New American Conservatism

[Androme]

This is from the beginning this lengthy article - what are your thoughts on it?

http://trustme.serverselect.net/inde...5&cat=politics

Over the past thirty years, “liberal” has become an increasingly negative term in American mainstream culture. Conservative powers have played on the fears of rural white voters with misinformation and propaganda to unprecedented success (it is my opinion that this era of American politics will be remembered alongside McCarthyism as a time of fear-mongering and deceit). The idea that the GOP are better at making America safe and promoting economic growth, while the Democrats are irresponsible when it comes to the safety and economic security of the nation has permeated the media and the collective perception of the nation. How did conservatism come to dominate the landscape of American political thought?

Perhaps the question that needs to be answered first is: how did the American political landscape shift from Rockefeller Republicans based in the north-east, and “Dixiecrat” Democrats based in the south, to neo-conservative Republicans based in the south, and fiscally conservative, socially progressive Democrats based on the east and west coasts, all within three decades? The Republicans had two congressman and not a single senator in the Southern delegation of 105 in 1950. In 1962, a nation-wide poll asking which party Americans thought would "help Negroes get fair treatment in jobs" showed 27.2% for Democrats, 21.3% for Republicans and the vast majority with no opinion. By '64, 66% identified Democrats as the party who would help promote racial equity, while 7% said Republican. The catalyst for this quick shift was the Civil Rights Act, America’s religiosity, and a man named Barry Goldwater.

When conservatives today complain of liberal bias in the media, they are doing nothing less than engaging in doublethink. However, in the 1968, they may have had a less ridiculous case. There was obviously much popular opposition to many progressive initiatives (such as desegregation), except in certain open-minded areas. In 1964 LBJ pushed Kennedy's Civil Rights Act through Congress despite a filibuster by his fellow southern Democrats. When, in 1954 Strom Thurmond authored the Declaration of Constitutional Principles (informally known as the "Southern Manifesto"), Estes Kefauver, Al Gore Sr., and Lyndon Johnson were the only Southern senators to withhold their signatures (with the gist of the Southern Manifesto being that the Civil Rights movement was a communist-inspired attempt to force miscegenation on the whites of the south). When he ran for President under the third-party Dixiecrat ticket, his racist principles were enough to garner Thurmond 39 electoral college votes (though very little of the nation-wide popular vote). This is just one example of the support that social conservatism (in this case pro-segregation policies had in the South during that time period, and it was not reflected by the California and New York dominated big media. Before LBJ put pen to paper in signing the Civil Rights Act, he is said to have remarked that he was "signing away the South" for a lifetime. Strom Thurmond was another Democratic “loss” of the Civil Rights Act: he joined the Republican party and became a strong supporter of Barry Goldwater’s bid for the presidency of the United States.

"Give me Barry, I won't even have to leave the Oval Office," was JFK's response to a query about potential opponents in 1963. Barry Goldwater may have been a joke of a candidate in terms of his success, but his underlying importance to the new ideologies of American conservatism is incalculable. He was born to a very wealthy family and inherited the family department store chain when he was 20. He left the company after two nervous breakdowns and developing a severe drinking problem. He joined the air force during the Second World War, and by 1945 had advanced to the rank of Brigadier General. Goldwater was up against Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination, and Rockefeller's finances and lineage made a defeat seem unimaginable. But a messy divorce and a speedy marriage to a women known as "Happy" (followed up by Goldwater's slogan of "Do you want a leader or a lover in the White House?) was enough to land Goldwater the nomination. Goldwater was an “interesting” candidate. He suggested using "low-yield atomic weapons as a defoliant" in South Vietnam. He claimed Social Security was "free retirement". He was against the idea of trade unions. He supported “State’s Rights” (which was a nicer way of saying the right to continue segregation). He spoke of exploring the development of the "Davy Crockett", a "small, clean", portable nuclear device that could be used on the battlefield. He voted against the censure of McCarthy in 1954. He would often begin speeches with a list of those he didn’t want to vote for him. He voted against the Anti-Poverty Act of 1964. He was defeated by Johnson by 42,328,350 votes to 26,640,178. Goldwater received 38.8% of the vote and won six states. But what Barry brought the Republicans was a plainspoken, angry, southern white male who liked to talk about how problems are solved through personal responsibility, war, less federal government, and laissez-faire capitalism. However, Goldwater’s most important contribution to the new conservatism was this: despite the fact that Goldwater’s economic policies would have been devastating to low-income families across the nation, much of his strongest support came from the poorest Southern states. He had garnered more of his support on his social conservatism, not his fiscal conservatism. He was a conservative Republican presidential candidates winning hearts, not minds.

Since 1964 the conservative movement has realized that the best way to win someone’s “heart” is by appealing to dogmatic beliefs already engraved in to their minds, so that there is no need to re-indoctrinate them. The most important facet of the new American conservatism is America’s religiosity. Conservatives now regularly appeal to the masses on religion-based social policies, not their free market ideals. A 1997 study by the University of Michigan states that 44% of Americans attend church once a week (not counting funerals, christenings and baptisms), compared with 27% in Great Britain, 21% of the French, 4% of the Swedish, and 3% of the Japanese. Even more revealing is that 53% of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives, compared with 16%, 14%, and 13%, of the British, French and Germans, respectively. Why does this matter? It matters because of the degree to which religion directs voting patterns in the United States. According to the National Survey of Religion and Politics, 68% of people who attended church “more than once a week” voted for Bush in 2000. He was supported by 58% of those who attended “every week”, 41% of those who went “every month”, 40% of those who went “a few times a year”, 39% of those who went “seldom”, and 35% of those who went “never”. Gore’s statistics are obviously roughly inverted with 65% of those who went “never”, etc. Republican stances on “values” and social issues can guarantee them the support of devout Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, and many Orthodox Jews. The only exception is that religiosity-based voting patterns seem to apply only to white voters. Black (and to a lesser extent, Hispanic) voters are generally reliably Democratic, regardless of their church-going schedule. However, to a huge segment of the population, Bush’s stance on gay marriage, abortion, and “family values” will be more important than the economy and the occupation of Iraq. In no other nation can you find working-class people casting votes that are causing themselves more financial distress, only because of their firm opposition to gay marriage or some other religious-based social issue.

The last secret to conservative success has been thoroughly described by linguist George Lakoff of Berkeley. Lakoff contends that liberalism is being defeated by “framing”. Before explaining what he means by that, there is need for some background information. There are many “think-tanks” around the United States ranging from relatively liberal to firmly conservative. The biggest think tanks are actually the more “liberal” organizations, but they devote much of their efforts to international aid work. The largest “liberal” think tank, the Ford Foundation (yes, it was founded by that Ford) has goals to “strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement”. Admirable goals, though not particularly involved in the strengthening of domestic liberalism. On the other hand are the “new conservative” organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Foundation, and The Project for the New American Century. The goals of PNAC are listed as:

-we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
-we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
-we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
-we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

This is quoted directly from their “mission statement” which was subsequently signed by many close to the Bush Administration, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, I. Lewis Libby, and a dozen other conservative figures. The point of this being, conservative think tanks are far more driven to change government policy than any liberal think tank. Now, back to George Lakoff. To simply explain conservative “framing”, here is a quote from an interview in the Berkeley Newspaper (around the time of the California recall):

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame. If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.

Lakoff’s favourite example is “tax relief”. Conservatives always call a tax cut “tax relief””. In order for there to be relief, there has to be an affliction. And only bad people would oppose relieving an affliction. So Democrats opposed to tax cuts are suddenly opposed to relieving the affliction of taxes. When debating you’ll hear conservatives ask, “Are you saying you do not support giving our troops the proper equipment?” to somebody who voted against increased military budgets, and that is framing. This is the key to conservative success in debates, because success is measured in political debates by how many voters you convince, and subliminal techniques like “framing” are undeniably compelling.

The old conservatives based their support on free market policy, small government, and anti-interventionism, and the new American conservative bases his vote on religion, social conservatism, and militarism. I personally find the new conservatism to be a much more frightening force than it’s predecessor.

Quotes, facts, statistics blatantly stolen from a variety of sources.

[Qdeathstar]

Over the past thirty years, “liberal” has become an increasingly negative term in American mainstream culture. Conservative powers have played on the fears of rural white voters with misinformation and propaganda to unprecedented success (it is my opinion that this era of American politics will be remembered alongside McCarthyism as a time of fear-mongering and deceit). The idea that the GOP are better at making America safe and promoting economic growth, while the Democrats are irresponsible when it comes to the safety and economic security of the nation has permeated the media and the collective perception of the nation. How did conservatism come to dominate the landscape of American political thought?

Actually, conservatism has spread far beyone rural white america to include Immigrants, blacks and hispanics. Also, hispanics are the fastest growing voting population, which AT LEAST plays a role in American Politics.

The idea that the Republicans are better at protection and safety comes from the days after 9/11 when president Bush stood obove the rubble and gave an excellent speach that made america "feel warm and safe" in days of cold fear. In addition, Bush has made it clear that he WONT wait for a permission slip to go to war to defend america, while on the other hand Liberal america has said that we have to wait to get the worlds approval and that we have to respect our allies in old europe. Maybe america just isnt comfortable about waiting around for the UN to get its act together.

I think for the most part, people think that republicans are better handiling the economy because republicans favor lower taxes, and a filter down economy. PLus, in the past, most recoveries regarding American economic recoveries (including the recovery from the 2000-2001 recession) occur durring a republican term. Its not fair to say that deficit=bad economy, because thats not the case in the short/mid term.

Also after a decade of liberal policies, with a democrat in office, it shouldnt be supprising at all that america has gotten over "liberalism" and now wants a more conservative government. The wants of america will change, and so will its leadership, like a pendulum.

When conservatives today complain of liberal bias in the media, they are doing nothing less than engaging in doublethinkp

Are you kidding me? There are numerous cases where it can be clear that the media has liberal bias. For one, the media recently did "bush's deciets in his acceptance speach" which normally would be fine, but when it was checked to see if the same thing was done for kerry, guess what, no such thing. Michael Moore is a PART of the media, and how can you say that that ISNT HEAVY LIBERAL BIAS. Chris Mathews accosts(sp) rebulicans as well as democrats that dont stick up for everything kerry does. So, that statement in itsself makes it clear that this guy is so far left, he doenst know what he is talking about. Every liberal accuses Fox news of being conservative... but really, is the only opposition voice in the media.

Also, to say that the main reason america votes republican is because it is religious is unfounded and irresponsible. I for one, am an athiest, i dissagree with bush regarding stem cells, and the ABSOLUTE abolishment of abortion. However, because adoption is a viable alternative to abortion, i am against the murder of babies that are already in there third trimester and CAN BREATH ON THERE OWN. SO, partial birth/late-term abortion bands are fine with me. THe mother had enough time to decide what to do. If she doesnt want the baby, let it be given to someone who does.

As for the so called framing...

1. Liberals in america to it just as much
2. For the most part, Liberals and conservatives have the same general goals, just different ideas who how it should be done.
3. If you voted against increased military budgets which fund specific items (such as bullet proof vests, increased pay, and weaponry, then as a result you are against supporting out troops, because with out money they cant pay for the things that need, and if you dont have the thinks you need, you arnt being supported. (ie Kerry did this)

"The old conservatives based their support on free market policy, small government, and anti-interventionism, and the new American conservative bases his vote on religion, social conservatism, and militarism."

ANd lastly, not only is his conclusion wrong, but he doenst support it at all based on examples, statistics or other data. Instead, it has just been said

Of course, he does talk about the statitistics of how many people go to church, but then makes conclusions that cant be substantiated. HE makes them, without provided data, sources to back them up. And, blacks and Hispanics are nutoriously against gay-marriage... regardless of there party affiliation.

Its a poorly written ubstantiated peice. (its grammer is good, its propaganda is fair, but its content on the basis of fact, (which would have been sourced) is lacking).

3/10.

Remember you asked for an opinion, not an essay, some people like to say "you spelled family wrong its family not famly, so your wrong"... ::rolls eyes::

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The idea that the Republicans are better at protection and safety comes from the days after 9/11 when president Bush stood obove the rubble and gave an excellent speach that made america "feel warm and safe" in days of cold fear.

Not really. The idea that Republicans are "better" at defence goes back way further than this. Reagan played on it heavily (missile gaps, etc) and arguably it was present before hand too (back to possibly even Kennedy).

[Vaio]

I like the bit about the princess

~Vaio~

[Timeline]

Do they live happily ever after?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Not really. The idea that Republicans are "better" at defence goes back way further than this. Reagan played on it heavily (missile gaps, etc) and arguably it was present before hand too (back to possibly even Kennedy).

Kennedy campaigned strongly on closing the "missile gap" but ofc he was a Democrat. The Democrats always used to be the party pushing a strong(er) military but they gradually abandoned that position in the 60s and 70s.

Reagan was really the first Republican President who made a strong national defense a high priority.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Do they live happily ever after?

OK, I admit it, I didn't read any of it

~Vaio~

[Timeline]

Neither did i. Saw the words 'liberal', 'american' and 'conservative' in the first two lines and my brain shut down.

[Vaio]

There isn't even a picture of Davy Crockett's hat

~Vaio~

[Timeline]

Originally Posted by Vaio

There isn't even a picture of Davy Crockett's hat

~Vaio~

lol. Do you think there will be an idiots guide to american politics released soon, with pictures and everything. sorry they've released it already.....its the Dubya portfolio for re-election.

[Androme]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

.......

When I've finished reading the article I'm gonna respond to your lengthy reply - heh.

What is it with politics and responses to politics being really long :|

[Qdeathstar]

Not really. The idea that Republicans are "better" at defence goes back way further than this. Reagan played on it heavily (missile gaps, etc) and arguably it was present before hand too (back to possibly even Kennedy).

hmm... i thought this essay was talking about the New American conservatism... with regards to the post 9.11 era...

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

hmm... i thought this essay was talking about the New American conservatism... with regards to the post 9.11 era...

I think the essay is talking about how the roots of the new American conservatism date back to Barry Goldwater; or something. The essay isn't very well written, imho.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I think the essay is talking about how the roots of the new American conservatism date back to Barry Goldwater; or something. The essay isn't very well written, imho.

I just wanted to quote Tactitus because he was (maybe still is) the Planetarion God of Tactics.

I read the whole article. I'm not sure what his point is, but I'm not going to read it again.

The idiots' guide to U.S. politics is anything produced by Michael Moore.

[Marilyn Manson]

The article is pretty piss-poor, and is more of a brain-storming session than a true article or argument. There is no attempt to show that Goldwater directly influenced mainstream Republicanism; indeed, Goldwater went down a drubbing nationally, and his 'Neo-Liberal' principles were not accepted even in part by the Republican Party's mainstream until Reagan came along, which is to say, fifteen or more years later. Much like Enoch Powell, his ideas were dismissed by the mainstream at the time, and it's difficult to ascertain what direct influence, if any, they had on the later move towards Neo-Liberalism under Thatcher and Reagan.

Equally, this shift to the right has taken place in the whole western world, not just America. Britain being the best example of this. How do this relate to it all?

Also, His argument is disjointed. What precisely is he arguing for? What determines voting patterns? Why American Conservatism has changed over the last fifty years? Frankly, it's a jumble.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Reagan played on it heavily (missile gaps, etc) and arguably it was present before hand too (back to possibly even Kennedy).

I'd argue that it had it's inception in the Eisenhower period. Look at the juxtapoisition of Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, for example - even if the Republicans didn't altogether consciously recognise the potential to exploit such a division at the time.

[Qdeathstar]

Androme... i thought you were going to respond.. i was looking forward to it.

[Superpig #1]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Neither did i. Saw the words 'liberal', 'american' and 'conservative' in the first two lines and my brain shut down.

[Qdeathstar]

like usual...

[madi]

i dont know anything about american politics which might have influenced me but it wasnt a good read

[Androme]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Androme... i thought you were going to respond.. i was looking forward to it.

With a right-wing opinion like yours, do you expect me to?

Goldwater was not quite as simple as portrayed here. He was not a racist in the manner in which he is most often painted. He was actually responsible for the desegregation of the Arizona National Guard, and in the last 15+ years of his life, he was a pro Gay rights activist of sorts. He was however, staunchy libertarian to the point of almost chronically in a state of anger. He had a very Jeffersonian view of the world (although taken to somewhat paranoid extremes, given the tenor of the times) and he never shifte from that.

He had very respectful relationships (many have even termed friendships) with prominent Democrats (most notably JFK, and D. Moynihan, for whom they- Goldwater and Moynihan- both served up equal amounts of vitriol to Ronald Reagan involving violations of the Boland Agreements/Iran-Contra). Goldwater in his later years was also a rabid critic of the same conservative movement he arguably founded, because he thought the Religious Right was garbage. He was quite vocal in his dislike for folks like Phyllis Schafly and Jerry Falwell.

[Qdeathstar]

whta does that have to do with what i said?

[Androme]

Nothing. Re-read my 1st line.

[Qdeathstar]

oh, well because i would like to have a discussion... :-) I dont particually mind when people say im wrong, as long as they can back it up....

[Androme]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

oh, well because i would like to have a discussion... :-) I dont particually mind when people say im wrong, as long as they can back it up....

next time post a left-wing response - right-wing responses usually end up in flaming and it's quite clear I would win*


*backed up by the statement: I said so

[Qdeathstar]

you would only when, becuase most of the cronies here are left wing, and winning is judged not on fact, but instead on how many votes you get. ;-0

I'm the author of this article, just wanted to make a few notes and clear some things up.

First, I just threw this together in an hour and a half for my friend's webpage. There's obviously huge holes such as 90% of the backing information, a thesis, and a conclusion. But I was writing it for fun, and it hasn't been reworked or edited at all. Like somebody commented, it's more of a "brainstorm".

Second, I'm Canadian, so I don't advocate Democrats or Republicans. I'm more leftist than Democrats. Please don't mistake this as an article trying to further the cause of the Democratic party or their candidates. (Though if I were an American citizen, I would clearly vote Kerry.)

Lastly, the gist of my article was meant to be this:
"Liberal" used to be a relatively positive word. Now, "liberal" is relatively negative to many Americans outside of LA and Manhattan. Why?
Because:
a) social conservatives despise progressive stances on social issues such as (in the past) desegregation, abortion, gay marriage, the environment, gun control, etc.. (I tried to give a few examples as to the power of social conservatism over American voters.)
b)"The new conservatism" garners more of it support from social issues and personal values than on economic issues. Barry Goldwater was used as the first example of the conservative winning votes from Southern states based on his opposition to social liberalism.
c) mainstream religious groups are the primary advocates of social conservatism, and because the church-going demographic is huge in the US compared to elsewhere, that makes religiosity a huge factor for conservative American politicans to buy in to.
d) American "think tanks" and other organizations are much more driven to influence policy than so-called "liberal think tanks". Conservative organizations devote a huge amount of their energies to define the "framework" that a debate will take place within compared to liberal organizations.
e) George Dubya scares the shit out of me.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by temp

"Liberal" used to be a relatively positive word. Now, "liberal" is relatively negative to many Americans outside of LA and Manhattan. Why?

Because the term has become largely stigmatised. It's much the same in Britain with 'Socialist'; no mainstream politician of any standing would call themselves 'Socialist' today, (Although 'Socialist' is a largely redundant term in British politics anyway, whereas 'Liberal' is frequently used by the American right to bash the Democratic Party with, but anyway.) Except perhaps Tony Benn, and a few other Labour politicians of the 70's and 80's.

I'm not really sure how you could determine how the term has acquired it's present connotations; whether it's been the success of the right in creating it as a term of abuse, or the failure of the Democrats to defend it, willingly or unwillingly - 'Liberal' is an easy term by which many Democrats can now distance themselves from to give the electorate and impression of what they stand for - "I'm a Democrat, but not an extremist", is what distancing yourself from the term 'Liberal' conveys, essentially.