In the 1950’s and early 1960’s we had a Republican president, but conservatives had no power to speak of. I think we forget that too often. The following is from Matthew Dallek’s review of Mary Brennan’s book: TURNING RIGHT IN THE SIXTIES: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s conservatives were widely dismissed as “kooks” and “crackpots” with no hope of winning political power. In 1950 the literary critic Lionel Trilling spoke for a generation of scholars and journalists when he wrote that “in the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition…. It is the plain fact [that] there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation” but only “irritable mental gestures which seem to resemble ideas.” The historian Richard Hofstadter echoed Trilling’s assessment, arguing that the right was not a serious, long-term political movement but rather a transitory phenomenon led by irrational, paranoid people who were angry at the changes taking place in America.
Sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it?
When I read Jeffrey Anderson at The Weekly Standard or I listen to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or I sample the stylings of Reps. Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Steve King or Louie Gohmert, I hear “irrational, paranoid people who [are] angry at the changes taking place in America.” And their influence seems to be waxing, not waning. Watch Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada defend armed militants who train their sniper rifles on federal officers and you get an idea of what I’m talking about. These folks are trying to organize to purge the Republican Party of its last remnants of sanity.
Their lack of any kind of positive agenda should also be familiar.
Journalists were equally contemptuous. In 1962 a writer in the The Nation suggested that conservatives were more interested in thinking up “frivolous and simple-minded” slogans than in developing intelligent proposals to meet the complexities of post-Second World War America. The Washington Post described members of one conservative group as people who liked to “complain about the twentieth century.” And even a sympathetic commentator in Commonweal wondered whether a right-wing student group was a new political voice or “merely a new political organization out to repeal the twentieth century?”
Also familiar, their lack of focus:
AT the beginning of the 1960s conservatives were in a better position than at any time since the 1930s to challenge moderate Republicans for control of the party. But large obstacles remained. Not only were conservatives widely viewed as wild-eyed fanatics but they squabbled among themselves, had trouble articulating a positive program of reform, had few grassroots organizations, and lacked the funding to make the movement a serious political force.
The current iteration of conservative revolt is better funded and has more grassroots organization, but the similarities are nonetheless glaring.
What appears to be different this time around is that there does not seem to be some great untapped reservoir of unserved political opinion for conservatives to exploit. Or, if there is, they don’t seem to be on track to identify it and exploit it.
Are you sure you don’t mean ‘1860’? Nullification, states’ rights, all that…
There are a couple of critical differences, neither of them good. One is the ability of a handful of extremely wealthy individuals to bankroll the crackpots if they serve a corporate agenda (or seem to).
The other, even more pernicious, is the evolution of a separate, hermetically sealed media universe in which the hate and fear can be used to marinate and focus the faithful. The right-wing fringe in the ’50s and ’60s was reactionary and paranoid, but constrained by a monolithic media that often didn’t consider their ideas legitimate. Today, they can operate secure in the knowledge that even though they are viciously oppressed [sic] they are a majority in America and its rightful heirs – because Fox and Rush et al tell them so.
Right, BooMan’s last graf is completely off the mark, as it neglects the effect of the propaganda machine.
But the propaganda (like all the best propaganda) is incoherent, as it simultaneously assures its audience that (1) they are a majority and (2) majoritarianism is illegitimate. I keep thinking that there is an opening there, of some kind, if we could figure out how to exploit it. But probably it is just inherent in the nature of propaganda.
And this is where I think lies the biggest challenge, by far. If I just watch and listen to the people I know who are swept up in this whole bubble of propaganda, it is pretty obvious that coherence is the last thing that any of them care about. I’m not sure how there is any way to exploit the incoherence of the propaganda because to them what is true, of course, is all just relative. The facts matter little. Most important is the source of the information. And there are now an almost infinite number of sources where they can find the reality they wish to cling to. And it isn’t just the fact that they have their own sources, it is because that even in what passes for mainstream media, they are no longer “dismissed as “kooks” and “crackpots” with no hope of winning political power.” They are, in fact, winning in about half of the country.
I don’t know how this is all going to play out. But I suspect, that as time goes by, we will inevitably have a confrontation between some element or elements of this group, and the federal government. It will likely involve guns and death, and have something to do with a perceived encroachment on “Liberty” that is just irreconcilable in their minds. And it is at that point that the larger public opinion will tip one direction or the other. But sadly, we will still be left with large swaths of the country whose politics is dominated by these peoples views.
My fear is that we are entering a time when the militia movement of the 90’s will be child’s play compared to what we are going to have to face in the coming years.
Let me guess — it will involve the Federal armory at Harper’s Ferry….
Well, wouldn’t that be quite the ironic coincidence?
It’s worrisome, but I think there are other things to consider. There are limits to what propaganda can accomplish. Even McDonald’s hasn’t figured out to get people to buy shit sandwiches yet, and in this case look at what the propaganda machine is selling: resentment. It’s selling an Us vs. Them mentality, and even as it gets louder the circle of who gets to be “Us” is getting smaller and smaller.
What massive reforms in the 60s spurred the conservative takeover of the GOP? What’s the secret underlying hate exploited by the same forces that drives the modern GOP partisan?
I don’t dare speak these things out loud, though. It’d make Jonathan Chait cross.
BooMan, could you do me a favor, please? Could you interpret your last sentence in this post into pre-coffee dummy for me. I honestly don’t know what it means.
My interpretation is that everyone who agrees with them, or might possibly agree with them, is already on their side. There are no significant numbers of people left who will be persuaded by their arguments or their tactics.
But my interpretation could be influenced by too much coffee. š
Mike has it basically right, but so do Geov and Frank.
What I mean is that back when Goldwater published The Conscience of a Conservative he was tapping into a rich vein of unserved public opinion. That blossomed over the years, aided by the size of Goldwater’s loss and the resulting progressive revolution, into the Reagan Revolution and the ascendancy of conservatives in the Republican Party.
Right now, those instincts are being served, however poorly, by the GOP and Fox News and Hate Radio and other right-wing internet outlets.
So, it’s unclear to me that the fringe nuts are about to succeed in moving the GOP sharply further to the right as the predecessors did.
At the same time, what Geov and Frank are getting at is that what was once fringe is now mainstream, and it’s self-sustaining because of the money of billionaires and the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlizter that marinates millions of brains in Stupid 24/7 365.
Thank you. Makes sense now. And, you know…coffee.
Also, what do we think about attrition and the group of people who are stuck in the extremist bubble? Is aging truly a factor?
Aging is a factor in a variety of ways, but you shouldn’t expect relief any time soon.
As a political movement, conservatism can no longer expect to compete nationally, especially as it tailors its appeal more and more to the sense of victimization in a disappearing white America. That stuff works great in all-white enclaves that manage to remain fully segregated from the bulk of their agricultural workers. But it won’t get you close to a majority of the Electoral College.
As the oldest generation dies off and is replaced by a more diverse mix, the main thing that changes is how whites perceive themselves and their place in our society. Those of us who grew up in diverse communities don’t feel any sense of loss, but rural America will continue breed racists who believe in white supremacy.
But, remember, this is more than a political problem. It’s a cultural problem. We can win elections again and again, but that could only exacerbate the divide in this country.
But, remember, this is more than a political problem. It’s a cultural problem. We can win elections again and again, but that could only exacerbate the divide in this country.
That’s the real nut of the problem. What we’re seeing is an escalation of the Culture wars in America. These people have decided that they are literally at war with forces that want to destroy their culture. That’s why arguing with them based on facts, fairness, logic, science, etc, all of that is doomed to failure because it’s secondary to their perceived existential threat. So what if global climate change is real and man-made? So what if the ultra-rich have constructed a separate economy and system of justice for themselves? These things are still off in the future and won’t matter if we lose white nuclear families and Jesus (and a list of other things).
Technology is also an exacerbating factor. The world and human life is changing at such a rapid pace that even some of us who aren’t threatened by it are still a bit uncomfortable. It gives an even greater sense of urgency to those who fear an imminent erasure of their way of life.
Someone’s probably written a series of books about this already.
Arthur Schlesinger argued that we go through cycles of reform and reaction. After a 30 year cycle of New Deal/Great Society/Civil Rights reform, we entered a transitional phase under a relatively moderate Nixon (domestically) and Carter. Reagan ushered in a 28 year period of conservative ascendancy. Obama seems the harbinger of a new electoral majority.
Yes, race – and more broadly the counterculture assault on the mores and values of white Christian America – was an animating factor in turning ethnic, working class voters and white Southerners into Republicans. But I even under conservative rule, we still see incremental progress from time to time.
Conservatism, by definition, is waging a retrograde action, trying to hold back progress. When progress is especially disruptive, conservatism becomes appealing (see race). But when conservatism becomes too stifling, progress becomes appealing (OWS).
Even when that occurs, it is small compared to all the regressive policies – action or inaction — put in place under conservative rule.
Yes. I’m just getting into Strauss & Howe’s Fourth Turning about the recurring cycles in history, politics and culture. It is fascinating. I have to remind myself to come up and breath every once in a while.
We have been here before. And no, this time is NOT different. Well, kinda, but not really.
The GOP exploited the weakness of Democrats on miltary adventures. How long did we hear the Democrats lost the Korean War, Cuba and lost in Vietnam. Of course under Democrat administration, both wars started.
When the sexual revolution took hold accompanied by rock music and ‘drugs’, and revolutionary events elsewhere around the globe, American conservatives had a field day to change the ‘moral’ direction of America. So we got Nixon (and Watergate), Ford, a momentary lapse of Carter (weak on Iran) and the case was sealed under the Reagan-Bush years.
A pivotal point was the 2000 election, stolen under our noses as we shouldn’t be sore losers.
As I recently commented:
A Barry Goldwater could win the 2016 Presidential Election.
I’m just finishing this book. It deals with student agitation, mostly at Cal Berkeley, and the rise of Ronald Reagan. It’s the fruit of Rosenfeld’s 20 year effort to dislodge government documents through FOIA, looking into the FBI and its domestic surveillance work.
The chapters dealing with Reagan after becoming governor of California are an eerie echo of everything Republicans say over and over again. It’s been 50 years since they had an original idea, yet they maintain their hard nut hegemony over a quarter to a third of the populace.
I recommend the book for pointers on how a political nobody (Reagan) rose through the ranks by toadying, kowtowing, staying on message, and biding his time until he could wield the power to enact the repressive policies that conservatives always have at the ready.