Are Hippie Republicans Oxymorons?

I'm reminded of a proverb involving boulders and eyes

 

Slight correction. The OP didn't "think it was a community for hippies." He just thought that "hip" in the title would not be attractive to people who value conventionalism and materialism--unless it's to challenge alternative values. Of course, sex, drugs and rockn'roll might be other draws. So I was curious what brought people here. People can be for conventional values and materialism; no problem there, at least from a logical standpoint. But if they also identify as being "hip" or hippies, as some do on the websites I referenced earlier, what does that mean? Are they just confused? Or are they like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland: "when I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."? Or wanting to have their cake and eat it too?

 

I stand corrected.

But, "hip" and "hippie" are two different things. "Hip" is merely a term that is used to describe "in the current fashion". "Hippie" generally refers to those who oppose established institutions while valuing individual and communal freedom. One can be conservative and also be hip if one is also keen on modern fashion and the modern way of living, for example. All this simply means that people are just people, and they....well, WE, believe in whatever we believe in. It simply means that we all have opinions.

 

That's why we have the DEA. Nixon can't arrest you protesting him. But the protesters also like the dope. So if we make it seem it's dangerous the public will turn on them too.

Maher can be kind of an ass sometimes. But he is so right here. Jesus was not a businessman looking to be rich.

 

Yeah, he was a shoeless drifter who drank wine, hung out with prostitutes, advocated communism, provided free healthcare, and warned people about the evils of organized religion.

He was pretty groovy.

 

Free Speech.

 

Yes, I’m not perfect. I get it.

In defense of generalizations, they do come from somewhere, and for a good reason most of the time.

Anyways, why should you care if some immature moron used the word Liberal as an insult? If you’re a ”libtard,” wear it like a badge of honor and scoff at the other person who uses that word.

I may be the unlikeable right leaning asshole to most people on this board, but I consider myself a classical liberal and I still see positive meaning in that word. The establishment left, however, is becoming illiberal, intolerant, and just as miserly as the establishment right was back in the 90s. For example, the right wing in the 90s said video games make you violent. Nowadays the left says video games make you sexist and racist.

 

Oh, do they?

The entire left?

Every single person who falls to the left of center?

See what I mean?

Not much different than saying republicans cant be hippies.

Anyways my comment about the immature idiot using liberal as a slur wasn't so much about my personal feelings, but more a statement on civil discourse as a whole. Or the lack thereof

 

The establishment left.

Man you really are a language policeman.

 

Police officer.

 

I prefer nuance policeWOMAN

It was the lack of nuance I was getting at
And I know you did say establishment left earlier in the paragraph but I just noticed it sorry

Policewomyn

Policewermerns

 

Jane, my wife, still calls me a "Liberal Republican" and I refer to her as a "Conservative Democrat". I often wonder when the liberal values became the exclusive domain of the democrats. And how conservative values seem to be attached solely to republicans.

If anything these concepts are what instilled both sides with the flexibility both seem to lack these days. And both sides are lying their asses off at such a pace, who can keep up? Certainly not the press. Oh sure, they relay the lies and dress them up for the marketing department, but all they seem to accomplish is confusing things beyond recognition. And really, after the 2016 election, who can possibly trust polls these days?

I have to laugh when I see people cheering for polls that show how awful Trump is doing. How many times can they be fooled? I'm positive that if someone claimed that Trump robbed a liquor store when he was 16, it would be universally believed by all those whiners who were so easily fooled ahead of the elections.

By muddying the waters about the role of liberalism and conservatism, turning it into some kind of line in the sand, we have lost our level grounding.

 

I agree, I was thinking about what hip means as I signed up for this Hip Forum. It's being aware of the world, attuned and accepting.

 

I won't even attempt a detailed analysis of this as it begs me to once again apply sorting silos. At a higher level, Liberalism itself is factional between Metro, Popular and Classical (where I usually sit). Conservatism is divided between faith, pragmatism and those who absolutely refuse to allow faith into the equation (also where I usually sit).

What I do find interesting about the liberal side is how they seem to adore the passing of social landmarks. We seem to have a regular "The first ........." celebration of some sort. But sometimes the landmark is achieved in a less organic way for the sake of itself. I point to the 2008 election specifically. Either way the democrats had a major "The first ......." event on the horizon. But instead of allowing that to occur naturally, in favor of the most obviously qualified, they yielded instead to actually "making" a "The first....." happen. Hillary was clearly more qualified to be president than Barack and either one of them could have wiped the floor with McCain. And I'm saying this as someone who really despises the Clintons.

What I see from too many Conservatives is the invocation of religion, specifically Christ. I'm routinely disgusted by conservative republicans who cheerfully take what they see as moral high ground in using their faith as their guide in making policy for the rest of us. For them government is a tool for bending the public to their will. They spout on and on about "smaller government" but only because it means control is held by a small but powerful cabal of loyalists. Liberal democrats have a similar take on government except that they want it to be huge, dominating and operated by an army of rule-enforcing loyalists.

In both visions the people themselves can't be trusted to run their own lives. With all the conflicting messages put forth by everyone in government, is it any wonder the people "seem" to be clueless? I'm pretty sure that's the desired effect though. Which is why we're constantly being fed a diet of conflicts from sexuality and race to drugs and resources. In this I'll say that both of our polarized "sides" is dedicated to keeping the commoners in a perpetual state of fighting amongst themselves so the ruling elite can lord over us from above.

It must feel God-like to the ones at the very top.

 

...

 

Surely hippie was being a part of counter-culture. No political party anywhere is counter-culture. That would be an oxymoron. Probably a lot of hippies from the '60s got it together, ended up making money and now identify as either left or right wing. Likewise many young people today don't identify as hippies but are more true to the counter-culture spirit.

It's an argument and compromise between different interpretations of freedom.

 

I just created a separate thread on this .