The war against our parents and grandparents

Not long ago, I thumbed through an astonishing book titled America's Right Turn by Richard A. Viguerie & David Franke, with an intro by noted GOP supporter and anti-Catholic bigot, Tim LaHaye. Unlike most of the propaganda volumes churned out by the right's paper mills, this book does not try to force-fit the conservative movement into what I call the "false underdog" position. The book is, in fact, triumphalist -- a crow of victory.

I was particularly stunned by the passage which labels 1955 as the most liberal time in American history. Was 1955 truly more liberal than 1935, the height of the New Deal? More liberal than 1945, when we were still allied with the USSR? More liberal than the proto-hippie heyday of 1965? More liberal than 1975, the post-Watergate era?

Just what, precisely, was so blamed "liberal" about the era of Ike, HUAC, and Leave It to Beaver?

Today, we learn more about the Right's true feelings about the 1950s. Several blogs have carried this quote from the dreaded Grover Norquist, who lambasted the "Greatest Generation" in the Spanish language periodical El Mundo:

Yes, because in addition their demographic base is shrinking. Each year, 2 million people who fought in the Second World War and lived through the Great Depression die. This generation has been an exception in American history, because it has defended anti-American policies. They voted for the creation of the welfare state and obligatory military service. They are the base of the Democratic Party. And they are dying. And, at the same time, all the time more Americans have stocks. That makes them defend the interests of business, because it is their own interest. Because of that, it's impossible to bring to the fore policies of social hate, of class warfare.

The people who fought Hitler were anti-American. Think about that one. Think about the kind of guy who could say such a thing.

But Norquist does reveal something of the truth, something which helps explain why Viguerie made such a seemingly inexplicable statement.

In the 1950s, the "Greatest Generation" may have been socially conservative. But people of that time still wanted Social Security, strong unions and a progressive tax rate. The richest Americans paid nearly 90 percent of their income in taxes, unless they invested or hid it.

Which leads to an obvious question:

What was so blamed wrong with American life in 1955?

The country was prosperous and mighty. Our products were the envy of the world. Our living standards kept going up and up. (Nowadays, they are heading groundward.) The average guy holding down a "Fred Flintstone"-type job could afford a nice house, and his wife didn't have to work. Most jobs didn't require more than 40 hours a week. We were the world's biggest creditor nation. We didn't face multi-trillion dollar deficits. The very concept of the "working homeless" was unthinkable.

Were things really better before the New Deal? Were things better in the age of Jacob Riis and the muckrakers? In the era of twelve-hour work days, child labor, and no Social Security?

Hell no!

Have things gotten better since the Reagan revolution? Does the average wage earner have a higher standard of living? Can you buy a home if you have an average-paying job ($25,000 a year, at this writing)? Is our economy sounder? Should we feel more secure because we rely on Asians and Europeans to buy our Treasury Bills? Should we feel happy about one-third of our taxes going to pay interest on the national debt?

Hell no!

Mr. Norquist, Mr. Viguerie -- think twice before you make an enemy of the Greatest Generation. They knew how to run a country. You know only how to run it into the ground.

And don't expect me to quake in fear at the spectre of 1955. I say: "Let's go back to the future!"