New Yorker article: "The Fall of Conservatism"

I just read a great article by George Packer in the latest issue of the New Yorker.  He discusses the rise and fall of the conservative movement, and its implications for John McCain's candidacy.

Here's a tantalizing quote from Pat Buchanan:

"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

Follow me for more under the fold.

I encourage everyone to read the full article, which is full of food for thought:

http://www.newyorker.com/...

Packer talks about the beginnings of the movement, under Goldwater and Nixon.  It aimed at those Americans alienated from the 60's counterculture.  We all remember Nixon's famous appeal to the "silent majority."  Packer paints an evocative picture of Nixon in a strategy session, when he was organizing his presidential bid.  He planned to divide the democratic party by appealing to the resentments of "ordinary" Americans.  He planned on appealing to patriotism and ordinariness, but he was actually tapping into a profound anger, an anger that has always fueled the conservative movement.

Nixon claimed to speak on behalf of "the nonshouters, the nondemonstrators," but the cigar smokers in that South Carolina hotel were intoxicated with hate.

In fact, conservatism was a reactive movement--one based on a negative rather than a positive--and it remains so to this day.  The movement has gotten most of its mileage (far more than should have been possible) from simply demonizing what it is not:  immoral liberalism.  "We're not crazy hippies--vote for us!"

Only one problem:  when you're charge, as the Republicans have been for years, defining yourself as the opposition doesn't work so well.  Packer sums up the rise and fall of the movement nicely:

The fact that the least conservative, least divisive Republican in the 2008 race is the last one standing—despite being despised by significant voices on the right—shows how little life is left in the movement that Goldwater began, Nixon brought into power, Ronald Reagan gave mass appeal, Newt Gingrich radicalized, Tom DeLay criminalized, and Bush allowed to break into pieces.

Of course this brings us now to McCain.  The fact that Republicans nominated McCain at all shows they know they are in trouble.  This is the opposite of Karl Rove's strategy of winning elections by motivating the base.

Packer says that McCain, because of his "maverick" status, might be the only Republican with a snowball's chance in hell of winning in November.  Packer is more positive about McCain's chances than I am (perhaps it's because he just spent a lot of time in Kentucky).  

McCain is in an awkward place.  He is forced to walk a line between appealing to the independents who have loved him in the past, and placating what remains of the conservative base.  How successful this dance will be depends on how closely voters are paying attention---and, of course, this is where we come in.

•  Tips

  by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM PDT

  •  Great article!

    I just read it last night - I think Packer did a good job as usual, though I agree with the commenter below about the weird McCain plug - it left a bad taste in my mouth. The End is Near!

    Nicely done summary and diary! Tipped and rec'd.

    by pacotrey on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:11:53 PM PDT

    •  I know!

      The first 2/3rds of the article lulled me into a happy daze of "there's no way Obama can lose" and so the ending was like a dash of cold water in the face.

      I like to listen to the weekly audio of various New Yorker writers discussing the presidential race, and last week Packer was saying many of the same things about McCain he says in this article.  He said that McCain will run as a non-Repulican Republican, almost a third party.  He even said that Obama needs to stop tying him to Bush, because it won't work.  But what I have seen of McCain is that he is far more trapped by the right than that, and Obama is doing just the right thing.

      by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:26:18 PM PDT

      •  For anyone who wants to listen to the audio

        they put up a new one each week and it's always worth a listen.  This is the one I just referred to:

        http://www.newyorker.com/...

        by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM PDT

•  I Don't Believe for One Second That Conservatism

  as it first appeared bore any resemblance to what its leadership actually wanted.

  I think today and beyond is what they've intended. It's just that at first they were totally boxed in by a liberal populace, journalistic press, strong labor and comfortable middle class.

  I haven't bothered to study Goldwater in much detail (though I was politically aware in his day) but it's absolutely a mathematical certainty that, given Reagan, we cannot possibly avoid W and the prosecution-proof criminal presidency for very long.

  Much the same applies to Nixon, who more than Reagan with his propaganda machine was really hemmed in by his liberal nation.

  I think from the moment some corporatists decided to try to oust FDR in a coup, from that moment forward the conservative movement has been about terminating democratic economy and governance by the people.

  Sure individual figures believed the koolaid they were peddling, especially lower down the command chain, but as to the movement overall I'm going to need a shipload of convincing to change my mind.

  by Gooserock on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:53:44 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    I think it took this long for the conservative movement to realize its vision, and, perhaps more importantly, for voters to realize that this is all conservatism has to offer.  Under George Bush, the right crushed the opposition so thoroughly that voters know exactly who to blame for the state of the country.  And it isn't the liberals.

    by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM PDT

•  The NY article was great except

  for the gratuitous plug for McCain at the very end, hinting that he just might be the one Republican who could win this year.  It was a weird departure from the analytical tone of the rest of the piece.

  by beagledad on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM PDT

  •  I know, I didn't like that either

    but I just figured I disagreed with Packer on how strong a candidate McCain is.  I wouldn't go so far to call it a "plug" but Packer clearly feels McCain has a strong chance.

    by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:02:00 PM PDT

•  Alternate theory

  I read the article too. It is very good.

  I have an alternate theory to explain the current state of conservatism: All the low fruit has been picked and the conservatives are thrashing about trying to figure out to where to move their shell games.

  Recall what Buchanan is quoted as paraphrasing:

  "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

  It seems to me this is the best explanation for the current state of conservatism. The rackets have already sucked all the riches they can out of every place they have taken over. Look at major problems we have: Health care crisis, rising energy prices; global warming; corporate malfeasance of multiple stripes (such as the mortgage crisis), war mongering/profiteering, etc. In each case, conservatives and their corporate overlords have stripped the carcasses bare.

  I would wager that there are plenty of conservatives in boardrooms across this land who view their "movement" as being immensely successful. The only question they must settle now is where to get the highest return on their riches.

  by chapel hill guy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM PDT

  •  Interesting theory

    One I hadn't thought of.  If the rich guys who the conservative movement largely benefited don't have anything left to plunder, they might feel the movement has outlived its usefulness.  Eek, that's cynical ... but not necessarily untrue for all that.

    by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:05:16 PM PDT

  •  Buchanan is right because he came to power

    in the Nixon era. What he said could have easily applied to the Democratic Party in 1968. More than anyone he realizes how the coalition that sustained Nixon and Reagan has grown stale and is no longer responsive to the electorate that first catapulted it into office.

    by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:38:03 PM PDT

•  The movement can't expire fast enough

  to undo the damage that has been wrought by 28 years of awful Republican rule. Even the Clinton years were marked by Republican obstruction, distraction and redirection of all legislative initiatives to benefit wealthy corporations.

   What the conservatives managed to do in essence is kill the middle class and eliminate them as a force in American politics. Along with dumbing down the schools to produce dysfunctional graduates that lack basic literacy, they have outsourced most jobs that pay a living wage (which now isn't working due to profiteering by big oil).  

  The real question is who to blame, the evil Republicans or the dumb Americans who fail to vote in favor of their own economic interests. This country is doomed if  McCain succeeds.

  by phree on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM PDT

  •  "Dumb Americans who fail to vote in favor of

    their economic interests"

    I have to take exception to that comment. Calling other Americans dumb because they didn't support our agenda isn't going to help our cause. And it is attitudes like yours that have made the Democratic brand (and progressive/liberal politics in general) radioactive in all too many precincts in this country.

    It is the Democrats' fault for not effectively communicating their vision to these voters and develop policies that addressed their needs. But assuming that most Americans are "dumb" is why many Americans won't even listen to Democrats.

    by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM PDT

    •  It is not ad hominem to call people dumb

      when they do stupid things.  This isn't some wonky debate about the democratic agenda.  Not taking care of your own survival needs (e.g., voting in your best economic interest) because you support a pack of violent oil barons is dumb. If you voted for Bush in 2004 after having heard the former Bush appointed Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, decry policies that were backrupting the middle class and describe the pre-9/11 rush to war with Iraq, you are not an intellectual giant.

      In addition, believing the fallacy and fear-based arguments mixed with outright factual lies, material that right wing commentators thrive on, is indeed not evidence of intelligence. In fact, it signals that American schools graduate persons unable to execute even the most basic critical thinking skills, i.e., separating fact from fiction. The fact is that the Democratic party put forth its agenda in 2004 and could not dumb it down enough for the electorate to understand. They also did not fight the Swiftboaters with concise direct counterattacks.

       On the necessity of the Iraq war that still drains our economy and destabilizes oil markets (which is very profitable for oil barons), the evidence was solid and countered Bush - Cheney claims at every turn.  Yet, most Americans could not understand the serious nature of the charges or comprehend that they were suitable for impeachment.  Richard Clarke backs O'Neill's account and now the big liar McClellan tells the same story. Colin Powell resigned due to embarassment/guilt. Let's face it: anyone who believed in the Bush agenda as a path to prosperity and peace for the working man was indeed a fool.

      by phree on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:01:29 PM PDT

•  The fall of Conservatism

  can also be chalked up to the Democrats finally using a 50-state strategy.  Read Crashing the Gate!

  by jackandjill on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM PDT

  •  Obama's whole strategy

    has been perfect, in my opinion.  In addition to the 50-state strategy, he has taken back the narrative, so that he is the one with the coherent set of ideas, and the Republicans have to react to his framing.  It's wonderful.

    I will definitely read "Crashing the Gate," if it is about the 50 state strategy.  Thanks for the recommendation.

    by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:29:23 PM PDT

    •  I'd be happy to send you my copy

      email me if you are interested.  renee0467 at gmail dot com

      by jackandjill on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM PDT

      •  I will, thanks! n/t

        by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:02:51 PM PDT

•  Great article. Thx for writing it up! n/t

  by followyourbliss on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:21:15 PM PDT

•  The GOP is where the Democrats were in 1968

  Much like the Democratic Party of 1968, the GOP is at the end of the era. I've literally argued this point in several posts, but I'll say it again. The key to understanding where conservativism is now is to look at where liberalism stood in 1968.

  By 1968 the conditions that had propelled the Democrats to power in 1932 were no longer present. The conditions that laid the groundwork for the New Deal were much different than the dynamics of the Great Society. By 1968 the New Deal Coalition had become what it sought to replace: an inefficient government incapable of handling major problems. The unrest in America's cities, the backlash over the civil rights movement, Vietnam, the counterculture, crime, and economic stagnation, and opposition to the Great Society laid the groundwork for the coalition that propelled Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes to the White House.

  And that coalition lasted for the better part of the next 24 years. Only Watergate slowed down America's turn to the right. Americans rejected the post-Great Society liberalism that post-1968 Democrats offered resoundingly. That is why they rejected Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Duakakis. That is why the voters elected Ronald Reagan and denied Jimmy Carter a second term.  And that is why, during that 24 year period, the Republicans won five out of those six presidential elections, four of those wins being more than 40 state landslides, and two of those four being 49 state wipeouts.

  By the early 1990s, however, 1968 was a distant memory. In 1992, with the economy suffering, Clinton broke through the GOP's domination of the Electoral College. Although I had thought that his victory signaled a political realignment, in hindsight, it looks like he was the Eisenhower of the era. He served to bring back the white suburbanites who had left the party. He brought back states like CT, NJ, IL, MI, PA, NH, and CA to the Democratic Party. He had significant opportunities to make a new political realignment, but he failed.

  Clinton's first two years were disastrous, which led to the resurgence of the GOP with the Republican Revolution. And while most Americans eventually turned against Gingrich during the government shutdown, much like Watergate, two events bought the Republicans a few more electoral cycles: the impeachment and 9/11. Even though Americans didn't want government totally undermined, didn't hate government employees, and wanted popular programs improved, not destroyed, the Republicans were able to hold on because of Clinton's mistakes and 9/11.

  But even those events bought the GOP more time, they failed to notice what was happening around them. One key trend that the GOP ignored throughout the 1990s because they were winning formerly Democratic districts in the south was their party's erosion in America's suburbs. While Democrats fared poorly in many of the House races of the late 1990s and early 2000s they quietly began winning races in formerly 2-1 suburban districts that voted 2-1 for Bush Sr as late as 1988. In places like Long Island and suburban Philadelphia the Democrats quietly won Hous districts.

  9/11 enabled them to buy more time with the 2002 and 2004 cycles. But in 2006 the first signs of final breakage occurred. 2006 resembled the 1966 cycle in many ways. While the GOP fared best in the deep south and Plains, in other parts of the country, they lost ground. They lost the key Senate races and lost more suburban districts.

  2008 looks a lot like 1968. America is caught in an unpopular war in Iraq. Back after 9/11 I stated that, eventually, the public would lose patience with endless war. America also witnessed the (lack of effective governmental) response to the tragedy associated with Katrina, the first major disaster since 9/11. Bush used his "political capital" after the 2004 to try to push the privatization of Social Security, which America rebuked. All of those policies received pushback from the American public, much like they turned against the Great Society.

  The GOP is back where the Democrats were in 1968. The American public is no longer angry over civil unrest in the major cities. They no longer care about welfare queens, for most social welfare programs are under control. They no longer resent a wasteful government to the extent that they once did. They are no longer angry over a counterculture that is out of control.

  Conservatism has probably been dead since as early as 1992. 9/11 and the Lewinsky impeachment bought it a few more electoral cycles. However, going into 2008, the environment looks a lot like it did in 1968.

  by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:45 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the historical insight

    I have a friend who is a history buff and we talk a lot about the election and how we believe we are on the cusp of a new era.

    Anyway, my friend also draws parallels between now and the 50s and 60s.  He said that before Goldwater, Republicans defined themselves as "Democrat-lite," rather like the DLC types in the 90's and today.  Goldwater reacted against that, and even though he lost, he was the first pebble in the water for the changeover in power.  Nixon, and especially Reagan, were Goldwater's heirs.

    Today, I like to think that Dean was our Goldwater.  He didn't win or even get the nomination, but he was the first serious contender to say, "Let's not be Bush-lite, let's stand for something."  And I hope Obama will find the success that Dean did not.

    by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM PDT

    •  The DLC served a key role

      The DLC was a necessary force in the Democratic Party back in the late 1980s and the 1990s. The DLC's mandate was to make the Democratic Party attractive again to white working class suburbanites who had left the party over crime, welfare, social programs, and taxes. They succeed in marginalizing Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, the Rainbow Coalition, Al Sharpton, NOW, NARAL, the ACLU, and other single-issue left-wing groups that were undermining the party.

      However, once the DLC achieved its mandate, it became useless. Once it achieved its goal in making the Democratic Party brand attractive in suburbia again, it was unable to develop a new vision for the party. And that is why it foundered after Clinton left office. While I supported the DLC 20 years ago, it is clear that they became what they sought to replace: an ineffective party structure incapable of winning key elections.

      The Republicans need their own version of the DLC. But they are not ready yet to admit that they have a problem. Much like the Democrats, who allowed the far left to ruin the party for many cycles after 1968, so too the GOP will allow the remnants of the far right to dominate their party. Eventually, though, they'll develop their own equivalent of the DLC to make the GOP brand attractive to voters who turned against it. But they're several cycles away yet from realizing their problems. And the worst has yet to happen to them.

      by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:12:34 PM PDT

      •  Good point about the DLC

        They succeeded in making the Democratic brand mainstream again, which paved the way for today.  I get so annoyed with the DLC today that I forget what they did for the party.  Thanks.

        by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:38:29 PM PDT

        •  They were necessary twenty years ago

          After the Mondale and Dukakis landslide losses it was clear that a vast majority of Americans, including many Democrats, didn't trust the Party with control of the White House. The DLC brought back the suburban, working class Democrats who had defected to Nixon and Reagan back. Once they achieved that mandate, however, they were unable to redefine their mission and became obsolete.

          The DLC brought back white working class voters in places like suburban Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, and NY to the Democratic Party. They neutralized the party's disadvantages on issues like crime, taxes, and welfare.

          by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM PDT

  •  That would make a good diary!

    Plus then you could link to your analysis instead of re-writing it in multiple comments.

    by SciVo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM PDT

    •  It would be several diaries and probably

      a book.

      by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM PDT

  •  I've discussed this with you before

    but there is one big difference it seems.  
    In 1968, the country elected Richard Nixon, a man who was a political opportunist, yet a shrewd political operator, (and a crook), but one who primarily was interested in power.  He had no problem in using incendiary language against his opponents, while at the same time moving to the left on economics.  
    Hillary Clinton fits the mold of Nixon very well, almost to a T.
    The likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama does not.  He is more like Reagan, a powerful idealistic speaker who speaks fluently about the greatness of America, with grand hopes for the country (whether or not they can be delivered.) Reagan cared more about his ideas and agenda more than he did about simply power.

    I'm not sure Reagan would have beaten Humphrey in 1968,  maybe he would without Wallace, and if it is really 1968, we may be in trouble.  On the other hand, neither Reagan or Obama has the impression of being a political opportunist or crook, so if Obama gets in, he will move the country.  

    My feel is that we are 1980.

    by IhateBush on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:40:05 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      Obama is really quite liberal, but he does it in such a way that conservatives don't feel alienated. Reagan had the ability to do that as well. He was way far out on the right, in some ways, but he had an appealing and sunny personality.

      by metal prophet on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:12:42 PM PDT

  •  I disagree to some extent

    America has generally held pretty positive views of New Deal and even Great Society programs, despite decades of Republican propagandizing against them. Polling I've seen from Pew Research indicates this. I also recall there being some poll that showed that Mondale was preferred on most of the issues by about 3:2 over Reagan. But Reagan was a far stronger campaigner and managed to make the focus be on the few issues where he had the advantage.

    by metal prophet on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:08:00 PM PDT

    •  Americans didn't resent government programs

      but they didn't want unlimited welfare either. They also resented paying taxes for social programs that didn't benefit them.

      by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:19:02 PM PDT

    •  And the other thing is that the electorate

      distrusted the party on law and order issues. They didn't think that the Democrats were either willing to and/or able to handle criminal behavior. They thought that the Democrats were too "permissive" on crime, all too willing to rationalize criminals' actions being due to "racism" and "poverty".

      by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:25:54 PM PDT

•  I read this article on the plane the other day

  I give it maybe a B for insight.

  One thing that I think is important that was missed is that Conservatism, as practiced in America for the past 40 years, is not so much a coherent philosophy as an inherent contradictory bundle of reactions.  It is internally inconsistent.

  Conservatives thought they were for 'states rights.'  But then when states started legalizing gay marriage and assisted suicide they weren't anymore.  They were supposedly for 'limited government.'  But then when they were in power they were for maximal government and maximum control over people.  They are against welfare, unless you call it something else and it goes to help white families with 18 kids.  And so on.

  See, what conservatives are actually for is enriching themselves and the people who they consider to be like them, and controlling everyone else.  That's it.  If government frustrates that, they are anti-government.  If government furthers that, they are pro-government.  You can replace 'government' with any word and it holds true for conservatism.

  In the end, a movement without a coherent philosophy is destined to break down into its many contradictory parts.  That's why they are flailing right now.  

  That's also why I encourage the liberal/progressive movement to coalesce around a succint philosophy as the pendulum swings our way.  Mine is this:  "I am for personal freedom, justice, enlightened ethical self interest, scientific and techological progress, environmental sustainability, and oppose all tyrany over the mind of man."

  by fizziks on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:49:09 PM PDT

  •  The article certainly gives short shrift

    to the business and corporate interests of the Republican party.

    I think the article is focused mainly on how the "message" of conservatism is experienced by voters.  And that I think is a little more coherent.  We're the party of moral values, patriotism, etc., especially as defined against liberalism.  

    I think that with the passage of time, and now there two generations growing up post-60's, there is no longer the anger against liberals, i.e. hippies, that there was.  Without as much of that anger to tap into, Republicans need to find something else to appeal to.

    by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:15:20 PM PDT

•  My favorite quote

  Today, if you’re not rich or Southern or born again, the chances of your being a Republican are not great.

  Don't think that quite covers everyone like some of the wingnuts who are none of the above.

  by dotsright on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM PDT

•  GOP candidates have a problem

  They have to appeal enough to the crazies to get nominated, they have to keep the great majority of them on board and persuade a chunk of the sane voting population that they're sane.

  Looks like the wheels are coming off.

  by alizard on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:55:41 PM PDT

  •  The same problem that the Democrats faced

    in the Nixon/Reagan era. If we were here 20-30 years ago your statement would read instead":

    "Democratic candidates have a problem:

    They have to appeal enough to the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, welfare mothers, ACLU, criminal defense attorneys, feminist activists, abortion activists, environmentalists, organized labor, and other far left groups. They have to keep enough of them on board and then persuade a chunk of the sane, non-far left voting population, not part of their activist base, that they're 'sane'. Looks like the wheels are coming off".

    by oceanstar17 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM PDT

    •  Ha ha! This is so true! n/t

      by marypickford on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:12:26 PM PDT