What redeeming quality could possibly be found in the vulgar demonstration in Washington on January 21?
The answer to that question requires that we understand the transition currently occurring in our nation. The outcome of this past election ultimately finds its roots in American rejection of the philosophy that has dominated our country beginning with the 1960s. That philosophy, impelled by the American Left, expanded out from Haight-Ashbury and Woodstock to become the dominant American culture, propagated and institutionalized by the news and entertainment media, public and higher education, and governmental programs and the courts. As a result, a large segment of Americans embraced it as embodying a valid worldview.
Though this worldview wielded substantial influence in our nation, it nonetheless did not represent the majority. The news and entertainment media and our educational system nonetheless made it appear to be the majority, and successfully conveyed the impression that anyone thinking otherwise belonged to a small Neanderthal tribe on the verge of extinction, marginalizing them as people “on the wrong side of history,” an uneducated, bigoted minority that thankfully soon would be relegated to a footnote in history. Because the left controlled our societal centers of influence, they were able to punish those who disagreed and intimidate the rest into silence.
This arrangement might have prevailed apart from the fact that the 60s philosophy was producing utter disaster in our nation, eroding virtually every aspect of American society such as the economy, our educational system, the military, the family, the news and entertainment media, and our moral fiber. Many Americans, though not identifying the problem with the 60s culture, nonetheless realized that something had gone seriously wrong. They also became aware that the Democratic Party embraced and advanced the alt-liberal concepts engendering our destruction.
Though liberals managed to silence mainstream Americans in the public square, they were free to express their perspective in the privacy of the voting booth, and this they did on November 8.
In my previous post I made the point that Donald Trump is not a product of the 60s philosophy, but instead he attended a military Academy and then entered the real-life arena of the business world. Consequently, his worldview has not been shaped by the hippie mantras, “If it feels good do it,” and “You have a right to do your own thing,” but instead by the mandates of reality, responsibility, and accountability.
Therefore, to a great extent his election is a repudiation of the 60s philosophy, and the choice by mainstream America to elect him likewise represents the American rejection of that approach to life. They have experienced what it produces, and they do not want any more of it.
This brings us back to the demonstration in Washington on January 21. The rage resulted from the shock of the Left at the election outcome, which stems from their belief in their own message that those disagreeing with their 60s cultural orientation comprise only a minuscule segment of American society. How could this minority possibly subvert the will of the Liberal majority? How could these ignorant bumpkins possibly overrule the conclusions of the Washington elite? What right did these bigots possess that permitted them to wrest control of America from the grip of the intellectually superior Left? Obviously, if the system were working correctly this could not happen. It must have been the Russians or voter fraud or some other illegitimate force that stole the power that rightfully belongs to them, and therefore they are angry.
The 60s philosophy made its first major public appearance during the Summer of Love in 1967 in the Haight-Ashbury section of San Francisco. In many respects the attitudes and morals exhibited at that time were again manifested in Washington on January 21. There were, however, some notable differences. Those involved in the Summer of Love were predominantly young, fresh-faced hippies engaging in an exciting new experiment. Those marching in Washington consisted to a great extent of older, more obese, worn-out versions of that earlier exhibition. Another difference can be found. The Summer of Love embodied the outset of the experiment while the Washington demonstration exhibited the outcome. The Summer of Love postulated the optimistic belief that people doing their own thing, sexually, with the use of drugs, and otherwise, would produce a culture of love and happiness. The march in Washington revealed the outcome of that approach to life, which manifested itself in nastiness, hatred, moral debauchery, and cultural ugliness. The tons of trash left behind in the streets serves as a metaphor of what the 60s philosophy has produced.
This provides us with hope that as the Summer of Love represented the engine of the hippie culture, pulling it into American society, so the demonstration in Washington might constitute the caboose, its final appearance as it departs the American cultural scene. Perhaps the graphic display of the outcome of the 60s philosophy on January 21 was sufficiently grotesque to convince the American people once and for all that they want American society to be rid of this cultural cancer.