This Isn’t Your Father’s Left-Wing Revolution

Image by Darren415 iStock Getty Images

Victor Davis Hanson // American Greatness

Starry-eyed radicals in the 1960s and 1970s dreamed that they either were going to take over America or destroy it. 

One of their favorite psychodramatic mottos was “Change it or Lose it,” even as protests focused on drugs, music, race, class, sex, fashion—and almost anything and everything. 

Sixties radicals tutored America on long hair, wire-rim eyeglasses, and who was a drag, a square, a bummer, and who was hip, cool, groovy, mellow, and far out. Most of these silly revolutionaries were not unhinged Weathermen killers or SDS would-be Communists, but just adolescents along for the good-time ride.


Share This

1 thought on “This Isn't Your Father's Left-Wing Revolution”

  1. Robert J Stewart

    FDR’s abuses were more outrageous in terms of their variance from established norms, and yet the electorate kept supporting him. Wouldn’t it be useful to examine why this was so? Is it possible that the institutions that failed so utterly in WWI were still stumbling, not dealing with the truth, and wrapped in all sorts of nonsense? This was clearly the case in Britain and France. Neither could deal with the socialist enticements, and both supported militaries that could not grasp the need for coordination between the armor-, infantry- and air components of a modern army. Only the Nazis had radio communications with their air arm. Stukas were at the beck and call of the advancing tanks and infantry. Not so the allies. It could take 12 to 16 hours to organize a bombing mission in support of a French defensive position. If Winston Churchill hadn’t been a focal point for dissatisfied military military officers in the mid-30s, Britain would have been hopelessly muddled by the late 30s. As it was, he applied enough pressure that the development of radar and modern aircraft wasn’t overlooked, with the result that Britain was able to defend herself in the darkest hours.

    What was going on the U. S. to counter FDR? We didn’t have an aristocracy whose very existence was proof that something like socialism was needed. Upward mobility was taken for granted in the U. S. We had a glorious history that should have been a foundation for the rejection of the New Deal. But our opposition team, the Republicans, seemed hopeless inept. They had no grasp of the situation. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address would have been just words to many of them. What was so exceptional about a nation conceived in in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.? None could argue against communism except by bluster, and many, like FDR, embraced fascist authoritarianism (e.g., Lindbergh, and FDR’s correspondence with Mussolini,) as well as the racism that characterized the Democrat Party. We even embraced antisemitism with the turning back of the St Louis with her 937 Jewish refugees.

    I see the same absence of intelligent opposition today at the highest levels of our Republican Party. The few Senators (Cotton, Cruz, Johnson, Paul) and Congressmen (Nunes) who speak out are very much on the fringe of these groups. We have tacticians who slavishly adhere to self-serving consultants, but none with an understanding of strategy. Trump, alas, never seemed to grow into the office. He was unable to manage Fauci, despite the conflicts of interest this bio-warfare virologist brought with him. The virus is a Frankensteinian construct, containing bat, pangolin, and artificial structures, and this was known over a year ago. And yet Fauci commanded the Federal response.

    My point is that we know who is responsible for the insanity, but they seem to conduct their attacks on our civilization without an opponent. Are we really so impoverished as a people that a leader can’t be found?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *