Modern Conservatives Are Different

Kathleen GeierKathleen Geier does not hold with all this hand wringing about modern conservatives, or so she claimed in What’s Different About Today’s Conservatives? As she wrote, “When people, usually liberals, compare today’s conservatives unfavorably to conservatives of previous generations, I often get annoyed.” And she went on to explain that when looking back at old conservatives, we liberals have a tendency to cherry pick. Some of this is overstated, but in general, she’s right.

In fact, I’ve made the exact same argument. It’s true that when it came to domestic policy, Richard Nixon was pretty good. But that was because of the liberal environment in which he had power. If he were in politics today, he’d be one of the extremists calling for a government shutdown. The same goes for Reagan. There is no doubt about that. But I don’t think when people look back fondly on Nixon, they are so much looking to the man as they are the time.

Geier thinks that the modern conservative movement is different, however: it no longer has a power elite that guides it ideologically. In other words: it’s mob rule. She noted that in the 1950s and early 1960s, the National Review purged certain undesirables like the John Birch Society out of the ranks of the movement. But I don’t think she’s right to say that this isn’t happening now. She’s just taking too short a view of it. For one thing, it isn’t like the National Review scowled at the Birchers and so they went away. To a large extent, the group just lost its appeal with many people because of its paranoid conspiracy theories like the Communist’s water fluoridation attack on us. Similarly today, there are lots of conservative intellectuals who have successfully pushed back against cranks like Michele Bachmann.

To me, there is a major difference between the conservative movement of old and today: the party has become Nihilistic. This isn’t a new idea to me. As far as I know, Johnathan Chait was the person who first put forward the idea. But I don’t think it happened as suddenly as he does. I think it started in the Reagan administration. But it really gained steam thanks to Bill Clinton and the New Democrats who co-opted the only good ideas that the conservative movement had. As a result, from Bush Jr onward, the movement has turned into a kind of anti-party: anything the Democrats are for, they are against.

The first very clear indication that nihilism had overwhelmed the Republican party came with the election of Obama. I understand the opposition being against many of Obama’s initiatives. But Obamacare was long touted as the kind of healthcare reform that the country needed. For a time, Romney was a conservative hero for roughly the same program. But the entire conservative movement turned 180 degrees on a dime regarding the law. It not only said that law was bad; it claimed that the law was socialism. Politics is a nasty business, but when the opposition gives you exactly what you want, you don’t continue to play politics. You take the offer and declare victory. But they didn’t do that, because it wasn’t a policy they wanted; there is no policy that they want except those few goodies they can give to their two remaining constituencies.

So Kathleen Geier is right that in most ways conservatives are the same as they’ve ever been. But she’s wrong about how they are different. And the one way in which they are different is even more disturbing. It means that as they are now, there will be no compromising—no getting along. The only way forward is total defeat. And that is a very bad thing.

Afterword

More and more I worry that the Republican Party is at the same point that the Federalist Party was in 1800: on the verge of becoming irrelevant and then nonexistent. In the long run, that would be fine, because the Democratic Party already has the diversity to create fine liberal and conservative parties. But it would be highly disruptive. And it would be—until the eventual split—bad for the Democratic Party. In general, this sort of thing does not happen, but I’m not sure the Republican Party still has the intellectual firepower to reform. So much of their time and money has been put into self-delusion that there may be no going forward.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.
Avatar

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

0 thoughts on “Modern Conservatives Are Different

  1. I enjoyed reading Geier’s writing style — she’s skilled — but her conclusions are garbage. Absolute trash.

    Modern conservatives are not focused on policy goals determined by an elite? Well, then, the Koch brothers and everyone else behind ALEC are wasting their money. (I don’t think they’re wasting their money, and neither do they.)

    I think the conservative movement was far less elite in the Buckley days than it is now. Back then, guys like Buckley wrote for a pretty far-ranging audience. My dad, a postal worker, was a Buckley acolyte and Bircher. (To say Buckley got rid of the Birchers is ridiculous; most modern conservative dogma comes straight from the Birch playbook.)

    Geier’s making a really dumb mistake; she’s assuming that since modern conservatives get their marching orders from Fox and talk radio, they’re more egalitarian than the conservatives who read "National Review" and joined the JB Society. Well, those older conservatives weren’t mostly elites, and the newer ones aren’t independent thinkers. Far, far from it.

    I simply don’t comprehend how an intelligent person can suggest modern conservatism is anything but a well-coordinated PR effort. What planet is she living on?

  2. Glad to see someone else talking about the similarity between today’s Republicans and the federalists — which is even more exact than you say. Only I’d question the line ‘became irrelevant after 1800.’ They had a choice then, the road of being a ‘loyal opposition’ or the paranoiac and ‘priest-ridden’ group they did follow. (The similarities are surprising — in fact the "Illuminati" conspiracy actually was written about — and debunked — during the election of Jefferson.)

    But it is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if they had gone the other way. They came from the most anti-slavery part of the country, they saw America’s future as being commercial rather than agricultural, and they at least theoretically opposed the confounding of democracy with the ‘hard cider hypocrisy’ of the Harrison campaign, where a rich General ran as a poor farmer. (Jackson, for all his faults and good qualities, was an authentic popular hero. Harrison’s popularity was entirely a ‘publicity stunt’ to be a little anachronistic.)

    I won’t guess the ways it would have been different, but had the Federalists chosen their ideas over their fears, there might have been quite a different look to the conflict over slavery that took up the next half-century.

  3. @JMF – I think you’re being a little harsh. But I do think she’s wrong on this point. Sometimes our iconoclastic tendencies get the better of us and I think that happened here.

    As for the Birchers, when the Tea Party got big, I starting seeing a lot more of them. I’m not sure what the status is now. But there is a nice fit. After all, when you come right down to it, the Tea Party is more a social conservative movement than anything. That’s interesting considering the fact that they were originally sold as being focused on economic issues. But in my experience, scratch a self-proclaimed libertarian and you’ll find a social conservative–it’s true nine out of ten times.

  4. @Prup – That’s all very interesting. I will have to do more study on this. I think you are right that the country would have been better off if they had stayed and competed. I think the same thing is true of the Republican Party today. But my overall theory is that the problem with the Republicans is that the Democrats are not fulfilling their role as the liberal party and thus are not giving the Republicans any ideological room on the right.

    The main thing is that our system requires two robust parties and we don’t have them. The Democrats have become a kind of centrist "everything" party and the Republicans have become an extremist "nothing" party. That cannot hold for long. I see big doings over the next decade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *