Posted on 07/04/2004 11:13:36 AM PDT by tpaine
Daniel Sneider
There is a fine tradition of Europeans explaining America to itself. The most famous example of this is the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville's two-volume masterpiece, ``Democracy in America,´´ written during the 1830s. ``The Right Nation,´´ by two British journalists, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, may not be nearly so enduring a classic. Nor does it match de Tocqueville´s profound insights into American life. But it does offer a journey into American political life that is rich in reporting and provocative in its analysis.
``This book is both a portrait and an argument,´´ write the authors, both of whom hail from the Economist magazine´s Washington bureau.
The portrait is of an America, the ``Right Nation,´´ in which a well-organized, intellectually vibrant conservative movement has displaced an earlier era of liberal dominance. The argument is that American conservatism is exceptional, distinct from its European ideological cousins. This explains, the authors say, why the United States itself is so different.
The portrait is by far the most compelling aspect of this book. The authors offer readers a history of post-war American politics that has sweep and detail. They begin in Colorado Springs, a suburban sprawl south of Denver that combines the three main strands of the conservative movement: religiosity, patriotism and hostility to government.
Colorado Springs is the headquarters of Focus on the Family, a ministry and a charity promoting Christian traditional values, and a powerful player in the Christian right. It is also the home of the Air Force Academy and a favorite locale for military retirees. Finally, Colorado Springs is a stronghold of libertarians, the anti-government, anti-tax brand of conservatism that is closely associated with the American West.
Micklethwait and Wooldridge do not contend that all of the United States looks like Colorado Springs. But they do come down clearly on the side of those who believe that it represents an American majority that is gaining strength. This is the American heartland, the land of single-family suburban home-dwellers and NASCAR fans in pickup trucks. The urban, latte-drinking left-wing enclaves of coastal America, most prominently represented for the authors by San Francisco, are not part of the Right Nation.
The right stuff
This explains, the authors write, ``why George W. Bush is in the White House, why the Republican Party has won six of the past nine presidential elections and controls both houses of Congress, why every serious Democratic candidate for president supports mandatory sentencing and welfare reform, why the cultural capitals of Hollywood and Manhattan remain the exception and why the much disdained `flyover´ land that lies between them is the rule.´´
Conservatives have eclipsed the liberals, the authors say, because they have understood that values, not narrow economic interests, drive political identity in the United States. Income levels and class provide a poor guide to voting behavior. The most reliable predictor of whether voters cast their ballot for the GOP is whether they regularly attend church.
Conservatives have also become more closely identified with patriotism and the military, an ongoing legacy of the seizure of the Democratic Party by its left wing in the wake of the Vietnam War debacle. When it comes to economics, the anti-tax message of conservatives plays to an American sense of optimism and belief that they too will be rich one day -- the authors report that a third of all Americans hold that view.
The authors date the beginning of the triumph of the Right Nation in 1964, the year of Barry Goldwater's disastrous bid for the presidency. They credit Goldwater with beginning an intellectual renaissance among conservatives, who organized new think tanks and journals to challenge liberal dogma such as the belief in the welfare state. Conservatives also showed a penchant for organization and mobilization, aided by movements such as the religious right and talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.
The authors repeatedly emphasize -- to their European readers most of all -- how different this conservative movement is from anything else in the world. The emphasis on values, on religious moralism, the tolerance for economic inequity and the preference for a limited role for government distinguish American conservatives even from their European counterparts.
The weakness of this argument is not its assertion of American exceptionalism. It is the contention that this is solely a quality of American conservatives. While Europeans may feel more comfortable with the idea of a Democrat in the White House, the gap between American liberals and European social democrats is equally as large.
The authors also underplay the role of race in explaining the GOP success in American politics. Another key event in 1964 was more of a turning point -- the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Upon signing that bill, Lyndon Johnson is said to have presciently told an aide: ``I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.´´
Democratic Party dominance from the 1930s through the 1960s rested on an awkward alliance of Northern liberals and working-class union families with Southern whites, who, as the authors put it, ``remained loyal to the Democrats so long as the national party turned a blind eye to the region´s racial practices.´´ In 1950, for example, the GOP had no senators from the South and only two congressmen in a Southern delegation of 105.
But Goldwater, who vigorously opposed the Civil Rights Act, won most of the white vote in the South, carrying five states there while barely winning only one other state, his home state, Arizona. Richard Nixon, who codified the Southern Strategy of the GOP, split white Southern votes with George Wallace in 1968. The GOP hold on the white South was deepened by the growth of the Christian right, whose powerful grass-roots organizations have become a vote machine for the Republicans.
By the 2000 election, the Democrats found themselves shut out completely in the South. The only Democrats to enter the White House since 1964 have been Southerners -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- who were able to win in the South. And, as the authors point out, Democratic success has been based in part on an embrace of conservative values such as anti-government rhetoric.
Sun Belt tilt
The other part of ``red state´´ America -- the solidly GOP states that are colored red on TV election-night maps -- has been the West, thanks in part to Ronald Reagan. ``The `Sun Belt Coalition´ united the rapidly growing states of the South and West behind a common resentment of federal government,´´ the authors write, ``a resentment that was based on economics in the West and race in the South.´´
The interesting question is whether this alliance is also now fraying, in the same way the Democratic Party coalition split apart. The price of capturing the South, the authors note, is the danger that its dominant Southern wing ``will drag the GOP onto the cliffs of extremism in the same way that the McGovernite wing pulled the Democrats too far to the Left during the 1970s.´´
The extremist tendencies of American conservatism are one of the factors that liberal authors John Judis and Ruy Teixeira predict will create an ``Emerging Democratic Majority.´´ Silicon Valley -- and the shift of California from a solidly GOP to solidly Democratic state -- is evidence of this trend. The GOP attempt to use racial appeals -- Pete Wilson´s anti-immigrant message -- backfired in a state where whites have become a minority. And the majority of Californians have proved to be very wary of the religious right, seeing it as intolerant of diversity and alien to libertarian values.
Who represents America? Silicon Valley or Colorado Springs? Probably both and neither. Readers can debate the contentions of ``The Right Nation.´´ But American voters will ultimately settle the issue.
THE RIGHT NATION: Conservative Power in America By John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge
bump
bump!
Thanks for the bump.
I'm a bit amazed that this hit piece on conservative values is being ignored.
Here is a Mega Bump for it!
Thanks indeed.. It would be great to get some fresh views on the subject..
Hmmmm, a 'fresh' view indeed. Straight out of the underground my boy?
"A number of people who call themselves conservatives wouldn't know a liberal if one walked right up to them and stole their wallet."
The underground does not exist.
Which underground do you refer to doc?
This analysis is at times decent, but is often garbage.
Pete Wilson and Prop 187 were not 'anti-immigrant'. It was a taxpayer protection act that had nothing to do with legal immigrants. Also, Wilson rode popular support for that Prop all the way to a landslide reelection after being way down. His was the last significant statewide victory for a Republican there. Arnold hardly counts, and it will not last anyway. It may very well have energized the latino vote against the GOP afterwards, but that was probably inevitable as the state becomes more and more Hispanic. The GOP was losing the Hispanic vote before Wilson, it lost it during Wilson, and it has lost it after.
Also, its funny to talk about the 'extremist tendencies' of the Right considering how on most of the most contentious social issues the conservative position is the mainstream majority position of Americans. Most Americans oppose abortion on demand, and gay marriage, and gun bans, and unlimited immigration, etc.
Also, the idea that the country is becoming more conservative in either of its forms -- the social brand of the South or libertarian brand of the Sunbelt/West -- is highly suspect considering the drastic demographic changes that are taking place. The country is becoming more Democratic because of unending mass immigration. The conseravtive movement will be swamped by this unending mass importation of future democratic voters.
This author does not want to admit the true answer of this question. The answer is Colorado Springs, and the proof is found earlier in the article with the following quote:
This explains, the authors write, ``why George W. Bush is in the White House, why the Republican Party has won six of the past nine presidential elections and controls both houses of Congress. . .
His was the last significant statewide victory for a Republican there. Arnold hardly counts, and it will not last anyway.
I see Arnolds victory as an example of the new politics of the "libertarian brand of the Sunbelt/West".
It may very well have energized the latino vote against the GOP afterwards, but that was probably inevitable as the state becomes more and more Hispanic. The GOP was losing the Hispanic vote before Wilson, it lost it during Wilson, and it has lost it after.
Don't discount the fact that many Latinos are very conservative in both religious & moral aspects.
Also, its funny to talk about the 'extremist tendencies' of the Right considering how on most of the most contentious social issues the conservative position is the mainstream majority position of Americans. Most Americans oppose abortion on demand, and gay marriage, and gun bans, and unlimited immigration, etc.
Most? - The first is very debatable, and the second a virtual non-issue.
Also, the idea that the country is becoming more conservative in either of its forms -- the social brand of the South or libertarian brand of the Sunbelt/West -- is highly suspect considering the drastic demographic changes that are taking place. The country is becoming more Democratic because of unending mass immigration. The conseravtive movement will be swamped by this unending mass importation of future democratic voters.
The GOP is in big trouble precisely because they emphasize the wrong values. -- Big government & disrespect for our Constitutional liberties should be the main issues of Republican values. Adopting the RLC plank would get the GOP back on track.
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
The one that doesn't exist of course :)
Hmmmm, a 'fresh' view indeed. Straight out of the underground my boy?
The underground does not exist.
You seem to be stuck in a hole that doesn't exist, poor fella. Why not get a life?
Why not buzz off?
I feel obligated to service the threads I start.
But feel free to slink away by your own hip self. Cover the hole when you leave.
You're only servicing yourself. I have no interest in sticking around to watch you do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.