th century. The hedonism, individualism, and post-modernism of many in the counterculture, such as the Trots-cum-Neoconservatives, certainly suggest that the counter-culture either has paternity over or homolougus structures with the neoliberals.

[Meursault]

Even more, the counterculture popularized ideas that have really only found political expression post-1968 in Movement Conservatism:

* The superiority of spiritualism over science (think of films from the 1970s like Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist, which intersected traditional religious views with a countercultural sensibility).

* The notion that obscure, institutional forces are out to victimize the individual, and "must be destroyed".

* The rhetoric of a vague and nebulous 'freedom', ill-defined and deeply personalized.

I do not suggest a direct intellectual continuity - they are superficially opposed to each other, after all - but, rather, that the attitudes of 1968 opened the door for 1980. In many respects, Reagan was more an anti-Nixon than Jimmy Carter ever was.

[Cassius]

I'm thinking in particular of Adam Curtis' argument in the third episode of Century of the Self, "There Is A Policeman Inside Our Heads - He Must Be Destroyed", that the counterculture of the Vietnam War period, with its emphasis on being an authentic Self and its hostility to established institutions, made possible the rise of anti-scientific neoliberalism in the late 1970s.

I've hashed this out with Naso before, who holds to the more traditional view that Reaganism/Thatcherism was partly a reaction against the counterculture. But I view it dialectically: conservatism before the late 1960s - like liberalism - had pretentions to being an objective, administrative public philosophy. Reaganism differs from Eisenhower's Man In The Grey Flannel Suit-style Modern Republicanism in being more concerned with the individual than with the public weal.

What do you think? A plausible genealogy?

I think that it works to a certain extent. After the sixties, you can see increasing trends away from 'collectivist' political thinking and towards a more 'individualist' style, on both the left and right. On the left you had the decline of the power of trade unions and the influence of more 'socially liberal' thinking in areas such as gay rights, women's rights; generally placing an emphasis on the rights of the individual and liberating him or her from oppressive social institutions and mores. On the right, you simultaneously (if you look at the United Kingdom as an example), devotion by politicians to ideas such as empire, social traditionalism, paternalism also go out of fashion, and are gradually replaced by a more 'libertarian' outlook, emphasising the power of the individual against the state and supporting the reduction of government regulation of and intervention in the economy. Many of the people who were in the vanguard of such movements (especially on the left) belonged top the 'baby boomer' generation, who caught the full-blast of the sixties 'counterculture' (though one should not overrate its impact, since it was actually a movement limited to a rather small number of people).

However, I don't think that one should dismiss the continuity of the left and right from before to after the sixties. I mean, the political right has been using individualist rhetoric since the war in the UK (and probably longer in America). After all, many of the figures who were absolutely key to the neoliberal victory in the 1980's had been around on the political scene for a long time, and often came to hold the political views that they put into practice even before the 1960's (for example, Reagan formulated his own political ideas in the 1940's and 1950's). Meanwhile, the left has been talking about the liberation of individuals from what they see as oppression for God knows how long. So I wouldn't see the rise of individualist rhetoric as being something descended from the 'counterculture', but as something whose prominence rose due to the changes in society that occurred during the 1960's and (probably more importantly) the 1970's.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Maybe to some extent; but I would argue that Jimmy Carter's presidency (followed by Reagan's) was more responsible for it than anything else.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Today’s conservatism has its roots in the sheer reaction to the expansion of the welfare state and the prominence of the entrepreneurial movement.  Today’s conservatism is about less taxes, less debt, less government control, less government bureaucracy/more privatization of government services, and a rollback in affirmative action and immigration.  It is a response to the demographic changes in America that project America to be a “majority minority” nation by 2050 on the part of folks who (A) remember a much different America, where the middle class was more prominent and stable, and (B) where welfare benefits didn’t seem so easy to come by for so many.  Its roots are in blaming the recipients of government aid for the loss of jobs and the increasing national debt that many Americans don’t understand, but are frightened by.  This isn’t much difference from the Nixon/Reagan conservatism that was very much opposed to the counterculture, but the conservative movement today has a libertarian/isolationist streak reminiscent of Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft.

As crazy as the nutty base of the GOP seems to be, there are more points of conversion between the right and left than it appears.  On national security and personal privacy, on ongoing military involvements, and on the issue of large corporate bailouts, the right and left have found convergence.  I doubt very much that if an economic collapse on the order of 2008 happened tomorrow, there would be the kind of bailouts that occurred in 2008-2009.  The conservative movement of today is somewhat less beholden to corporate interests and seems to have repudiated the neocons.  This is a major sea change.  Ron Paul seems more mainstream GOP than he was in 2008 and Rand Paul is very much the GOP frontrunner right now (for what that’s worth).