By Aaron Clarey
The 1950's is incredibly telling of the quality, caliber and sanity of any American today. You either view it as an ideal, a goal, a target to shoot for, or you loathe it, detest it, hate it, and view it as the epitome of evil. The first group of people are true Americans. They love the nuclear family, booming economic growth, progress, fashion, beauty, low crime, excellence, achievement and all that is classically American. The later are nothing more than parasitic socialists who fear the 1950's more than anything else because it is the single largest, brightest, and blinding bit of empirical evidence that contradicts their socialist religion. If you point out the virtues of 1950's America they rush to tell you it's racist, while tripping over themselves to nervously-laugh at the presupposed "barbaric sexism" of the 50's. You can try to reason with them and point out you're talking more the familial stability, economic growth, low unemployment, fashion, etc., and would do away with the bigotry of the times. But they will have none of it because if they concede that the 50's were better times in general, then that would mean they were wrong about their socialist ideology and can no longer collect their government checks. Alas, they will always cower and hypocritically hide behind the 50's being racist and "You just want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" (you ignorant neanderthal you) because otherwise they'd have to get real jobs.
Sadly, with a high enough percentage of the population voting for socialism, not to mention an increasing percentage of the population preferring to celebrate inferiority over excellence, we as a country cannot return to the "glory days" of the 1950's. Millennials are not capable of living on their own at 18. Women prefer to outsource kids to day care instead of raise them. Men have been replaced with government checks. And what men are present in their nuclear families are usually Soy Boy jokes which cannot compare to a strong, but fair 1950's Ward Cleaver. Without the based, anchored, and galvanized WWII generation, the generations of Americans that remain are simply too inferior and lazy to achieve what Americans did in the 1950's. And so you assume we can never return to those halcyon days of yore and are condemned to Enjoy the Decline.
However, I have a bit of good news for you, and it is one of those rare bits of good news indeed. For while "we" as a country can't and never will return to the 1950's, YOU as an individual can. And there's nobody who can stop you.
The main reason anybody can return to the 1950's at any time is because while on a national or macro level the US may be turning into a childish, socialist shithole, on the local or micro level the average American still holds considerable sway and control over their immediate and local environment. You don't have to live in California where the insane people put cancer warnings on coffee. You don't have to live in Seattle where the city council obviously loves parasites more than the producers. You can simply choose to live in towns that aren't socialist, have low crime, low traffic and don't vote to tax their citizens all the time. But returning to the 50's goes well beyond simply picking the right municipality to live in. It boils down to individual life-style decisions that are even more personal, more "micro" and will more directly affect the quality of life you live. And if you make the right decisions, there's a good chance you'll enjoy a 1950's life replete with 2020's technology and conveniences.
Location, Location, Location
The first and most important step in attaining a 1950's lifestyle is refusing to live where liberals and leftists are. Leftists and liberals are simply antithetical to a 1950's lifestyle and mindset. This obviously eliminates entire states like California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, but also eliminates nearly every major city in the United States. Being away from major metro areas and America's centers of commerce may put a crimp on your career opportunities, but less so than you might think. The suburbs exist for a reason - hard working people who want safe communities, good schools, low taxes, and low crime, also want to be reasonably close to these hubs of commerce for their careers. This is possible if you're willing to commute or simply take the bus. Furthermore, advances in internet technology has made an increasing number of jobs location independent. This allows you to move yourself (and your family) to smaller, even safer, even lower-taxed hamlets where you can still do our job remotely, occasionally dropping in on the city for whatever culture or entertainment you may want to take in. These small towns can offer a 1950's "Andy Griffith Mayberry" lifestyle for you and your family...assuming you're done living the "Sex and the City" or "Friends" lifestyle that you were sold on TV.
Closely related to where you live and work is your career. To be blunt, if you want to return to the 1950's that means a one income household. One person is going to go out and make the money, the other is going to keep the home and raise any would-be children. This means you have to major in the right thing and today 2/3rds of American students major in worthless, unemployable slop. So it is vital you choose the right profession be it the trades, joining the military, majoring in engineering or becoming a dentist. If you don't, you condemn yourself to a life of the typical Millennial; constantly begging for work, pulling teeth to get a decent wage, crippled by student loans you'll never pay back, living paycheck to paycheck...heck, living at home at 30. The (evil racist) 1950's American dream of homeownership will simply be out of your reach as you opted to major in an easy hobby rather than a rigorous, industrious and EMPLOYABLE profession. You can make it even easier on yourself if you choose a profession like computer programming or networking which will not only pay, but give you the added benefit of location independent employment.
The 1950's Budget
In my book "Poor Richard's Retirement" I was amazed how people in the 1950's managed to raise full, nuclear families on incomes that are a third of today's household income. When people say "it takes two incomes to raise a family today" what they really mean is...
"When you account for my student loans for my worthless masters degree in human development and my husband's MBA, and the luxury SUV lease, and our McMansion mortgage, and the kids' day care, and the pool boy and the lawn care and our annual vacations to Disney World, Mazatlan, and Italy and the designer clothes for all our children, we need two incomes to pay for everything."
In short, people today replace people with stuff. In the 1950's the parents actually raised a family and spent their money on people. Not things. They knew family was more important than materialism and consequently put it at the center of their lives.
This translated into budgets that were mere fractions of what people spend today, but even more shocking to modern Americans, families in the 50's had money left over. This frugality required living in homes that had 1/3rd the square footage of today's modern homes, owning only one car, taking the bus, children sharing rooms, cutting coupons and budgeting, hemming and darning clothes, and not outsourcing your children to daycare which (ironically) usually costs more than what paltry income a wife brings in when she goes out and works whatever part-time non-profit job her liberal arts degree affords here.
Thankfully today's housing technology allows you to buy more home for the same inflation-adjusted dollar and automotive technology allows you to afford more than one car. But buying vanity in the form of BMW's, McMansions, designer clothes, trips, and pointless masters degrees is what enslaves most people to their debts and prevents them from living a 1950's, person-focused lifestyle. If you simply buy what you need, spending less than you make, all the financial problems that plague modern debt-addicted Americans will go away and happier families will be the result.
Yes, You Will Raise Your Own Damn Children
I've always wondered why the majority of people in my generation even bother having children. They don't raise them. They simply have them and then juggle them in between both of their careers, hobbies, vices, and daycare. Half of my parental peer group took a page from the Book of Baby Boomers and end up getting divorced and so now the kids are raised in broken homes...optimistically assuming the mother and father were married in the first place.
So why did you even bother to have kids?
More important than location, more important than your career, more important than you yourself is the children you decided to bring into this world. I cannot logically deduce anything except that your children should be the most important thing in this world. Ergo, I would presume if you had them you would like to actually spend time with them, certainly before they turn 18 and you don't see them again.
So please, if the Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers taught us anything, it should be that you should raise your own damn kids. Don't outsource them to daycare. Don't outsource them to pre-pre-pre K. Don't put your career ahead of them. Actually spent time with them and raise them. You'd be surprised how well-raised children bring happiness into your life. You might even be shocked to find out they're more rewarding than your masters degree.
Yes, You Will Remain a Nuclear Family
Appalled as I am watching friends have kids they simply don't want, it enrages me when parents obviously decide they are more important than their children and get divorced (or "split up" because, why get married before having kids anyways, amirite?) Not only does this wreak havoc upon the psychologies of any children you might have, single parent households are the most inefficient way to raise kids. The sheer calories of energy I see divorced parents spend not only trying to time-share their children and maintain multiple homes, but battle and fight one another over pure selfishness, pettiness, and pride is argument enough that you should fake being married until your youngest is 18 no matter how much you hate each other. It would be less painful, less costly, less time consuming and much better for all parties involved (including those kids you had - remember them?).
But there is a much more important argument to maintaining a nuclear family and one that is based in the selfless consideration of others in society - the quality of your children.
The consequences of divorced or broken homes is the scourge of ill-reared children that are then released into the real world. At best they might be slightly depressed, faking a mental illness like "social anxiety disorder" or whatever the new one is this week. But at worst (and more typically) they are the cause of nearly all sociological problems. Poverty, drugs, crimes, STD's, high taxes, mental illness, murder, lost economic production, deficits, future illegitimate children/single parent households, nearly EVERY major problem society faces today has its genesis in broken homes, single moms and dead beat dads. Failing to maintain a nuclear family results in raising liabilities in the form of your dysfunctional children that you then send out into the real world where they proceed to wreak trillions of dollars worth in damage.
I'm going to assume that the love of your children is argument enough to guarantee your children will be raised under a nuclear family. The peace, calm, serenity and love that comes from the resulting familial stability would also be a convincing fringe benefit to ensure this trait of 1950's America. But if that's not enough to convince you, perhaps the guilt that your failure to raise your children properly is guaranteed to cost society trillions will ensure you keep your family together.
Choose a Traditional 1950's Man/Woman
Key to having a stable marriage and a nuclear family is choosing the right person as your spouse. And to be perfectly honest, the qualities and traits that make a good spouse have been bred out of Americans the past three generations.
This forced-political denial of the differences and thus complimentary natures of the sexes in today's America is laughable and should be ignored if you wish to life a 1950's lifestyle. Millions of years of human evolution, billions of years of the evolution of life on our planet, and our environment has made it PHYSICALLY CLEAR there are indeed (and in general) two sexes. And not only are there two distinct sexes, there are some major differences. In the 1950's these differences were used to help form a nearly-unstoppable duo in the form of a husband and wife with their own unique strengths and specialties.
With their strength, energy, resolve and mathematically inclined brains, men would work and make money. And not only work and make money, but innovate, create, and experiment resulting in dramatic increases in standards of living. Women with their care, compassion, kindness and acute awareness of resource management would typically raise the children (don't know if you noticed those things called "boobs" they have), maintain a home, support the husband, but also through budgeting and economic guile make the money the husband made go far as possible, increasing standards of living for all family members. This isn't to say that men couldn't cook or women couldn't be scientists, but in general these two roles took advantage of the division of labor, playing to each others' strengths, while compensating for each others' weaknesses.
Now that has all be abdicated in the pursuit of the political lie that men and women are not so much equal (which they are), but that they are interchangeable (which they certainly aren't). Regardless, the point is not one against the folly of feminism or socialist politics, but that if you do indeed want to live a 1950's life you need to find a traditional masculine man for a husband and a traditional feminine woman for a wife. Not only will this result in a more successful marriage, you have 2 million years of human evolution working for you which is better than the 50 years of delusional feminist slop theory that's been peddled since 1968.
But what makes a traditional man or woman? Simple, you simply pursue traditional values.
A traditional man supports himself, doesn't rely on a government check, works out, is physically fit, demands sex, and is going to demand that his wife stays in shape. He is also fair and just, puts his family ahead of himself, will die for them if necessary, but in the end will inevitably insist he is the head of the household and is going to be the final arbiter of all decisions, not for tyrannical or dictatorial reasons, but simply because there can only be ONE leader and it is in the best interest of everybody to only have ONE leader.
A traditional woman also supports herself, learns a skill or trade, doesn't rely on a government check, and also loves her family more than herself. However, she is also acutely aware of the sexual demands of men. She ensures she remains physically attractive for her husband knowing that is one of the most important things in his life. Additionally, instead of questioning, nagging, contesting and arguing with her husband she supports him. She cares about him and wants to make his life easy as possible whether that's through love and compassion, remaining the physically beautiful muse to inspire him, or simply permitting him the calm serenity and peace in life that comes without having a nagging harpy for wife.
In short, it is selflessness and loving your spouse more than yourself that makes for a stable and happy marriage. Today that has been bred out of us. We love ourselves, our careers, our educations, our soy, and our things more than we do our spouses. But if you want a happy and successful 1950's marriage you will revisit traditional values of excellence, selflessness, beauty, physique, and support. And I strongly suggest you do because you will be spending the majority of your time with your spouse which will make it the #1 determinant of your happiness.
Friends and Colleagues
Finally, it is not only your family and location that can ultimately provide you with a 1950's life. It is the friends, colleagues and associates you surround yourself with. This is somewhat accomplished in choosing smaller, conservative, traditional towns far removed from the country's tallest buildings. But in addition to your family it is your friends and other non-familial (brotherly) loved ones that will also play a major role in the quality of the life you lead. And it is here there is one simple rule - no low-quality people in your life.
One might think "no leftists" in one's life would be a rule to follow, but there are some good democrats out there who are good honest souls, simply misinformed or perhaps too optimistic about the reality of people and the economy. Blue collar democrats, factory workers, union workers. These are honest men and women who can make great friends and add great value to your life. But when it comes to welfare recipients, SJW's, activists, politicians, non-profit workers, professors, students, or people who think they're entitled to a free ride, it's very simple - ensure they are not a part of your life. Life is too short for parasites and ensuring none are around will go a long way in recreating a 1950's lifestyle.
In general, the point is that whatever happens in Washington or your state capitol ultimately doesn't matter because it is the people immediately around us that determines the majority of the quality of the life we live. It may be annoying what the idiots of California vote to do to themselves. Or it may make you shake your head that Seattleittes really like punishing themselves. And you can only sit and wonder at times why college students pay $100,000 to essentially destroy themselves. But you do not have to participate in their delusional worlds. With today's technology, old school frugality and wisdom, and simply seeking out traditional people with traditional values you can enjoy a 1950's life very easily. And while the leftists and liberals mock and ridicule you for having a house paid off, a pretty wife/handsome husband, well-reared kids, as you "live in the sticks," let them enjoy their traffic jams, their $7 mochas, the $125,000 in student loans, and their miserable anti-American lives. Life is just to short otherwise.
Check out Aaron's other cool sites!
Books by Aaron
Editor's note: This article was originally published at Captain Capitalism and has been rerun with permission.