Here is a rant on Reagan and Conservatism from my liberal high school days ...
Everything is Connected: How the Declining Economy Resulted in the Rise of the Modern Conservative Movement ....
The Cold War likely conjures images of student protests, civil rights marches and the moon landing in the minds of many Americans. Indeed, racial issues and an anti-communist fervor were at the forefront of politics for the latter half of the 20th century. The modern conservative movement had much to say about both issues, but it was ultimately economic conditions, real and imagined, that won Ronald Reagan the presidency in 1981 and transferred the reins of power to a new Republican Party.
In order to understand the economic doctrine of the modern conservative movement, it is important to examine the progressive trends that they were in response to. Progressivism was the dominant force in American politics leading up to and during 20th century, so much so that the period from the 1890s to the 1920s is referred to as the progressive era. The famous presidents of the time, such as Woodrow Wilson ,were racist and sexist, hardly progressive by today’s standards. Nevertheless they put into effect economic policies that were gigantic leaps forward (unless you ask Howard Zinn). Despite his impressive accomplishments, Franklin D. Roosevelt is widely considered the greatest Democratic president because he was successful in establishing a powerful Democratic coalition that would dominate America for the next 30 years. (Brinkley 676)
In addition to leading America through most of the Second World War, FDR is remembered for passing a series of social programs and laws known under the umbrella term of the New Deal, which is often divided by historians into two sections. Initial legislation passed in 1933 (the First New Deal), sought to stimulate the economy from the top down, arguably at the expense of entrepreneurs. Corporations were allowed to set their own prices, large farms were encouraged to eliminate surplus and major banks were favored over smaller ones. In return for loosening regulations on trusts, they were forced to accept a mandatory minimum wage and abide by certain regulations. For example, businesses could not lower prices in order to gain a competitive advantage, as this would have decreased the value of the dollar. Child labor and excessive work hours were also prohibited. The First New Deal experienced some success early on, but the codes and regulations ultimately proved impossible to enforce, especially those that ran counter to prevailing profit motive. (Brinkley 678-686)
The Schecter case, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of small business owners accused of violating the codes, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Instead of backing down, as many conservatives predicted, FDR responded with a second, much less pro-business New Deal that would be enforced by the government, for the people. Roosevelt lent his own dynamic personality to the cause, succeeding in pushing through legislation that, among other things, increased the power of moderate labor unions such as the AFL (American Federation of Labor) and imposed much harsher restrictions on large corporations. The most notable offspring of the New Deal, however, were social security and welfare. (Brinkley 678-686)
Surprisingly, the majority of New Deal critics were those who felt that it did not do enough to regulate the corporate interests. There was a small, organized resistance made up of a coalition of aristocrats now known as the “Old Right,” most notably in the form of the American Liberty League. Nevertheless, the ALL and similar groups did not have significant popular support and were therefore unable to effect significant change (Brinkley 686). The New Deal is not so much important to the modern conservative movement for the resistance it inspired at the time, but for what it would later represent. The New Deal is considered by most conservatives to be an example of excessive government interference in the free market, made worse by the fact that it sowed the seeds of a progressive movement that would largely dominate politics for the next 30 years.
It would take almost that amount of time for conservatives to form a coalition with the cohesiveness and the consistency to survive more than one presidency. It is true that Dwight D. Eisenhower would be elected president after Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman, but the former World War II general was hardly what you would call a conservative’s conservative. (Krugman 101) Barry Goldwater would later refer to his handling of the economy as a “dime store New Deal” (although, to be fair, he did dismantle some of FDR’s more extreme measures). (Edwards 4)
If any one man could be blamed for the rise of movement conservatism it would be President Lyndon B. Johnson. His economic reforms, referred to collectively as the “Great Society” and including a “war on poverty,” were successful only from the viewpoint of blue-collar workers and minorities, two groups not know for their political clout. The “Office of Economic Opportunity” provided jobs for the poor and an emphasis on community action provided many young minorities with experience and credentials that would pay off after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Brinkley 811)
It is worthy of mention that, despite the disastrous consequences, the Great Society (at least at first) achieved its goal: in 1959, approximately 21 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line. By 1969, the percentage dropped to 32?? percent. However, theses advances were not cheap. From 1961 to 1969, the government spent $196.6 billion. (Brinkley 811) These statistics mattered little to the elite, who viewed the programs as a waste and tantamount to handing the lazy lower class a blank check. Irving Kristol, founder of influential conservative publication The Public Interest, expressed a widespread conservative dissatisfaction with Johnson’s Great Society: “We were especially provoked by the widespread acceptance of left-wing sociological ideas that were incorporated in the War on Poverty” (Krugman 117)
Johnson’s economic initiative may have achieved more lasting success had he raised taxes and/or shown better judgment when it came to foreign policy. Unfortunately, as he spent more and more money on his Great Society programs, he simultaneously escalated U.S. involvement in the quagmire of Vietnam, dooming many young Americans to death in the jungles of a hostile foreign nation and damaging the economy to an extent that it would not fully recover for over 30 years. (Brinkley 811) Ironically, the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, now looked at fondly by many liberals, was one of the two major blemishes that would deliver America to the conservatives.
Richard Nixon did indeed pass some laws consistent with the modern conservative ideology, but he also proposed ostensibly progressive legislation such as the Family Assistance Plan that would guarantee citizens $1,600 yearly. Nixon was an anomaly in that he was the only Cold War president to consciously straddle the line between liberalism and conservatism. He appealed to the “silent majority” of middle-class Americans whose interests may or may not have been consistent with a particularly ideology at a given time. (Brinkley 861-862) But all of Nixon’s attempts to save the economy were overshadowed by the Watergate scandal.
While the media focused on the Nixon administration’s misdeeds, inflation skyrocketed and Arab members of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) refused to sell oil to any nation that supported Israel, resulting in an energy crisis. Gerald Ford did little to remedy the problem and so Jimmy Carter inherited a dire state of affairs in 1977. (Brinkley 875)
Amidst the international and economic catastrophes of the latter half of the 20th century, an increasing number of intellectuals began to fear that their country was headed down the wrong path. In 1955, political writer William F. Buckley started the National Review, a conservative magazine that railed against liberal policies, specifically lambasting civil rights and the Democratic policy of containment. As the Great Depression faded into memory, prominent economists began to question Keynesian economics, which advocated state regulation of the market in order to combat some of capitalism’s natural flaws. They insisted that, as if by magic, the “invisible hand” of the free market would solve all of the nation’s economic woes. Suggestions that the New Deal actually prolonged the great depression became common. (Krugman 116)
This rising dissatisfaction amongst intellectuals and small business owners did not constitute the birth of a movement; Krugman attests to the former: “[they] were for the most part, scholars who happened to be or become conservative.” (Krugman 117) They did, however, provide the necessary academic credibility that the subsequent movement would need to win over business owners pining for an alternative to an economic system that, by increasing the power of labor unions, took away their ability to compete with large corporations. (Edwards 3)(Krugman 116)
Southern whites also helped swell the ranks of disaffected that would eventually be forged into a coalition. For years, they had reluctantly voted Democratic, despite their disdain for initiatives such as welfare that set aside a dwindling supply of funds and jobs to minorities. With a few exceptions, the Republican Party did not capitalize on this potential advantage prior to Nixon. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the last vestiges of loyalty that racist southern whites felt toward the party that opposed Lincoln were buried. (Turn to the Right 1-2)
During his campaign for presidency in 1964, Barry Goldwater tacitly engaged in “dog whistle politics” in an attempt to win over this critical demographic. It was one of a precious few victories; his aggressive stance towards Communism enabled the Democrats to launch a successful smear campaign, portraying him as a warmonger who would lead the country into nuclear war. He ended up losing the election in a devastating landslide. Still, if nothing else, Goldwater proved that southern whites were eager to jump on the Republican bandwagon. (Goldwater documentary) Another, albeit unintentional, benefit of Goldwater’s campaign was that it jumpstarted the historic political career of Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s highly praised speech at the Republican convention immediately struck a chord with Republicans and made him one of the party’s rising stars.
Ronald Reagan differed from Barry Goldwater in several key ways. First, like Roosevelt and JFK before him, he had an incredibly dynamic personality and a way with words that inspired tremendous loyalty among his supporters and brought in many new ones as well. Second, he was a brilliant politician. Instead of feigning knowledge and flaunting his credentials, Reagan spoke in a straightforward way that everyone could understand. Despite his wealth, Reagan convinced voters that he was a common man who could relate to the common man. He constantly contrasted himself with Jimmy Carter, who he famously joked "[Carter] is like the guy who can name you 50 parts of a car--he just can't drive it or fix it." (p. 213) These kinds of flippant, yet suggestive remarks (in modern politics known as “soundbites”) proved to be much more effective than Goldwater’s warmongering and Carter’s verbose speeches. Finally, Reagan was the epitome of a good old southern boy, a surprisingly significant characteristic to many voters. [insert quote from southern man]
The abysmal condition of the economy was the most important factor in America’s turn to the right. Fiery rhetoric not withstanding, Goldwater could not possibly see all-out-war as an option due to the Soviet Union’s nuclear capabilities. Even if they called it by different names, Republicans (Nixon, Eisenhower) and Democrats (Truman, JFK, Johnson) all fought communism in much the same way; that is, by stamping it out wherever it sprang up in developing countries.
The real “communist debate” was itself economic. Democrats advocated pouring money into social and economic programs with impressive-sounding names like the “New Frontier” and the “Great Society.” Republicans, on the other hand, supported a military build-up so that the U.S. would “win” the arms race, which seems arbitrary considering both powers had enough nuclear missiles pointed at each other on hair trigger alert to blow each other up many times over.
Race was only a part (albeit one of the key pieces) of a larger economic conflict, and religion only mattered to a sizeable minority of the population. Fortunately for Reagan and unfortunately for Jimmy Carter, the economy was falling apart at the time of the election and this affected everyone.
All Reagan needed to do was point his finger and state the obvious. Instead, Reagan turned his campaign into the performance of his career, winning the hearts and minds of conservatives and even some liberals. Every movement needs an icon, and what better man for the job than a movie star? When the modern conservative movement is inevitable challenged, dissected and discredited by historians in the years to come (the process has already begun), it is likely that Ronald Reagan will retain his place as the conservative messiah in the eyes of many Americans, or at the very least, the conservative man who grabbed the economy by its throat and told it to get its lazy ass out of bed and guide the market with its all-knowing “invisible hand.”
Everything is Connected: How the Declining Economy Resulted in the Rise of the Modern Conservative Movement ....
The Cold War likely conjures images of student protests, civil rights marches and the moon landing in the minds of many Americans. Indeed, racial issues and an anti-communist fervor were at the forefront of politics for the latter half of the 20th century. The modern conservative movement had much to say about both issues, but it was ultimately economic conditions, real and imagined, that won Ronald Reagan the presidency in 1981 and transferred the reins of power to a new Republican Party.
In order to understand the economic doctrine of the modern conservative movement, it is important to examine the progressive trends that they were in response to. Progressivism was the dominant force in American politics leading up to and during 20th century, so much so that the period from the 1890s to the 1920s is referred to as the progressive era. The famous presidents of the time, such as Woodrow Wilson ,were racist and sexist, hardly progressive by today’s standards. Nevertheless they put into effect economic policies that were gigantic leaps forward (unless you ask Howard Zinn). Despite his impressive accomplishments, Franklin D. Roosevelt is widely considered the greatest Democratic president because he was successful in establishing a powerful Democratic coalition that would dominate America for the next 30 years. (Brinkley 676)
In addition to leading America through most of the Second World War, FDR is remembered for passing a series of social programs and laws known under the umbrella term of the New Deal, which is often divided by historians into two sections. Initial legislation passed in 1933 (the First New Deal), sought to stimulate the economy from the top down, arguably at the expense of entrepreneurs. Corporations were allowed to set their own prices, large farms were encouraged to eliminate surplus and major banks were favored over smaller ones. In return for loosening regulations on trusts, they were forced to accept a mandatory minimum wage and abide by certain regulations. For example, businesses could not lower prices in order to gain a competitive advantage, as this would have decreased the value of the dollar. Child labor and excessive work hours were also prohibited. The First New Deal experienced some success early on, but the codes and regulations ultimately proved impossible to enforce, especially those that ran counter to prevailing profit motive. (Brinkley 678-686)
The Schecter case, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of small business owners accused of violating the codes, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Instead of backing down, as many conservatives predicted, FDR responded with a second, much less pro-business New Deal that would be enforced by the government, for the people. Roosevelt lent his own dynamic personality to the cause, succeeding in pushing through legislation that, among other things, increased the power of moderate labor unions such as the AFL (American Federation of Labor) and imposed much harsher restrictions on large corporations. The most notable offspring of the New Deal, however, were social security and welfare. (Brinkley 678-686)
Surprisingly, the majority of New Deal critics were those who felt that it did not do enough to regulate the corporate interests. There was a small, organized resistance made up of a coalition of aristocrats now known as the “Old Right,” most notably in the form of the American Liberty League. Nevertheless, the ALL and similar groups did not have significant popular support and were therefore unable to effect significant change (Brinkley 686). The New Deal is not so much important to the modern conservative movement for the resistance it inspired at the time, but for what it would later represent. The New Deal is considered by most conservatives to be an example of excessive government interference in the free market, made worse by the fact that it sowed the seeds of a progressive movement that would largely dominate politics for the next 30 years.
It would take almost that amount of time for conservatives to form a coalition with the cohesiveness and the consistency to survive more than one presidency. It is true that Dwight D. Eisenhower would be elected president after Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman, but the former World War II general was hardly what you would call a conservative’s conservative. (Krugman 101) Barry Goldwater would later refer to his handling of the economy as a “dime store New Deal” (although, to be fair, he did dismantle some of FDR’s more extreme measures). (Edwards 4)
If any one man could be blamed for the rise of movement conservatism it would be President Lyndon B. Johnson. His economic reforms, referred to collectively as the “Great Society” and including a “war on poverty,” were successful only from the viewpoint of blue-collar workers and minorities, two groups not know for their political clout. The “Office of Economic Opportunity” provided jobs for the poor and an emphasis on community action provided many young minorities with experience and credentials that would pay off after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Brinkley 811)
It is worthy of mention that, despite the disastrous consequences, the Great Society (at least at first) achieved its goal: in 1959, approximately 21 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line. By 1969, the percentage dropped to 32?? percent. However, theses advances were not cheap. From 1961 to 1969, the government spent $196.6 billion. (Brinkley 811) These statistics mattered little to the elite, who viewed the programs as a waste and tantamount to handing the lazy lower class a blank check. Irving Kristol, founder of influential conservative publication The Public Interest, expressed a widespread conservative dissatisfaction with Johnson’s Great Society: “We were especially provoked by the widespread acceptance of left-wing sociological ideas that were incorporated in the War on Poverty” (Krugman 117)
Johnson’s economic initiative may have achieved more lasting success had he raised taxes and/or shown better judgment when it came to foreign policy. Unfortunately, as he spent more and more money on his Great Society programs, he simultaneously escalated U.S. involvement in the quagmire of Vietnam, dooming many young Americans to death in the jungles of a hostile foreign nation and damaging the economy to an extent that it would not fully recover for over 30 years. (Brinkley 811) Ironically, the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, now looked at fondly by many liberals, was one of the two major blemishes that would deliver America to the conservatives.
Richard Nixon did indeed pass some laws consistent with the modern conservative ideology, but he also proposed ostensibly progressive legislation such as the Family Assistance Plan that would guarantee citizens $1,600 yearly. Nixon was an anomaly in that he was the only Cold War president to consciously straddle the line between liberalism and conservatism. He appealed to the “silent majority” of middle-class Americans whose interests may or may not have been consistent with a particularly ideology at a given time. (Brinkley 861-862) But all of Nixon’s attempts to save the economy were overshadowed by the Watergate scandal.
While the media focused on the Nixon administration’s misdeeds, inflation skyrocketed and Arab members of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) refused to sell oil to any nation that supported Israel, resulting in an energy crisis. Gerald Ford did little to remedy the problem and so Jimmy Carter inherited a dire state of affairs in 1977. (Brinkley 875)
Amidst the international and economic catastrophes of the latter half of the 20th century, an increasing number of intellectuals began to fear that their country was headed down the wrong path. In 1955, political writer William F. Buckley started the National Review, a conservative magazine that railed against liberal policies, specifically lambasting civil rights and the Democratic policy of containment. As the Great Depression faded into memory, prominent economists began to question Keynesian economics, which advocated state regulation of the market in order to combat some of capitalism’s natural flaws. They insisted that, as if by magic, the “invisible hand” of the free market would solve all of the nation’s economic woes. Suggestions that the New Deal actually prolonged the great depression became common. (Krugman 116)
This rising dissatisfaction amongst intellectuals and small business owners did not constitute the birth of a movement; Krugman attests to the former: “[they] were for the most part, scholars who happened to be or become conservative.” (Krugman 117) They did, however, provide the necessary academic credibility that the subsequent movement would need to win over business owners pining for an alternative to an economic system that, by increasing the power of labor unions, took away their ability to compete with large corporations. (Edwards 3)(Krugman 116)
Southern whites also helped swell the ranks of disaffected that would eventually be forged into a coalition. For years, they had reluctantly voted Democratic, despite their disdain for initiatives such as welfare that set aside a dwindling supply of funds and jobs to minorities. With a few exceptions, the Republican Party did not capitalize on this potential advantage prior to Nixon. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the last vestiges of loyalty that racist southern whites felt toward the party that opposed Lincoln were buried. (Turn to the Right 1-2)
During his campaign for presidency in 1964, Barry Goldwater tacitly engaged in “dog whistle politics” in an attempt to win over this critical demographic. It was one of a precious few victories; his aggressive stance towards Communism enabled the Democrats to launch a successful smear campaign, portraying him as a warmonger who would lead the country into nuclear war. He ended up losing the election in a devastating landslide. Still, if nothing else, Goldwater proved that southern whites were eager to jump on the Republican bandwagon. (Goldwater documentary) Another, albeit unintentional, benefit of Goldwater’s campaign was that it jumpstarted the historic political career of Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s highly praised speech at the Republican convention immediately struck a chord with Republicans and made him one of the party’s rising stars.
Ronald Reagan differed from Barry Goldwater in several key ways. First, like Roosevelt and JFK before him, he had an incredibly dynamic personality and a way with words that inspired tremendous loyalty among his supporters and brought in many new ones as well. Second, he was a brilliant politician. Instead of feigning knowledge and flaunting his credentials, Reagan spoke in a straightforward way that everyone could understand. Despite his wealth, Reagan convinced voters that he was a common man who could relate to the common man. He constantly contrasted himself with Jimmy Carter, who he famously joked "[Carter] is like the guy who can name you 50 parts of a car--he just can't drive it or fix it." (p. 213) These kinds of flippant, yet suggestive remarks (in modern politics known as “soundbites”) proved to be much more effective than Goldwater’s warmongering and Carter’s verbose speeches. Finally, Reagan was the epitome of a good old southern boy, a surprisingly significant characteristic to many voters. [insert quote from southern man]
The abysmal condition of the economy was the most important factor in America’s turn to the right. Fiery rhetoric not withstanding, Goldwater could not possibly see all-out-war as an option due to the Soviet Union’s nuclear capabilities. Even if they called it by different names, Republicans (Nixon, Eisenhower) and Democrats (Truman, JFK, Johnson) all fought communism in much the same way; that is, by stamping it out wherever it sprang up in developing countries.
The real “communist debate” was itself economic. Democrats advocated pouring money into social and economic programs with impressive-sounding names like the “New Frontier” and the “Great Society.” Republicans, on the other hand, supported a military build-up so that the U.S. would “win” the arms race, which seems arbitrary considering both powers had enough nuclear missiles pointed at each other on hair trigger alert to blow each other up many times over.
Race was only a part (albeit one of the key pieces) of a larger economic conflict, and religion only mattered to a sizeable minority of the population. Fortunately for Reagan and unfortunately for Jimmy Carter, the economy was falling apart at the time of the election and this affected everyone.
All Reagan needed to do was point his finger and state the obvious. Instead, Reagan turned his campaign into the performance of his career, winning the hearts and minds of conservatives and even some liberals. Every movement needs an icon, and what better man for the job than a movie star? When the modern conservative movement is inevitable challenged, dissected and discredited by historians in the years to come (the process has already begun), it is likely that Ronald Reagan will retain his place as the conservative messiah in the eyes of many Americans, or at the very least, the conservative man who grabbed the economy by its throat and told it to get its lazy ass out of bed and guide the market with its all-knowing “invisible hand.”