Republican Women and 1960s
There are any number of Republican women politicians who have as a centerpiece of their agenda undoing everything 1960s.
There is a problem with that stance. Without what happened in 1960s, these women would not be able to be politicians or entrepreneurs or anything else they are. The only thing they would be able to be is housewives, which is what the bulk of American women were in 1950s.
The same women want lower taxes at the same time as they want 1950s institutions. I got news for them. In 1950s, the highest bracket tax was an outrageous 92%. Do they really want to have no choice but to be housewives? Do they really want to pay a 92% tax? Then for what reason do they attack everything 1960s when they owe to that time as much as they do?
You want 1950s? Be prepared to pay 92% of your income in taxes. You want 1950s? Be prepared to be at the mercy of your husband, however nasty and violent he may be. You want 1950s? Be prepared to lose your ability to be a politician or an entrepreneur.
Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin and any number of others take note.
I am not against there being Republican women politicians. I am however against ignorance and ingratitude, and what we see in these politicians is vast amounts of both. Without the social revolts of 1960s and 1970s these women would not be able to do any of what they are doing. They wouldn't be able to be politicians; they would not be able to be businesswomen; they wouldn't be able to divorce their husbands however badly their husbands choose to treat them. They would be tied to the housewife role and be at the mercy of their husbands however badly their husbands choose to behave.
The 1960s liberals paved the way for there being large numbers of women politicians; and that also means Republican women politicians. And without 1960s those women would not be able to be politicians in the first place. So whenever we hear a Republican woman politician attacking the 1960s and 1970s values, what we are hearing is vast ignorance and ingratitude.
And neither of the preceding qualifies as righteousness or as values.