The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling

In one sense, it isn't hard to see why the Republican Party seems to be coming apart at the seams. When you get caught gutting the regulations that had kept us for 70 years from another stock market crash like the crash of 1929 and another collapse of the banking system like the one that occurred during the Great Depression, and when your policies throw millions of people out of their homes, jobs, retirement, and doctors' offices, the next bottle of elixir you sell is not likely to fly off the shelf, especially if it's the same whine in a new deCantor.

But at a deeper level, the modern conservative movement, which eventually came to define the GOP (to its benefit for many years), was built on an ideological foundation--and a coalition--that was fundamentally incoherent. It took a charismatic leader to bring it together (Ronald Reagan), a tacit agreement among its coalition partners to give each other what they wanted, and a message machine to start selling the idea that that there was coherence to a conservative "philosophy" that was anything but coherent.

Modern conservatism wove together five discrete strands and interest groups that couldn't coexist. What is remarkable is how well it held together despite the fact that those strands were actually difficult to interweave.

The first strand is libertarian conservatism, reflected in leaders from Barry Goldwater to Ron Paul. Libertarian conservatives believe government should be small and weak and kept that way through low taxes. From their point of view, the primary role of government is to police the streets, protect private property, and protect the country from external threats (although at times they can get a little histrionic about internal threats as well).

The second strand, with which libertarianism is entirely incompatible, is social conservatism, particularly Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalists of any sort believe that they have privileged knowledge of God's Will and hence have the right to use whatever methods available--including the instruments of state--to impose that will on others. It is one thing to believe, as many democratic (and increasingly Democratic) evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics do, that life begins at conception. It is another to believe that because you believe that, you have the right to impose your interpretation of the books you consider holy on others who may not share your faith or your interpretation of Scripture. The fundamentalist politics practiced by the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson over the last 30 years should have been anathema to genuine libertarians, because they run against everything libertarian conservatives believe in vis-à-vis intrusive government. However, the two groups lived happily together as long as libertarians got to keep their taxes low and their rifles loaded and fundamentalists got to keep their kids from learning anything about birth control (leading the Bible Belt to have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and abortion anywhere in the country, although Sarah Palin seems to be leading a one-family crusade to recapture for Alaska the title of Miss Teen Pregnancy).

The third strand of conservatism is old fashioned fiscal conservatism--the kind that once led Bob Dole to garner his party's nomination for president but would make him unwelcome in the contemporary GOP. Fiscal conservatives are essentially soft New Dealers, who accept the premises of the New Deal--that we need a safety net, that when people lose their jobs because of economic downturns they shouldn't lose their homes, that people deserve some minimal degree of dignity in old age if they worked hard for 40 years--but prefer the safety net and tax codes to be thin. Fiscal conservatism bears no logical relation to social conservatism, and although it bears a superficial resemblance to libertarian conservatism, the two are fundamentally at odds, with one accepting the premises of the New Deal and the other rejecting them.

The fourth strand, national security conservatism, is a different breed. National security conservatives tend to be hawkish (although they have a curious habit of evading military service when it comes their turn), and they are generally quick to accuse others of being soft on the threat du jour (unless the other side happens to be in an interventionist mood, in which case they often morph into isolationists just for sport, as when George W. Bush attacked Clinton and Gore for "nation building" and then went on a six year binge of it). The militarism of national security conservatism is as far at odds from evangelical Christianity (and hence social conservatism) as it could be, given that Jesus preached most about the evils of war, poverty, and public expressions of piety, but somehow Christian social conservatives have found a way to rationalize militarism (not to mention ignore the plight of the poor or blame them for their poverty and build crystal cathedrals). Indeed, fundamentalist Christians were the strongest supporters of the Iraq War of any demographic group other than the Bush and Cheney families.

The final strand of conservatism is the one Nixon exploited with his Southern Strategy and the Republicans have exploited ever since, whether the issue is voting rights, "welfare queens," affirmative action, or the fate of "illegals": prejudice, whether conscious (as when Reagan and Nixon used, let's say, "colorful" terms, to describe those on welfare) or unconscious (as when Bob Corker ran a race against Harold Ford, a black Congressman from Tennessee, asking, "Who's the real Tennessean?", when what he was really activating in the back of voters' minds was, "he's not really one of 'us,' now is he"?). Given that most white Americans no longer see themselves or want to see themselves as racist, and that they actually consciously eschew racist sentiments and actions such as overt discrimination against people because of the color of their skin, emotional appeals to this segment of the conservative population tend to be strongest when a conscious "text" with some merit (e.g., we can't simply open the floodgates to all who would want to enter the United States and become citizens) is superimposed on the unconscious "subtext" of prejudice (the people flooding in happen to have dark skin). Although it's easy to localize this strand of conservatism as Southern, given that the GOP has become a regional party, it is important to note that had the Presidential election only included white voters (the Republicans' fantasy), McCain would have won in a 63-37 landslide over Barack Obama. But conservatives don't have much on their side on this one either, except to the extent that they can block the vote, because demographics are running in the wrong direction for them over the next 50 years.

I would never underestimate the ability of the right to find a way to stitch something back together, for two reasons. First, they're good at it. They're short on ideas, but they're long on selling ideas, however vapid. Second, Democrats are exactly the opposite: They're long on ideas but short on the ability to bundle them into coherent, emotionally compelling narratives that make people want to buy them--except when the GOP is so corrupt, inept, and/or bankrupt (or causing bankruptcy) that even moderate Republicans jump ship.

The reality is that it's going to be difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and it's going to take someone with vision and charisma to figure out which aspects of conservatism to bring back into the center and which to catapult without losing a base that is now seriously out of step with mainstream America. I don't see that leader in Bobby "let me tell you a story about my dad and how in America, anything is possible" Jindal, Tim "let me tell you a story before you fall asleep and I have to certify Al Franken" Pawlenty, and Sarah "let me tell a lot of stories and hope no one checks the facts" Palin.

Faux tea parties aren't going to get them there, either (and if you ask me, they seem more than a little elite (tea?) and, well, gay (don't real men drink beer?) for a Party determined to "save the institution of marriage." But perhaps as they clink their porcelain cups in unison for high tea, they'll have an epiphany about how to replace their predictable and carping Constant Comments about taxes and deficits with a new blend. Perhaps they could borrow some green tea from the President.

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."

Comments

[I once had a Crysknife]

This is a good article, but I would like to see it juxtaposed agianst the Democratic party and it's factions. Southern black Christians, wealthy white farm owners, blue collar white workers, young animal rights activists, pro choice and gay rights activists, suburban white moms, inner city urban minorities and last but not least the elite entertainment media. Many of these groups have radical ideas to the others, but never the less the Democratic party has done a good job of appealing to each group and getting them all under the same tent.

[Chip W]

Good article.
There are some valid conservative values - small government, while recognizing government has roles to play, and fiscal responsibility - but I don't know where they went.

[ppfaffman]

This is a comment about style, as opposed to substance. The name "Tea Party" for the Republican event did not come from patrician or gay life styles. It comes from a bit of history known as "The Boston Tea Party", which was a protest against taxation without representation. That Republicans grossly distort the meaning of history is not surprising. That Mr. Drew seems to be unaware of the Tea Party allusion sadly reinforces a Republican meme that liberals are oblivious to and discount our nation's origins.

[leapyearmark]

Repubs did not distort anything -- get it right.

[DWGRadio]

Very well put. Fiscal Conservatives (my wife and I) go much more hand in hand with Social Liberals (my wife and I). For example, if sex education were taught with honesty and proper information in areas with high teen pregnancy rates, and those rates were to drop, fewer tax dollars would be needed for welfare support to struggling young people who made bad choices. This is only one example.

Thank you for so elegantly laying this out.

[Bianchi]

Your article is RIGHT ON POINT!

I'm an Italian business owner who relocated to the upstate of South Carolina 20 years ago. WOW...MAJOR CURLURE SHOCK with rea Republicans (I've been a Republican my entire 30 + year voting life). The only reason I was accepted into the Republican community is because of my money. I've been openly mocked, made fun of, condemned, called a "heathen, ignorant sinner'. Our children have been told (repeatedly) that, "you & your parents are going to burn in hell becuase your Catholic & not Southern Baptist...even if your Republican" The sad part is this: the people in this area REALLY, HONEST TO GOD, with every ounce of their being, believe if your not Republican your a lesser human, & only tolerated if your not Baptist. The pulpits & christians in this area spew hate for anyone who isn't GOP...for gays, & or anyone who is pro choice...or dares to question the actions of ANY GOP OFFICIAL! From one who lives in the heart of that particular mind set...they'll never change their core beliefs... or that ANYONE who isn't Republican is a sinner, ignorant, has no business in politics, & is doomed for hell! They're actions & words contradict their own testimony...as well as the words of Christ. This is one of the groups in the GOP who will not bend, or waver in their convictions (politically or theologically) and, in my opinion, would take up arms to defend their convictions.

[SouthernYankeeBelle]

As one who's mother came from Italy she thought that southerns were as backwards as the farmers of her region. Culture shock is an understatement. I moved here from the northeast and I swear everything you said about these people are right on target. I live in a very small town and I am a catholic. We have 1 catholic church and our church had people from other churchs am sure putting hateful notes on our cars. That is why I don't understand why the catholic churches would have this alliance with some of these extreme churches. They truly hate catholics. Now I know why it is important to have separation of church and state. Being a minority church in my town you don't want your kids being forced to be preached at. I know some public schools try to interfer with parents rights. If you go to the school and say you want to opt out they say to you "we don't want some yankee coming here and telling us what to do". That kind of talk is schocking.

[leapyearmark]

have a South Carloin a person move to Brooklyn and see what happens -- just takes getting adjusted. It may take time, but you'll be fine

[moonchild71]

Great article!

[schatsie]

I love your comments about the 'tea party'... Frankly I thought it had something to do with Alice in Wonderland (AKA disneyland) and the Mad Hatter (cheney had to be mad to shoot someone in the face) or the RED Queen (AKA the decider)....

[leapyearmark]

get real

[Caddisfly]

Nice article, pointing out the very real cognitive dissonance that is the Republican party of today. With all these counter-intuittive ideas rolling around inside ones head, it was only a matter of time before the craziness appears.

[Billie]

Great article! When someone tells me they are a conservative, I wonder to myself: what does that word even mean anymore?

[leapyearmark]

and the same goes for when someone says they are a liberal.....

[Tibe]

Excellent analysis by Drew Westen of contradictions on US Right. But there's a problem with "[...] to believe, as many [...] evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics do, that life begins at conception."

Orthodox Christians, like orthodox biologists, don't believe life begins at conception. Life began. In Christian doctrine, some 6000 years ago. Similarly — with the big exception of evolving species — in biology since Louis Pasteur put paid to theories of bacterial spontaneous generation. Life, once it got going seriously, has been passed on.

Sperm are alive; eggs are alive; zygotes are alive — etc. "When life begins" is irrelevant for debates on abortion or stem-cell research.

The antiabortion folk are correct that "There's always a death in an abortion." There's also always deaths when sperm and eggs die, and when you eat a hamburger or a carrot or rinse with Listerine ("Kills germs on contact!"). The relevant question is how we should view a living zygote, embryo, and/or fetus with a human genotype.

We should try to minimize harm, including minimizing what we kill to live and enjoy life. To do that, though, we first must admit it when we do kill.

[twocrows]

"We should try to minimize harm, including minimizing what we kill to live and enjoy life."
Tibe-- I take it you're talking about stem cell research here.

The point is -- it's not either/or.
Hundreds of blastocysts are thrown away daily. They are only viable, even in deep-freeze, for a finite amount of time.

Those who want the research to go forward are only advocating that we use the blastocysts that would be disposed of anyway.
No one is proposing the creation of zygotes in order to destroy them. That is, in fact, against the law.

So, if they are to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good?

I have seen Alzheimer's Disease up close and personal. My mother should not have lost her brain 15 years before she died. Stem cells might have saved her from that fate.
I believe she was more important that a blastocyst that was destined to be thrown in the trash.

[MAH1952]

As a long term Republican I agree with this assessment. I definitely belong to the socially liberal/fiscally sconservative side of the party. I am very sad that the party of Lincoln has turned into a party that makes George Wallace and the KKK look like liberals. Remember there once was a Know-Nothing Party, well the members have awakened after an almost two hundred year sleep and taken over the Republican Party.

[RudyV]

My fear is that the Republicans know they've been discredited, and rather than find themselves dumped quietly into the dustbin of history they'd prefer to go out in a blaze of glory.

[leapyearmark]

not true at all

[ProudObamacan]

Very thought provoking and interesting post. While I have thought about some of your concepts, I did not put them together in such a well organized fashion as you did. Bravo. I would hope a amalgam of the BEST / morally positive attributes of all 5 tenets (well maybe no the last one) could become a cohesive unified party - one I might be interested in joining. Until then, I will continue to be an unhappy Republican that continues to vote for Democrats.

[Javelin 17]

To summarize by reducing each strand to a single word, we have:
the Libertarians, the Theocrats, the Oligarchs, the Hawks, and the Racists.

[I once had a Crysknife]

Nice referance to oligarchs too many people don't even know what that means.

[BDHUH]

Excellent article that sank for me at the end with the following glib and OFFENSIVE comment:

"Faux tea parties aren't going to get them there, either (and if you ask me, they seem more than a little elite (tea?) and, well, gay (don't real men drink beer?)". I know lots of real gay men and the off the cuff use of this as a pejorative, all too common, detracts from the quality of this article.

[I once had a Crysknife]

yup

[llee611838]

Your analysis on the different and seemingly incompatible factions of the Republican party is interesting, but I think it would have been more impactful if its descriptions of some of the factions were less partisan. Rather than, for example, "The fourth strand, national security conservatism, is a different breed. National security conservatives tend to be hawkish (although they have a curious habit of evading military service when it comes their turn), and they are generally quick to accuse others of being soft on the threat du jour..." I would like to have seen a more neutral description of the strands and their beliefs.