Historical, Hysterical Conservatives

Conservatives have been in a historical state of mind lately, and as the author of a new book on the history of the American political debate (The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be), it has been pretty entertaining to watch.

First came the teabaggers, the faux spontaneous uprising backed by corporate contributors, carefully planned Astroturf consultants, and Fox News sponsorship and promotion night and day. Then we saw the right-wing Governor of Texas casually throw out the idea of secession from the union. Now we see conservatives debating amongst themselves whether to call Obama a socialist or a fascist. (My favorite quote from the story on this is from former Michigan GOP party chair Saul Anuzis: "You've got to be careful using the term 'economic fascism' in the right way, so it doesn't come as extreme.")

Conservatives know this country is at a historical crossroads, and I suspect that what they fear most is that they are just as much on the wrong side of history as their ideological ancestors were in the 1860s when the end of slavery was being debated, in the early 1900s when women's suffrage was being debated, in the 1930s when social security and the minimum wage were being debated, and in the 1960s when the civil rights were being debated. In every single one of those historical debates, conservatives:

-labeled their opposition socialists (and worse)
-called for states' rights instead of a federal solution
-said that they were the true heirs of the founding fathers, and were the keepers of America's traditions and values
-warned that the charges being proposed were frighteningly radical, and would destroy the economy
-that big government would lead to a destruction of all of our most basic liberties

These conservative arguments have always been tinged with more than a little hysteria, just like today. And no matter what, conservatives always insisted they owned the moral high ground. Defenders of slavery argued that slavery was not an evil but in John Calhoun's words, "a positive good," and that Southern society was based on the institution. Those opposing women's suffrage said giving women the right to vote would destroy the American family. Conservatives in the 1930s argued about social security that "never in the history of the world has any measure brought here so incisively designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people." Southerners violently opposed the end of Jim Crow, arguing that it "encroached upon the reserved rights of the states and the people."

Conservatives have always hysterically opposed progressive change. They have used the same arguments-for tradition and states rights, against "big government socialism" -- in every era. In those past eras, history was not on their side. It is not in our time, either.

Comments

[Jonny38103]

So what's liberal/progressive today will become mainstream soon......­...and the Right will be drug kicking and screaming into the future. And all the boogey-man talk is just that - scare tactics to prevent the change that they are so afraid of. There may be some short-term ebb and flow in philosophical beliefs, but in the long-run we're always moving left. Take heart, America, we'll get to where we're supposed to be.

[reallyenuff]

Even though I have asked several times, no one has been able to tell me why they are a conservative.

Conservatives have been on the wrong side of history on EVERY major "social" issue as Mr. Lux writes (slavery, suffrage, social security, civil rights, etc.), and now climate change, education, and health care, etc..

They are supposed to be capitalists and fiscally conservative; however under democratic­/progressi­ve administrations the return on stocks has been many multiples more than under conservative administrations; I'm not sure about all of history, but in recent history (the last 75 years?), even deficits have been smaller and reduced more under progressives.

I heard Krugman say once that Conservatism is just a theory, because in history it has always failed. Yet they always seem to find/buy their way back into power.

Other than to be selfish or preserve status quo, please, someone tell me why be a conservative?

[AnnfromCA]

I can't fathom why this is even questionable. The spending bills have been labeled shocking by most everyone. This isn't a case where a president's agenda shifts money from one area of focus to another. That would be politics as usual. This is quite a lot different.

Have you ever read how Jefferson really got alot of the Indians to cede territory? Through business. They just got so far in debt to the outposts that they traded away territory to pay the bill.

That's the same sense of what's going on now.

[reallyenuff]

You didn't answer my question.

If you exclude the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars (like Bush did), then we can talk about spending; under conservatives spending always goes up, but they never have a way to pay for it because they are always screaming tax cuts.

I'm not sure the Indians have to do with spending?

[JohnBisceglia]

"Conservative" seems to mean CODDLING all of the power and wealth that is "legally" possible, while maintaing a total disregard for the rest of society.

Oh, and having a 2nd Grader's understanding of the Bible and using that lack of knowledge for political gain.

[JScott]

And the last 8 years of GWB have supported it.

[AnnfromCA]

I don't see much difference between the far-left labeling and the far-right. Now, for example, to protest spending makes one a racist.

That's not any more logical than calling the left socialist no matter what they do.

It's all the same mushy thinking.

[framante]

Consevatives are on the wrong side of reality. The universe and everything in it is progressive -- things are in a contant state of change. One can conserve in the short term, but ultimately it will be unsuccessful because everything -- everything -- goes forward (progresses) in the end.

[artigiano]

Money is and always will be the Mother's milk of politicians. It wasn't just you and your family that took a bath to the tune of 40-50% when your asset value tumbled in October 2008. That hit even the rich and powerful where it hurt.

The big dog donors are all turning to the Democrats for the future. And Obama has the small donors organized so far beyond the GOP it's like a dream come true. Want to see what a billion dollars in campaign money can do without a primary challenge from Hillary to eat up 60% of it?

Can't wait till 2012. The GOP ticket will not carry 10 states.

[onlinesavant]

To a large degree, I hope that you're right. But the problem that I have with your assessment is the big money. For all of the talk of small donors with regard to their role in the Obama victory, about 45% of his campaign money came in the form of donations less than $200. My hope is that before the end of Obama's two terms there will be a public financing law passed that will include free airtime for candidates. This is the ONLY way that big money can be pushed to the side and elected officials can begin to represent more of the true will of the people. Did you know that congressional members literally spend HALF their day fundraising? Think about it.

[noaxe397]

Conservatism as the basis of a form of government has failed every where it has been tried, unless it was at the point of a gun because conservatism is based on the belief that man is essentially bad and so the only legitimate purpose of government is to control him through police and military action. Why do you think conservatives in this country are always so angry.
Many tin foil hat types believe wrongly that our Founders were conservative. In fact the USConstitution and the DecofInd are the most liberal documents struck by the hand of man, enlightened men at that.
To be conservative in 1776 meant believing in:
the divine right of kings
the privleges of nobility
government runs the church.
The Founders established:
election of president, not annointing king.
USCon. outlaws granting titles of nobility
Seperation of church/state at the top.

We have met the conservatives and they are.......­..........­.......NOT US!

[Marcantm]

Mike Lux, GREAT ARTICLE. I appreciate it.

[republicants]

Mike Lux - Thanks for an accurate and succinct historical analysis of the failures of the "conservative" elements of our society. History does indeed, repeat itself.

[Reighben Labilles]

Well, they do what their side of the ideological spectrum does, conserve the status quo--no matter how ridiculously oppressive the status quo is. Conservatism anywhere follows a dangerous cycle. An elite or elite group espouses traditional values to appeal to the conservatives in the population in order to maintain a hold on power. In return for the elite's public promotion of traditional values or current conservative hate wave, the conservative masses continue to support the elites.

Right now, Iraq has a standing fatwa to kill gay people. A lot of eastern European states haze neo-nazi groups doing the same thing. And in the US, there are right wing groups calling Obama a fascist and some even want Obama dead. They all have one thing in common. There are people in their governments supporting that kind of violent conservatism. The result, these elites stay in power and the oppressive conservative masses have a dangerous, empowered presence in society.

Somehow, this cycle needs to stop. For the good of all humanity, we must convince these conservatives to embrace liberalism and progress.

[SILVANUS]

But they always, always claim God is always on THEIR side (and NOT yours).

[FernandoRuiz]

As if God would ever take a side. These conservatives think God is just a bearded man in the sky who points fingers and judges

[creepsinc]

Bravo for succinctly summing it up. This (mostly) libertarian thinks the government IS far too big, and fears the rest of the country will realize it too late when it's handed off to a real (elected) fascist dictator. Until then, I'll be celebrating the death of social conservatism.

[DannyDanson]

Government must be large enough to of offset the plutocratic impulses of a free market capitalism, especially where the divide between rich and poor is so large and increasing, this is not redistribution of wealth as the Fox-pundits spin it, but rather a honest acknowledgement of the real danger associated with thoughtless corporate deregulation, and the politically strategic underfunding of a democratically elected Government that is ideally only concerned only with the greater good. You cannot expect the business community or corporate America to do anything other than what's in their best interest, it is the job of the elected Government to govern us all that includes even the Corporations that would rather be left alone to determine exactly what's in their employee's and stakeholders best interest, I company should have any rights that can impend upon the rights of an American citizen, I corporation is not an indidvidual citizen, and before we were a nation with Corporations we were a nation of individuals. Hence, the rationale behind these organizations in collutes with coporate lobbies who have spun a 3% tax hike for less than 1 % of Americans into
assault on democracy, fascism, socialism, etc. (If you don't see it it's because you don't want to)

[creepsinc]

I never said anything about sensible regulation. I also don't consider paying taxes (even when they go to help the downtrodden) to be "socialism". I'm a Constitutional absolutist. The word "welfare" is in the Preamble. The phrase "well-regulated" is in the 2nd Amendment. I realize that. I don't want to see anything in the Constitution about the government owning industries. Maybe that's why I don't see it.

I'm certainly no corporate apologist. Corporations don't have rights, I realize that too. However, if you don't think the government (especially accelerated under Bush II) has become a gigantic slobbering beast that a president should be paring down, not expanding, then check back when a Sarah Palin takes it over.

[Paulied]

You forgot one key element of every conservative argument on your list: They always claim that Jesus is on their side.

[exoevolution]

The mind-set, the core beliefs that fought for the right to own human beings, to keep woman in their place, to stopping unionization & keeping wages low & telling blacks to sit at the back of the bus - these stepping stones are the deep seated history of today's Limbaugh Corporatist Supremacy of the Wealthy Republican Party, an outdated philosophy of kings & tyrants, now in its death throes, with the 1st Black President in position to be the leader to finally give hope & meaning to Jefferson's epiphany of truth, "that all men are created equal."

[pcplz]

What I find interesting is that the ones yelling Socialism the most are ones who are living a life of total Socialism. Isn't that the income for life and the complete total medical coverage what they have? Are they just for Socialism for themselves but, not for the masses?

We, the masses, will never enjoy the security that our congressmen and women enjoy. Socialists?