Conservatism's Inversion
I’ve been enjoying John Dean’s new best-selling book Conservatives Without Conscience, which insightfully explores the authoritarian streak that seems to be so pervasive on the right. (BTW, he may be the first book author to cite a TPMCafe commenter – in endnote 48 of chapter one he give props to our very own “uc” for pointing him to polling data about conservative factions). One thing that particularly struck me about Dean’s discussion of the elusiveness of the meaning of “conservatism,” but which he largely neglects, is that the movement has become the very antithesis of traditional definitions for reasons beyond authoritarianism. Here are how some self-identified conservatives in the past described their ideology, as quoted by Dean:
Russell Kirk: “Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?”
William Safire: A conservative is “a defender of the status quo who, when change becomes necessary in tested institutions or practices prefers that it come slowly and in moderation.”
Barry Goldwater: “In its simplest terms, conservatism is economic, social, and political practices based on the successes of the past.”
David Horowitz: “Conservatism [is] an attitude about the lessons of the actual past….conservative attitudes derive from pragmatic consideration.”
Dean, defining his own brand of conservatism, says that it “is cautious and prudent.” And the thrust of his book is that the right has lost its way in the hands of authoritarians who by nature are “rash and radical.” But there’s a lot more to the inversion in conservatism’s orientation than the ascent of leaders with authoritarian personalities like Cheney, Gingrich, DeLay, and biggies in the religious right – although that has certainly played an important role.
The main reason conservatism stopped caring about the “successes of the past” is that those successes invariably involved energetic government. And the central mission of the individuals running the family foundations that financed the sundry think tanks that blossomed beginning in the 1980s was to come up with ideas for shrinking, undercutting, and dismantling government. Take, for example, Social Security privatization, a project that took root in the libertarian Cato Institute. That idea is the precise opposite of “adherence to the tried and true, against the new and untried" as well as the principle of “when change becomes necessary in tested institutions or practices …that it come slowly and in moderation.” Social Security has worked beautifully, but the Right deeply wanted to make it go away in large part because the very existence of such a successful government program embodies why their philosophy is incoherent.
The same certainly applies to the right’s ongoing obsession with mindless tax cuts for the rich, which have failed again and again to deliver on both supply-side and starve-the-beast promises. There’s nothing pragmatic or in any way attentive to “the successes of the past” about continually repeating the vicious cycle of tax cuts/huge and growing deficits/wage stagnation/rising inequality. It’s all driven by the overarching mission of weakening the government and making wealthy campaign funders happy.
Most of the other big conservative ideas on the domestic front likewise have never demonstrated any success anywhere in the past – e.g., school vouchers, health savings accounts, dismantling the regulatory process through what Thomas McGarity and his co-authors call “sophisticated sabotage,” and state spending limits. They are all forms of radical, previously untested and now failing change that are entirely geared to weakening government, even where government has been successful in the past (as with, say, environmental regulation).
Similarly, on the foreign policy side, the conservative movement’s denigration of the UN, international institutions, treaties and the like has nothing to do with “pragmatic consideration” or the “successes of the past.” Historically our foreign policy successes have almost invariably come about through deep involvement with international institutions, attentiveness to the interests of other countries, and respect for treaties. The right’s hostility toward the UN and international institutions is analogous to its disdain of government bureaucracy. Just as conservatives view bureaucrats as obstacles to their agenda that need to be thwarted, international institutions are caricatured as the problem rather than the solution—that drives the thinking rather than anything about history.
As David Cole has pointed out, John Yoo’s rendition of the “unitary executive” theory (which has been massaged for years in Federalist Society salons) is nothing more than a gussied up version of Nixon’s doctrine that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Since that philosophy led to “our long national nightmare” under Dean’s old boss, it wouldn’t exactly seem like a concept worth revisiting. But the Federalist Society kept the flame alive, Cheney implemented it again, and we ended up with Abu Ghraib.
The main point is that the authoritarianism of particular individuals is important to the story of how conservatism has gone astray, but less so than the much more systematic process the movement has undertaken for decades to develop an approach to governing while disdaining government and international institutions. Defeating authoritarianism won’t be sufficient to defeat today’s conservatism.
A main point in the Dean book, and that of the sociologists, is that the authoritarian mindset is not logical. When combined with dominant personality it seems to always lead to illogical actions.
The nonsensical arguments of the radical government-shrinkers got no traction until they were attached to the right sub-intellectual buzzwords, and that pushed in a propaganda campaign.
Authoritarians can't be defeated as such, since they are always present. They can be held to the minority they represent. Either a clever counter-propaganda campaign or simple failure of the conservative program could do it.
August 10, 2006 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well you talked me into it, I'll get the book this weekend.
August 10, 2006 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post with an interesting analysis.
One of the major problems when conversing with a died in the wool conservative is their concrete thought process.
CNN-HNN's Glenn Beck is a typical example.
When discussing global warming. He admits he isn't smart enough to fully understand the all the concepts. He brings on a GOP Senator who doesn't believe in global warming to debunk the theory. The Senator explains that the entire concept is based on one paper done by a guy who drew a hockey stick shaped curve to explain temperature changes (makes the shape of the stick in the air with his finger).The Senator says "It's bunk". Beck agrees. They feed on their shared delusion.
On another occasion Beck had Al Sharpton on his program. Beck at one point said that he wished that Black leaders would stress personal responsibility more, as Bill Cosby was doing. Sharpton pointed out that when giving speechs and on his radio program, he frequenntly spoke about personal responsibility. Sharpton then said that he had Bill Cosby come on his radio program several times to talk about personal responsibility. Rev Sharpton ended by saying that the fact that he talked about responsibility or that he often had Cosby on his radio show was never mentioned on "Shows like this one". Beck's response was "Oh no. We'll have Bill Cosby on this show anytime". Sharpton tried to get Beck to understand that he was saying that responsiblity was discussed but not picked up by MSM. The point went into and out of Becks ears without connecting with his brain. You knew that Beck would leave the studio content in the knowledge that Sharpton felt Cosby was a race traitor.
When dealing with such deeply held beliefs one is going to be hard pressed to make any compromises.
This is one of the reasons that Lieberman's efforts to be "bipartisan" is in the end futile. The only person that will have to shift position is you. It took 30 years for Southern Baptists to say that their role in segregation in the south was wrong. There are still diehards who believe that Vietnam could have been won if the US wasn't so weak-kneed.
Bipartisanship means capitulation.
August 10, 2006 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the authoritarianism that's shown its ugly head on the right is a lot more than a "streak." I think it's more like, say, liver cancer. Can be gotten out, but is dangerous and affects the whole body.
It's also a disease which affects the far left and the left as much as the right and far right. The way I tend to look at the spectrum is far left, progressive, liberal, conservative, reactionary, far right. All are threatened by a tendency towards authoritiarianism in an American culture which increasingly produces eager "followers." Authoritarians, as Dean notes, must have followers to survive. If you go back to the '50's -- well, and the '40's too -- you can find shelves and shelves of studies of the threat of authoritarianism within our culture. Adorno and Riesman of course. Fromm. Hofstadter....
So we have to be careful to measure ourselves on a political spectrum with a legitimate center, something we don't have in US politics now. The putative center is around Nixon's neighborhood or possibly to the right of that (excepting foreign policy). Once upon a time when one didn't want to "defeat conservatism" but simply counterbalance it. But that's when the center was closer to where the center should be. The way Greg has expressed himself troubles me. Perhaps that's because he uses the word "conservative" in the way the right misuses it now -- as a cover for reactionary and radical.
As with most things, it's desperately important to look for the seeds of authoritarianism within oneself first. Never make the assumption that "they " are the only problem!
August 10, 2006 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we have to be careful to measure ourselves on a political spectrum with a legitimate center, something we don't have in US politics now.
I agree that being unwilling to listen to the other persons point of view or demonizing them is dangerous. At the same time, being in the center does not make that position valid. During the civil rights movement the Right would say government intervention in "personal matters" was unwarranted (States rights), the Left said segregation was immoral and change was needed now, the Center initially was uninvolved. I believe the left was correct. When the Right were suggesting a balanced US government budget and lowering the deficit, they were correct from a fiscal standpoint. Being centrist does not mean that it is always the proper stance.
Unfortunately I do think in the short term that stating Conservative = Reactionary is neede to reign in some of their excesses. The pendulum will eventually hit it's "center"
August 10, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much of the sociological data that Dean is concerned with is summarized in this paper (pdf)
The problem with defining "conservativsm" is that there are several types and they get conflated. Currently these seem to be the most popular:
1. Internationalism (the neo-cons). The belief that the US has a unique role in the world and that it can use whatever means are necessary to achieve it's aims.
2. Free Markets (the libertarians). These are a combination of traditional capitalists, libertarians and the super wealthy. They throw up a variety of misleading themes to support their basic motivation which is one of preserving privilege for the wealthy. These include the Laffer Curve, "rising tides lift all boats", tax cuts raise government revenue, deregulation fosters competition, etc.
3. Social conservatives. This is the group that wants to gut social programs. They believe that since they can afford to buy whatever services they need (health care, retirement, private protection, country clubs, private schools, private planes, etc) that funding these services from taxes is taking money out of their pockets. This is true and shows that at least they are acting in a rational (selfish, but rational) fashion in terms of their own interests. Notice that since they can't pay for a private army they still support a government run military.
Some people belong to one category, some to more than one. The problem with lumping them all into the same "conservative" ideology can be seen when discussing the current middle east flare up. The issues tend to cross the standard left-right oversimplification.
To effectively rebut "conservative" arguments it is important to keep these groups separate, otherwise one risks getting distracted.
As for the support of "the people". Those with an authoritarian personality favor strong leadership which in the current situation means allowing any actions to combat foreign theats even at the cost of civil liberties. People who try to argue that these expenses are excessive fail to convince since you can't fight fear with economic arguments.
The vast bulk of the public is in favor of social programs (even expanded ones) which is why there is the need for a continual propaganda effort to keep the facts from them. Those with an authoritarian personality are more willing to believe the lies of their leaders.
The social conservatives are a mixed bag, some are influenced by religious leaders, while others suffer from economic envy. Once again those who follow strong leaders (who have a different agenda than their supporters) are more likely to be swayed by buzz words and sound bytes. It is hard to figure out the motivation of a Limbaugh or a Dobson, perhaps they are just drunk on the power they have amassed. Once again, supplying facts to true believers seldom changes their minds, they operate on an emotional level.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 10, 2006 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't had a chance to read Dean's book yet, but I'm encouraged that he's differentiating between 'authoritarian' and 'conservative'. Since world war II there's been a great deal of interest in authoritarian societies and movements. Readers looking for an academic treatment of authoritarian personality should take a look at a couple of book by Robert Altemeyer, one of the leading researchers in authoritarianism. I'd suggest The Authoritarian Specter and his somewhat older Right Wing Authoritarianism. Both are clear and readable, and include a great deal of insight into the double think and central role of dogma in helping authoritarians deal with the complexities of real life. There are also several articles and books available that I'd be happy to recommend if there's interest.
Nate
August 10, 2006 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I think center or middle = muddle (or even flip-flop) much of the time!
I wish! I think it's been out of whack for a long time. I think people "decide" what the truth is without reference to facts too much of the time (a symptom of followerism). That tends to keep the center in right territory.
Imagine the current generations of Americans agreeing that "center" is represented by, say, Hillary, and "conservative" by, say, Arlen Specter. Generations? Whole generations of Americans have been born to the "fact" that liberals represent radical politics and social values.
The thing about "conservative" and "reactionary" is that they are wonderfully meaningful words. "Conservative" has been muddied -- badly. "Reactionary" is a great old epithet. "Radical" is usually associated, now, with the left. But in fact the Bush administration is definitely radical and definitely not conservative. "Conservative" (of, say, balance of power, the Constitution, accountability, fiscal responsibility) is in fact something today's progressives (of which I'm one) can lay claim to.
I think most Dems haven't quite put this together and haven't recognized how much their values are those of conservative Republicans who are fairly liberal, socially, but aggrieved by deficits and wiretapping and accountability issues, and so haven't been sending very good messages to those potential supporters... so far! Ned Lamont appeals to old fashioned conservatives -- as witness the calls from Republicans to talk shows in support of Lamont. I think that's a much more important factor in Lamont's candidacy than his position on Iraq. I think he understands that and that the DLC gang have missed those signals altogether.
Sorry for all the blah-blah!
August 10, 2006 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The tragedy of the conservative authoritarian mindset is that it itends towards the reactionary, and the history that they rely on tends to be an imaginary one. Failings and bloodshed on the part of their European forebears (Fascists et al), tend to be conveniently forgotten, or explained away.
Thus, the current generation thinks themselves beknighted, and will do so up until the bloodshed and carnage reaches a point where it cannot be ignored by the middle class masses.
Of course, that fall will be followed by the usual cries of the right, citing betrayal of the cause, and the invariable 'we didn't go far enough!'
August 10, 2006 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
2 observations:
1)Neoconservatives MUST be differentiated from moderate Conservatives. To say they are the same is akin to saying every Democrat is a Communist.
2)The inherent problem with functioning Conservative ideology is not that diminishing the power of the Federal Government is a bad thing. To a large extent the GOP since the Reagan administration has had a great deal of success in this realm.
The problem is that whatever power is dimished at the Federal level must be increased at the state level.
Being a Libertarian I find it helpful to vote largely (not exclusively) Republican in national elections and Democratic (not exclusively) in state elections.
If only third parties were viable...
August 10, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Social conservatives. This is the group that wants to gut social programs.
Social conservatives (AKA the Religious Right, "Christianists", or "Theocons") have no particular beef against social programs, although they do want those programs to hew to their own values (i.e no talk about condoms, and preferentially no sex ed). In fact among the rank and file of these folks you will support for universal health care, social security etc. every bit as high as among the general public. What social conservatives want of course is use the government to impose their own specific sectarian values on the public, hence they tend to be “Big government” conservatives since a small, downsized goverment is quite useless for this purpose.
August 10, 2006 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neoconservatives MUST be differentiated from moderate Conservatives.
I agree. That is not a problem at this site, but...
To say they are the same is akin to saying every Democrat is a Communist.
No, it is NOT akin to saying "every Democrat is a Communist." Why? Because Democrats are NOT communists. The burden is on the "moderate conservatives" to stand up and differentiate themselves from the neocons. So far, I haven't heard or seen it.
Democrats do not need to stand up and say they are not communists, as much as Karl et al would like to force them to do so.
Until moderate (or some would say TRUE_ conservatives stand up to this "borrow and spend" administration -- that is going against every true conservative value -- they will continue to be associated with the neo-con agenda.
It is up to you them to repudiate the false claim of conservatism by the Cheney administration, or continue to be swallowed by it.
The inherent problem with functioning Conservative ideology is not that diminishing the power of the Federal Government is a bad thing. To a large extent the GOP since the Reagan administration has had a great deal of success in this realm.
Are you joking? The Cheney/Bushes have solidified the power of the executive branch (last time I heard that was federal) against every state challenge except Terri Schiavo (despite their ridiculous efforts on this front).
What is it with you? You are not dumb. Do you just close off your mind to inconvenient truths (to borrow a phrase)?
Jan Knaus
August 10, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, great post and great comments.
It's clear Dean's book and Greg's post prove that conservatism has become completely unmoored from its original tenants. As Josh has argued for years, for this new brand, it's been flipped on its head, and the up-is-down description is not only particularly accurate, it's the norm.
One thing that strikes me about this book is Dean's sincerity, and his adherance to Goldwater conservatism.
Let's have a taste from the book. (From a conversation that he had with Goldwater):
Here we see the willingness of a staunch conservative to engage in deep thinking about policies that will help average Americans. Being center-lefty, I may not agree with his policies, but at least we can have a discussion.
As Kevin Drum has noted, the bulk of this debate about Liberal v. Conservative has already been settled; call it The Triumph of Liberalism. Like it or not, two of the most influential presidents have been FDR and LBJ, largely because of their domestic policies. In other words, two men who wanted to level the playing field for average working stiffs. Go figure. The rest is just chaff, and the sound of conservatives scraping their blunt nails across the chalkboard, grasping at anything to save their intellectual failure. Something that was once noble and guiding is now a stank cesspool. We might as well elect James Inhofe for president (I apologize for that comment, Jim's crazy but he's not stupid).
Here's one thing that conservatives will never get over: FDR pulled the nation out of the Depression, and won WWII. And, he was a Democrat. That one sticks in their craw. Why else would the GOP want to privatize Social Security? Because they are so bitten by government being put to good use that they cannot allow that legacy to stand. It must be torn down and destroyed. I sometimes wonder if it's 50-50 split between a giveaway to Wall Street or, a political payback.
The failure of conservatism is now represented by the fire brands on right-wing talk radio. Tell me, is there any discernable differnce between Sean Hannity and George W. Bush, other than the obvious observation that one is more articulate?
We're talking deep iversion. And by the way, failure is an option.
August 10, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not make an explicit connection between "social conservatives" and the religious right, that is your interpretation. I'm sure that there are some who meet your criteria.
What I'm think of is more like people like Pete Peterson, or our new treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, who go around making false economic arguments about the long term viability of Social Security and the need to "reform" it by privatizing the social services that the government trust funds provide.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 11, 2006 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink