What was needed to stop the 60s liberal revolution in its tracks?

Nov 2014
238
ph
#1
What was needed to stop the 60s liberal revolution in its tracks and restore 50s conservatism, basically confine liberlism to legal equality for blacks that is basically it, without the sexual revolution? For all the arguments that cultural liberalization was inevitable, and is a byproduct of the media, China did manage to bring liberalism to a crashing halt in 1989, and the Arab world did become liberal and secular in the 60s and 70s before become Islamicized again, and Indonesia has actually become more culturally Islamized since the end of Suharto. Would it require the conservatives in the 50s to be more extreme, like forcibly break up hippy commune by force and to double down on decency laws, and arrest or jail leading liberal personalities, sort of a milder version of Franco's Spain? It seems that from the results of the election of 1968 and 1972, the cultural liberals were basically confine to the coastal cities, there would have been support from the moderates and more conservative majority if the conseratives decide to crack down harder on the liberals and the conervatives to wage a late 19th century style kulturkamp to bring society back to its 50s social conservatisn, and any bloodshed would have been very minimal, and does not have to require machine gunning hippie and gay rights protesters, just widespread indefinite arrests of their leaders, sort of like like the Social Democrats and the Conservatives did in Germany in the 20s to preventing Germany from going fully to the left. I am not really supporting these measures. This is just an interesting alternate history discussion, about whether the 60s sexual revolution by the baby boomers could have been halted if the greatest generation and the depression generation had been willing to take a harder line or more extreme measures to shore up early 50s social and sexual mores. And as for the Supreme Court, the courts to not have any way to enforce their rulings, so the government could just decide to ignore them know the interest of maintaining public morality.
 
Likes: Swamp Booger

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,366
US
#2
Prosperity brings boredom and boredom elicits adventure. Look at Rome, it moved toward a more "expressive" nature as it prospered. Another point, anybody who has ever raised children knows that taking a hard line stance can blow up in your face, especially as children age into young adults. Sometimes parents have to lose a few battles in order to win the war. That is, you pick and choose what is important. Much of the freedoms youth in the 60s experience was while away at college or the university. Would refusing to continue to pay for your child's education be a rational response? If not in the 60s, then this would have likely occurred in the 70s.
 
Apr 2017
761
U.S.A.
#3
By the 60's it was too late, if you want to prevent the hippie corruption you have to go back much farther. The Hippies are descended from the bohemian movement and the beatniks, meaning their potential goes back decades. To prevent them from gaining traction with popular society the 50's would have to be drastically reworked.
Another major war, like WW3 might distract the public from social issues or a major economic collapse (like how the great depression reset morality after the 20's).
Alternatively, there is the difficult culture war to keep culture conservative. This is a very difficult concept to determine, determining how to effect social change or prevent it is largely ethereal.
Of course, their is the authoritarian model; criminalize certain things with heavy penalties and make public examples of those who disobey (such as killing them).
 
Likes: Rodger

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,366
US
#4
By the 60's it was too late, if you want to prevent the hippie corruption you have to go back much farther. The Hippies are descended from the bohemian movement and the beatniks, meaning their potential goes back decades. To prevent them from gaining traction with popular society the 50's would have to be drastically reworked.
Another major war, like WW3 might distract the public from social issues or a major economic collapse (like how the great depression reset morality after the 20's).
Alternatively, there is the difficult culture war to keep culture conservative. This is a very difficult concept to determine, determining how to effect social change or prevent it is largely ethereal.
Of course, their is the authoritarian model; criminalize certain things with heavy penalties and make public examples of those who disobey (such as killing them).
I have always understood that the Beatniks were a small minority. Were they influential enough to change the culture? In the 60s there was a massive movement among the youth for change, mainly on college campi, as I am sure you know. The war was an impetus, but the movement started when many weren't cognizant of the war. Was it disillusionment? Many people moved into the middle class during the 60s. Maybe a movement away from organized religion?
 
Apr 2017
761
U.S.A.
#5
I have always understood that the Beatniks were a small minority. Were they influential enough to change the culture? In the 60s there was a massive movement among the youth for change, mainly on college campi, as I am sure you know. The war was an impetus, but the movement started when many weren't cognizant of the war. Was it disillusionment? Many people moved into the middle class during the 60s. Maybe a movement away from organized religion?
There were many sub-groups in the counterculture movement (the beatniks being one of many). All can be traced back to the bohemian movement of the later 1800's (the name has nothing to do with the region of Bohemia), more or less people who viewed society differently. The unpopularity of the Vietnam war, coinciding with racial/sexual change gave them their opportunity to gain popular attention. The counterculture movement had been building for decades, it didn't just start in the 60's. The decades of peace and prosperity led people to spend times on luxuries, leading to young people desiring change. Previous generations had more important things to be concerned about, war, putting food on the table and surviving. The 30's may have been like the 60's if it wasn't for the depression. Although WW2 also played a part, the shortage of men in the country (since many were fighting the war) allowed women to gain a greater form of equality. Although many only felt it was temporary but of course, people don't like to give up new freedoms. Minorities also gained greater acceptance from the war and desired genuine equality. So possibly if ww2 didn't happen (or at least America wasn't involved, or didn't have to expend as much resources), the 60's may have been very different.
 
Likes: Rodger

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,948
#6
What was needed to stop the 60s liberal revolution in its tracks and restore 50s conservatism, basically confine liberlism to legal equality for blacks that is basically it, without the sexual revolution?
Nazis and Fascists win WWII, making the world safe for autocracy.

It sort of worked in Spain. Postponed most things like this to the 1980's. (When things REALLY shifted fast otoh.)
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#7
Nazis and Fascists win WWII, making the world safe for autocracy.

It sort of worked in Spain. Postponed most things like this to the 1980's. (When things REALLY shifted fast otoh.)

Yep, also pretty much inevitable when there is a growing economy together with a large, prosperous middle class. I mean, from whence did you think those hippy twerps came? Certainly not from sons of the soil. Becomes pretty much guaranteed when that pesky Bill Of Rights is factored in. I'm thinking of the First amendment to begin with.Of course, the US managed to ignore that in the early 1950's, as is its wont when the constitution becomes inconvenient. My government does it too.

"Liberal revolution'; is not a term I've heard in the last twenty years, mainly because it's myth.True enough that there were some significant changes to race relations and Feminism in the US, Australia and many other countries in the 1960's and 70's. As far as I can tell, the changes which began were a matter of basic human rights, but hardly a revolution.

The so- called Hippy movement was more of a nuisance than a serious threat to the status quo. From what I've seen, vast numbers of hippies finished their degrees, and became teachers or civil servants. Many seem to have continued what they saw as their rebellion by getting stoned regularly, for some years, as they quietly melted into the middle class from which they came.


It's not possible to turn back the clock. A serious liberal revolution would have resulted in some obvious changes, such as the emergence of a third major political party in the US, which may even have won power.. Didn't happen, because en masse, people really don't like change. That's why reform governments never last long in any democratic society. At any given time, Conservative governments tend to rule.

It was from Gore Vidal that I first heard American Democratic and Republican parties described as " Tweedledum and Tweedledee",,over 30 years ago . With Australian politics, things have only gone downhill since. Don't know enough about US domestic politics to comment on the US today.y
 
Oct 2009
3,416
San Diego
#8
Um- because the United States has ALWAYS been a LIBERAL democracy. The concepts on which it was founded were revolutionary humanism and the end of conservative aristocratic rule.
In ANY nation in which freedom of expression is enshrined, their culture will always trend toward more progressive and liberal beliefs and laws.

The 1950's were an OUTLIER in their overt religiosity and Red-scare paranoia.
Just as the temperance movement that resulted in prohibition lead to an explosion of bootlegging, speakeasies, and immorality- so too did the oppressive moralizing of the 50' lead to a reaction in the 60's.

Nothing could have stopped it.
Its cultural evolution.
 
Jun 2017
2,555
Connecticut
#10
What was needed to stop the 60s liberal revolution in its tracks and restore 50s conservatism, basically confine liberlism to legal equality for blacks that is basically it, without the sexual revolution? For all the arguments that cultural liberalization was inevitable, and is a byproduct of the media, China did manage to bring liberalism to a crashing halt in 1989, and the Arab world did become liberal and secular in the 60s and 70s before become Islamicized again, and Indonesia has actually become more culturally Islamized since the end of Suharto. Would it require the conservatives in the 50s to be more extreme, like forcibly break up hippy commune by force and to double down on decency laws, and arrest or jail leading liberal personalities, sort of a milder version of Franco's Spain? It seems that from the results of the election of 1968 and 1972, the cultural liberals were basically confine to the coastal cities, there would have been support from the moderates and more conservative majority if the conseratives decide to crack down harder on the liberals and the conervatives to wage a late 19th century style kulturkamp to bring society back to its 50s social conservatisn, and any bloodshed would have been very minimal, and does not have to require machine gunning hippie and gay rights protesters, just widespread indefinite arrests of their leaders, sort of like like the Social Democrats and the Conservatives did in Germany in the 20s to preventing Germany from going fully to the left. I am not really supporting these measures. This is just an interesting alternate history discussion, about whether the 60s sexual revolution by the baby boomers could have been halted if the greatest generation and the depression generation had been willing to take a harder line or more extreme measures to shore up early 50s social and sexual mores. And as for the Supreme Court, the courts to not have any way to enforce their rulings, so the government could just decide to ignore them know the interest of maintaining public morality.
You realize you won and now the US has two major party's right of center right? After 1980 the Republicans went far right and the Dems got beaten so badly by Reagan they did the Third Way thing that mostly persists to this very day?