There is an interesting report on how these same people influenced the public perspective on the estate tax issue. They have not only opposed social safety net policies, but worked for their personal self-interest as well.

Here's a link to the PDF of the report.

When you have a family like the Waltons who are worth about $80 billion the concepts of a democratic debate about policies go out the window. They can (and do) buy academics to flog their ideas. One can tell that these are not serious institutions (including Hoover) since their members seldom publish in peer-reviewed journals. Instead they use the distribution arms of the organizations to put out their work. Hoover even pays for ads in opinion magazines to distribute the "findings" of its researchers. Sounds like a vanity press to me.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

One large part of this conservative movement was their ability to manipulate the lower middle class and those at the bottom , (through conservative talk radio, certain publications and think tanks, television personalities, academics, and Republican politicians all using demogoguery and dissembling and the ever present hint of racism and anti-semitism), into building the gallows these Capitalists would use to hang them.

Its my contention that when the liberals lost power, and the Reagan types started their ascendency, the lower middle class and those at the bottom, a notable majority of the public, lost their representation. This majority must now rely on the Republican Party and the business friendly wing of the Democratic Party, the DLC, for representation.

The people behind the Foundations and funding mentioned in the article above, would more accurately be called "unbridled capitalism seekers", rather than Conservatives.

i agree that the right wingers turned character assination, deceipt etc. to the extreme.

however, the left, particulalry around reproductive rights, contributed to the polarization, using hate speech, litmus tests, etc.

"Borking" was not a right wingnut contribution to our political process.

One important element of that dubious accomplishment has been transforming the way we talk about issues from one in which evidence, reason, and good manners were the norm into one where school civics classes could qualify for PG-13 ratings. Election verdicts can help to begin the process of repairing some of the damage to the government. But thanks in no small part to the ill-mannered funders of the right, we’re probably stuck for good with rampant incivility.

I think this is way too generous a view of the way political discourse happened in years past.  Vituperative attacks on one's opponents have been a hallmark of politics since the beginning of the country.  Ever read what was written in 18th century political pamphlets?  Ever heard of the time in the 19th century when fistfights broke out on the Senate floor?  Ever hear what Franklin Roosevelt was called by conservatives during the Depression?  His response is still the best: "They are unanimous in their hatred for me - and I welcome their hatred." 

It may be more accurate to say that the relative levels of civility wax and wane.  In times of great peril, there is more civility, in general, for instance.  But the idea that there was some mythical past when politics was conducted with pure civility is exactly that - a myth.

The right wing money trail leads deep into the heart of Academia, as well.  In little more than one year my campus was

• David Horowitzed
• Tammy Bruced
• Ann Coulterized (twice)

The campus young republican newspaper was also heavily subsidized.  Not a lot of fun walking to the lecture between signs held by students claiming they were being brainwashed.

There seems to be no equivalent source of funding for young Democrats on campus, and cupcake sales can't suffice to raise funds for quality speakers from the left of the spectrum.  It would be nice to see this change, MHO.

aMike

Brad, Without question acrimony is nothing new. But you seem to be saying that the nature of political debates is no different now than in the past, subject to ebbs and flows of conditions like whether the country is at great peril or not. Well, within weeks of 9/11, Andrew Sullivan was warning of a new fifth column, and right wingers at The Weekly Standard and the National Review were actively intimidating anyone who suggested that we should investigate how the attacks could have happened. That stands in contrast to, say, the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, when both parties actively sought answers to how we could be so vulnerable and public investigation occurred quickly.

Cheney and Rummy have continued to lash out against purported "appeasers" for merely raising concerns and asking questions about Iraq. There were no books written in the 1960s and earlier with titles like The Party of Death and Liberal Fascism, or analogues to the stuff written and said by Ann Coutler and Dinesh D'Souza. Obviously, there was nothing akin to the mindless ranting on cable every night, and political talk radio was much less pervasive and generally less vituperative, though there have always been some right-wing loudmouths on radio.

Do you really think nothing has changed, and that movement conservatism hasn't affected the norms of debate that the public hears day in and day out regardless of what's in the news at any given moment? -- Greg