Responding to Criticism
Let me respond to a couple of the criticisms raised so far. First, Ross Douthat, while very kindly praising my book, accuses me of “imputing the worst of motives to [my] opponents” in my summary for the book for this forum. The accusation is based on the fact that I describe the modern conservative movement to be, at its core, “class warfare on behalf of the rich.”
The question of motive actually doesn’t interest me very much, because it’s impossible. I think virtually every human being thinks that what they do is basically good. I’m sure Stephen Moore is a genuine believer in supply-side economics. I have heard business lobbyists explain why they’re performing an essential public service, and I’m sure they believe that, too.
On top of that, there are a lot of Republicans who believe that making rich people richer is an important public good. I quote several of them in my book. Tony Snow once wrote, “Upper classes have always pulled societies forward economically – and their conspicuous prosperity has always aroused the jealousies of the lower classes.” Bill Archer, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, once said, “The engine that pulls the train must continue to be fueled.” There are other such statements from prominent Republicans. These people believe in supply-side economics, but they also have a deeper belief that, marginal tax rates aside, what’s good for the rich is good for everybody.
Now, this does not apply to every Republican. There are a lot of actors in the Republican Party, and they have different motives and interests. The point of my analysis is not that they are all sitting in a mountaintop castle somewhere plotting to enrich the rich. My point is that the sum total of the vectors of influence point the party in the direction of upward redistribution. The free market ideologues have the most success on those issues where their ideology aligns with the rich. They may often oppose, say, government subsidies for business, or favor a negative income tax, but on those issues they tend to be ineffectual.
Paul Krugman wonders why The Big Con does not discuss the role of race in the conservative shift, and offers up a preview quote from his own book. The reason I didn’t discuss race is that it’s the answer to a different question than the one I’m exploring. Race is a major answer to the question of how the Democratic majority formed during the New Deal unraveled. The evolution of the Democratic Party into the party of African-Americans obviously drove millions of whites into the GOP, and made them more conservative.
But that realignment was finished by the 1990s. Moreover, the broader conservative shift in public opinion – one that was driven by racial issues like growing crime, but also things like stagflation and the Vietnam hangover -- had played itself out. (Indeed, one of the few nice things I can say about George W. Bush is that he has avoided the sorts of coded racial appeals used by his father and Ronald Reagan.)
The puzzling thing is this: the conservative shift in public opinion peaked in the early 1980s, and has sharply reversed itself over the last decade, but the right’s dominance over domestic policy has continued anyway. This is the paradox I try to explain in the second half of the book – Washington has continued moving right long after the public stopped moving right and starting moving back left.
"I think virtually every human being thinks that what they do is basically good."
This is just another way of saying that some people are very good at lying to themselves and lying to others about what they do.
Rich people -- by definition -- have a much greater capability to cause harm to others than a poor person, or especially, a child. Rich people control more stuff and make more decisions that affect lots of lots of people. Poor people, as Kurt Vonnegut said, control doodleysquat. Rich people have lots of power. They can hire lawyers. They can tell people to do things. They can fire and fire people. Poor people cannot.
The above is not a statement of "class warfare" -- it's a statement of fact. Nobody strives to become rich or stay rich so that they can be powerless over their own lives and futures.
September 11, 2007 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan -- to your question of why Washington is still "moving to the right" long after the conservative shift in public opinion topped out in the 1980s, I would offer as one cause the massive consolidation of broadcast media which Reagan's FCC rules changes helped bring about.
September 11, 2007 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason why Washington is still moving to the right is because there is still a movement working hard to make it happen. There are still plenty of well funded think tanks, a news network and lots of talk radio people who make sure they keep the pressure on. We also have the lobbyists who keep lobbying for the people who have the money.
We also have nothing tugging from the far left, no socialist movement, no commie country, no strong labor movement, nothing. When FDR enacted his New Deal he was moving to the left, but he was taking the moderate stance at the time. Look what was on his pulling on him from his left flank, commie countries with sympathizers here at home, socialist groups, the labor movement. FDR didn't have a Heritage Foundation, along with a Fox News and a Rush Limbaugh to deal with.
If you want to call someone a thieving pig fucker, you'd better be prepared to produce the pig." -- HST
September 11, 2007 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct:
I think virtually every human being thinks that what they do is basically good.
Con men, too: "The rubes deserve it." "How is what I'm doing any different than legal gambling?" "He gave me his money freely. Nothing illegal there." Which is why "The Big Con" is a perfectly reasonable title.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 12, 2007 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The puzzling thing is this: the conservative shift in public opinion peaked in the early 1980s, and has sharply reversed itself over the last decade, but the right’s dominance over domestic policy has continued anyway.
IMHO, your analysis is right on target...and at first, in the late 80s and early to mid 90s, the right's dominance was puzzling to me as well. But here's a clue in 2 words: Mighty Wurltizer...as in the right wing's Mighty Wurlitzer Smear/Propaganda/Brainwashing Machine. Though they represent only a minority point of view, and a shrinking one at that, authoritarian right-wing extremists can dominate our discourse and manipulate the emotions of enough people to control the domestic agenda. And it helps a whole lot that Big Money subsidizes the Mighty Wurlitzer propaganda machine.
For the most part our political discourse is conducted in 2 general forums: media outlets that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the right wing's Mighty Wurlitzer (Fox News, NY Post, Wall Street Journal editorial page, etc.) and the Mighty Wurlitzer's whipped dogs aka the so-called "liberal media" (just about every other news outlet in the country). 35 years of the Mighty Wurlitzer screaming, "LIBERAL BIAS!!! LIBERAL BIAS!!! LIBERAL BIAS!!!" each and every single time a news story tends to put the GOP or the so-called "conservative movement" in a bad light has destroyed American journalism and turned journalists into fearful, simpering toadies to the right wing.
Only a tiny amount of American political discourse is conducted in media outlets outside the stifling confines of the Mighty Wurlitzer: liberal and left-wing blogs, two columnists at the New York Times (Paul Krugman and Frank Rich), Keith Olbermann's program on MSNBC, and maybe a handful of magazines. That's about it.
September 12, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are broadly right, but I think TV and talk radio are the main outlets, far more important to the right than any single newspaper.
There have been recent studies showing that there are more conservative Sunday news show guests and syndicated columnists. (Matt Yglesias discussed last night.)
September 12, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the GOP has a behind closed doors deal in which rich conservatives pledge certain amounts in exchange for the GOP continuing to work for repeal of the estate tax.
I think the thinking is that if the estate tax is going to cost your estate a few million bucks anyway, might as well give part of that to the GOP in an effort to keep that money. I'm not ultra-rich, but it seems plain to me. Why these guys feel they are entitled to permanent familial entitlement, a deeply anti-American sentiment going back to the Revolution, is beyond me.
September 12, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This seems difficult to counter. It's self evidently true.
However, polls still show that most people support universal health care, higher fuel efficiency standards for cars - essentially the 'liberal agenda.'
So the 'disconnect' here simply shows that the agenda of elites has nothing to do with the majority.
It has nothing to do with 'ideology' either. Consider how Konservatives worshipped Bush, even though he signs big ol' boondoggle legislation. The energy bill they passed in the first term was just a giveaway to oil companies.
Look also at the security contractors in Iraq. They're sucking off the govt. teet and noboby on the right seems to mind at all. Why isn't that 'big government' and danmable?
September 12, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Big Money rules the day should no longer be an item of disagreement.
How else can Ann Coulter or Bill Kristol be taken seriously?
"Harumph. Get me 10,000 copies of that new Coulter book. No, I didn't read it, I already know what it says. Did we cut those 15,000 jobs today? Get on it. I'll be in the Cayman office the rest of the week. Hold my calls. Unless it's Rove."
The propaganda machine is bored and stoked, firing on all cylinders and cutting down everything in it's path. This is not a people-powered machine, but many people are impressed by its bluster and hop on board despite their second thoughts.
But hang in there, folks. The net is our torpedo to the Death Star. Unless, of course, net neutrality is eliminated.
The Big Money juggernaut is morally bankrupt, despite the proclaimed (and, in many cases, sincere) best intentions of its apologists.
A more telling analogy than Archer probably intended.
September 12, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope in know what Mr. Chat you means, and I also hope it isn't what Mr. Chat says. So now the Democratic Party is the Black party and the Republican Party is the White Party? And somehow, this transition of party made them more conservative by turning on some sort of latent conservative gene? So the Democratic Party is responsible and at fault for the success of the Republican Party, because it valued racial equity? ewwww. and uh uh.
aMike
September 13, 2007 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink