There is a current ground swell of articles on the decline of true conservatism and the rise of dysfunctional partisanship (blamed mostly on the "new new" conservatives).
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_145/Different_About_the_New_New_Right-215042-1.html
http://billmoyers.com/episode/encore-how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/
There is also a new book making the rounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U6rcJOUQLM http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_145/Different_About_the_New_New_Right-215042-1.html
http://billmoyers.com/episode/encore-how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/
There is also a new book making the rounds:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151522725/even-worse-than-it-looks-extremism-in-congress
http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-4-2012/exclusive---norman-j--ornstein---thomas-e--mann-extended-interview-pt--1
So how did Post-Reagan conservatism not only end up on the wrong track, but in ruin? There are many reasons for the morphing of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism into one now dominated by theocratic statists:
(1) The end of the Cold War cycled out "fusionist" conservatives, many of whom were also retiring due to old age. This removed a major counter balance to big government conservatives regarding funding and fervor.
(2) The faith-based conservatives moved from getting government out of schools and bedrooms to embracing government in both as long as it was there for "their" agenda not the liberal agenda.
(3) Reagan picking Bush 41 over Jack Kemp in 1980 ending the conservative continuum and "big tent" conservatism where leaders looked for ways the philosophical core [dating to the 1600s] could attract new adherents by showing them how it helped them.
(4) The end of the conservative continuum left the movement rudderless. It opened the door for "Republicans" and "conservatives" [I use quotations because these people are neither] to decline into micro-targeting/pandering of fringe interest groups within the electorate, the same way the Democrats/Liberals had formed their winning coalitions since the 1960s. Karl Rove was the master of this new "art". He developed the current method of cobbling together fringe groups to form a winning coalition with no philosophical core, except for how bigger government can help them.
(5) The Internet, Cable TV, and Talk Radio ushered in the era of hyper-partisanship where middle ground solutions are ignored or shouted down by both extremes. It also opened the door for the new generation of pundits to assail anything not of their party, even if it made sense; and to embrace anything of their own party, even if it was crazy.
(6) Viewing reality through this hyper-partisan prism led to the “Rip van Winkle” effect. For the eight years of George W. Bush, most “conservative” officials and pundits cheered Bush’s leap into theocratic statism and his ill-conceived and poorly executed foreign adventures. The Tea Party eruption in 2009 arose, in part, because all of a sudden these same “conservative” officials and pundits, who had cheered Bush, were denouncing Obama for following these same policies. Average citizens who followed Fox News and “conservative” talk radio “woke-up” and realized their government was now 9+ years down the wrong rabbit hole.
What is sad is that “conservatives” and “Republicans” still assert that 2012 is about reversing the last four years, when it should be about reversing the last twelve. If you include the Republican Congress losing its ways after the 104th Congress’ “Revolution” than 2012 is really about reversing the last sixteen years!
3 comments:
Hi Scot,
With the collapse of most campaign laws we have seen big money (Dark Money) become the deciding factor of who not only wins the election, but survives the primary process. I heard a Republican Senator now call for repealing all the campaign laws that came out of the Nixon dirty trick era. Basically, all your ideas on what has messed up our democratic system is all true. All that is missing is the vice grip of big money. If you don't play their game and take their money you don't have a chance. This is true for both parties. And with the current laws on the books there is no chance for a 3rd party to shake things up.
Cheers, Dane Sorensen
I fully agree with the polluting nature of big money, especially after the Citizens United ruling. It is sad that even efforts to require disclosure of donors failed in the U.S. Senate. Individual states are now passing laws to require donor disclosure, but each state is doing it differently - creating a tapestry of laws and regulations. Better to have one disclosure standard at the federal level.
My "conservative" colleagues first cheered the Citizens United ruling. They now realize that related rulings open the door for undocumented foreign money to influence our elections [for example: what if Hugo Chavez wanted to fund a Citgo PAC?].
I fully agree with the polluting nature of big money, especially after the Citizens United ruling. It is sad that even efforts to require disclosure of donors failed in the U.S. Senate. Individual states are now passing laws to require donor disclosure, but each state is doing it differently - creating a tapestry of laws and regulations. Better to have one disclosure standard at the federal level.
My "conservative" colleagues first cheered the Citizens United ruling. They now realize that related rulings open the door for undocumented foreign money to influence our elections [for example: what if Hugo Chavez wanted to fund a Citgo PAC?].
Post a Comment