In what sense? The last 24 years in the US have/will be split equally between Democrat and Republican presidents. In the UK the majority of this century has been run by the Conservative party. The US Supreme Court is 'right leaning' and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. How can the right wing be the counter culture when it holds most of the power? [Obviously just looking at two countries I'm familiar with but right wing ideology has surged all over in the last decade].
The US right lost ground for as long as I can remember. Remember, when Clinton was president he couldn't even talk about gay marriage, now it has been legal for a decade.
Sure the republicans have won elections, but would you really call Trumph conservative?
This ended when they won Row vs Wade, but short of that, they lost almost every battle they engaged in. The US is less religious than ever, porn and violent video games (not to mention DnD) is available everywhere and trans people are accepted at least in some places.
The left has won socially and the right won economically. The rich have won a greater share of the money, while social progress for homosexuality etc. has also been won.
The difference is that the poor and middle class of the right don't get to enjoy the benefits of their side's "win".
I found some insight in your last sentence, but on examination it feels myopically specious like so much political discourse. The invocation of "left" and "right" are always put forth as some overriding distinction, but the actual dividing line for the issues in your comment is whether policies were palatable to big business, regardless of whether out of immediate financial self interest or to divide the plebs over social issues.
That dynamic is kind of inevitable when you buy into someone else's battle for your own win condition. Falling for the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" dynamic was never going to result in a good outcome. But the same lack of benefits of "winning" apply to the "left" as well - the majority is still heteronormative, and so doesn't directly benefit from societal acceptance of homosexuality. So in reality the grassroots of both tribes are mostly looking at symbolic victories that don't convey direct benefits, and directing focusing on a single one is just further stirring the pot.
(And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).
As a straight white dude I still benefit from living in a world with more social equality and less division.
But sure, it's less tangible than the rich benefitting from sucking up all the money.
There are tangible reasons for social progress as well, like for example in a world where women aren't pressured to be closeted I don't have to worry about marrying a lesbian who's trying to fit in.
But rather than iterate the reasons we all benefit from living in a world with acceptance, it feels like enough to support it on principle.
> rather than iterate the reasons we all benefit from living in a world with acceptance, it feels like enough to support it on principle
>> (And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).
Sure. This type of comment is exactly what I meant by the last bit I said. Including a summary of one team's well-reasoned support for a topic is also one-sided stirring the pot, regardless of whether one agrees with the argument specifically (which I do).
(The "right" would make an analogous argument about trickle down economics and how things would be so much worse for the grassroots right if big business was further constrained in any way)
Why does the counter culture have to be left wing or right wing? It could be centrist. Apolitical. Based around other shared beliefs outside of political differences.
Counter culture by definition counters some established cultural paradigm. It is at least critical, and at most actively hostile - but cannot by its very nature be apolitical, much less maximally accepting.
Counterculture among the right would be the alt-right/white supremacist movements and QAnon, which counter mainstream conservatism. Among the left it would be actual (not the American definition of "anyone to the left of Reagan") communists, tankies, black and indigenous activism, etc.
It's true that not every counterculture has to be defined, or define themselves, along the left/right axis, but given the greedy nature of that axis, it seems inevitable that any counterculture could be.
