A commenter who labels himself “r4d20” left comments to the “Being Liberal Doesn’t Mean Being a Patsy” post, here and here, and I want to answer these comments at length because the writer brings up some important points. Beginning with:
Not to be a pendant, but the first step in elevating the culture is to at least get some terms more specific than “righties/lefties”, or “the right/the left”. I understand that its a quick and easy reference point, but I think that excessive use of generalities does interfere with clear thought.
I am a big proponent of using words and phrases with precision, but in our current political culture attempts to define various factions by standard political nomenclature will fail, IMO, because the partisan forces tearing us apart are not fundamentally political forces, but cultural ones.
Once upon a time I referred to righties as “conservatives,” because that’s what they called themselves, but whether they are or are not conservative depends a whole lot on how you define conservative. And that’s a perilous thing to do, because if you go by the bare-bones dictionary definition, “One who strongly favors retention of the existing order; orthodox, traditionalist, etc.,” the next thing you have to do is figure out what “existing order” is to be retained, and that can change over time and from place to place.
According to The Reader’s Companion to American History (Eric Foner and John Garraty, eds. Houghon Mifflin, 1991),
A uniquely American form of conservatism first arose in opposition to the nation’s sense of boundless optimism about human nature under democracy. And for roughly the first two hundred years of the Republic, conservatism was defined politically and culturally by its fears of the political excesses, economic egalitarianism, and cultural vulgarity generated by a democratic society shorn of any aristocratic restraints.
This is from an excellent overview of conservatism in America by Fred Siegel that can be found on this page, but you have to scroll down to get to it. It’s under the “American History” heading, and begins “The Reagan presidency has been hailed as the high point of twentieth-century American conservatism.” To understand fully where I’m coming from here it would be helpful to read the whole thing, but I’m just going to quote a little more, skipping to the 1920s —
According to what came to be known as “constitutional morality,” legislation supporting the right to unionize or limiting children’s working hours was an un-American form of group privilege. Laissez-faire conservatism reached its intellectual apogee in the 1920s. A critic complained that by 1924 you didn’t have to be a radical to be denounced as un-American: “according to the lights of Constitution worship you are no less a Red if you seek change through the very channels which the Constitution itself provides.”
In Europe conservatism was based on hereditary classes; in America it was based on hereditary religious, ethnic, and racial groups. The GOP, a largely Protestant party, looked upon itself as the manifestation of the divine creed of Americanism revealed through the Constitution. To be a conservative, then, was to share in a religiously ordained vision of a largely stateless society of self-regulating individuals. This civil religion, preached by President Herbert Hoover, was shattered by the Great Depression and the usurpation of the government by an “alien” power, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in league with “un-American,” that is, unexceptionalist ideas.
Conservatives were traumatized by their fall from grace. Diminished in place and prestige, they consoled themselves with bizarre conspiracy theories and cranky accusations of communist infiltration. Overwhelmed and resentful, they did not so much address the disaster of the depression as yearn for the days when they were able to run their towns, their businesses, and their workers in the manner to which they had been accustomed. Then, in 1940, just when it seemed they had Roosevelt on the ropes, World War II revived and extended his presidency.
At war’s end conservatives unleashed their frustrations. On the one hand, postwar popular conservatism was based on an anticommunist hysteria that antedated the antics of Senator Joe McCarthy. Politics for the McCarthyites was not so much a matter of pursuing material interests as a national screen on which to project their deepest cultural fears.
From here, Siegel goes on to describe the conservative political revival that began with Barry Goldwater’s presidential bid in 1964 and the conservative intellectuals and activists of the 1960s who called for a “restoration” of pre-New Deal America.
But this new conservatism did not so much win the country over to its perspective as board the empty ship of state vacated by a 1960s liberalism that had self-destructed. Conservatism triumphed because New Deal liberalism was unable to accommodate the new cultural and political demands unleashed by the civil rights revolution, feminism, and the counterculture, all of which was exacerbated by the Kulturkampf over Vietnam.
I agree with Siegel that New Deal liberalism, along with the New Left, had self-destructed by the 1970s, although the New Deal itself has yet to be entirely dismantled. But while “identity politics” and other factors splintered liberalism into thousands of ineffectual pieces, the Right got its act together. Some extremely wealthy right-wingers — Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors, Lynde and Harry Bradley, and Smith Richardson, among others — provided the seed money for the mighty right-wing think tank-media infrastructure, which you can read more about here. This infrastructure has put control of most of the federal government and news media safely in right-wing hands.
Yet, weirdly, the Right continues behave as if it is a desperate fight against a mythical “liberal elite” that runs everything, in spite of the fact that it doesn’t exist, and that progressivism itself has been cast out of power and left wandering in the wilderness for at least 40 years.
Today you’ve got the “social” conservatives, who want to return to 19th-century cultural mores; the “free market” conservatives, who want to return to the Gilded Age; the “Christian” conservatives who want to return to a theocratic America that never actually existed except in their imaginations; and the neoconservatives, who have taken the notions of American exceptionalism to new and more demented heights. And variations thereof.
Somehow these diverse groups have formed a coalition they label “conservative”, in spite of the fact that they advance contradictory agendas. Contemporary conservatism, for example, advocates restricting civil liberties in the name of freedom and extols small government while building the mightiest military-industrial complex the world has ever seen. About the only thing the various elements of the coalition have in common is that they all hate liberals, meaning not actual liberals but a cartoon straw man that represents liberalism in their minds, but which has little resemblance to those of us who are still foolish enough to call ourselves “liberals” in spite of the fact that we’re asking to be rounded up and shipped out on the first bus to the re-education camps.
This conservatism, IMO, isn’t all that conservative. It’s far more radical, revolutionary even, to label conservative. I think reactionary gets closer to it, although the standard dictionary definition of reactionaries — people who vehemently, often fanatically oppose progress and favor return to a previous condition — only works up to a point. Aggressive imperialism is a bit hard to square with returning to a “previous condition,” for example. To make that work you need to understand their urge to impose American hegemony on the rest of the world as a pro-active isolationism — eliminating the “threat” of foreignness by gettin’ it before it gets us.
In other ways, of course, reactionary works quite well — the stubborn refusal to admit that global warming is really happening, for example.
But ultimately, to paraphrase Siegel, I think the current American Right is all about politics as a national screen on which to project their deepest cultural fears.
And, since we’ve got to call these people something, I say “rightie” works as well as anything else.
In its extreme forms, rightieness is just hate. I mean, what are Michelle Malkin’s or Ann Coulter’s political principles, other than that they hate large groups of people that they associate with “the Left”? The hate comes first; whatever political principles they claim were adopted as props to justify the hate.
The commenter r4d20 continues,
While I choose to register Republican, like many/most people I straddle the line, which means that hardcore lefties call me “right” and hardcore righties call me “left”. According to the current “talking points” I am both a jingoistic warmonger, and a pro-Al Queda traitor – but at least both agree I should be shot 🙂 .
Even as a “Rightie” I have more in common with a “moderate” leftie than with a Christian Conservative. As a “leftie” I have more in common with a moderate rightie than with almost any Anarchist or Socialist.
Yet, somehow, politics on the blogosphere has divided itself fairly neatly into “right” and “left” camps, and all (except, these days, the purer libertarians) know extinctively in which camp they and everyone else should be sorted.
Here on the Left Blogosphere, you’d have a hard time finding an anarchist or genuinely socialist blogger. Most of us bloggers are the political heirs of New Deal Democrats. Most of us hold political positions that would have been considered “centrist” or even moderately conservative years ago. Yet today we’re painted as a radical “leftie” fringe utterly beyond the pale of decent, Gawd-fearing American politics. Much of the Right Blogosphere has utterly slipped its tether to reality, yet it gets called “centrist.”
And these days, a “moderate” is someone who doesn’t know what the hell is going on. If you want to preserve long-established American political processes, if you believe in the rule of law and the Bill of Rights and separation of powers and all that old stuff, you’re a leftie. Unless you just say you believe in those things even while you are trying to destroy them, which would make you a rightie.
But if the moderates on each side have been conditioned to think of all the people on the “other side” as extremist stereotypes then they will naturally choose the extremists of their own side over those of the other. The only winners are the wingnuts who maintain their support out of hyped-up fear of possible doomsday alternatives.
Yes, but the wingnuts really are going to bring about doomsday if we don’t stop them. Fence-straddling is not a sustainable position these days.
I reserve the term “conservative” to refer to smart and honest folks that I may from time to time disagree with. Andrew Samwick, David Altig, Greg Mankiw, etc. are conservative economists. I reserve the term rightwinger to reference those who display serial stupidity or serial mendacity (royalty check in the mail to Brad DeLong). Not to be the econ theme to death, but Art Laffer, Lawrence Kudlow, and their ilk are rightwingers who should never be confused with Altig, Mankiw, Samwick, etc. I call myself a liberal not to be confused with leftwing loons. Our host strikes me as a liberal as well.
I reserve the term rightwinger to reference those who display serial stupidity or serial mendacity (royalty check in the mail to Brad DeLong).
That works for me.
These days, lots of conservatives are joining us on the Left.
There seems to be a lot of Greenwald types out there, former-moderate-not-too-politicals who woke up one day to find lunatics and opportunists in charge and that bad things really can come from self-proclaimed “centrists” and that most insightful, rational, creative, reality-based thought and debate happens in the left side of the blogosphere.
Occasionally you’ll see better discussions about stuff like oil companies or Ahmadinejad’s impact on moderate Islam on the right, but there are far too many dogmas, sacred rituals and nutcase pundits to really learn anything useful over there. Not to mention all that senseless, endless barking well into the night..
Wow. Great reading, Barbara!
The management of, and the integration of (some) differences are necessary for the survival, development and transformation of any group (system). Humans have a predictable reaction to differences, and when differences are large/wide enough, then they hate the difference and want to kill him/her/them/it.
My one comfort pertaining to the crescendo of the splits you enumerate is that over time self-righteousness, outrage and hatred always fail to sustain a system because of the (ultimately) self-serving leadership and because of the magnesium like properties of the that subsystem; high intensity white flames burn out after a relatively short time.
I am pragmatic, progressive and more often than not, a liberal per the dictionary definition. Thanks for the post, it was a pleasure to read.
Only one thing about your correspondent’s remarks. Only one side wants to shoot him… or hang him, blow him up, deport him, etc. That side has announced their desires for those measures against people like him many times, from people with clout who appear, for instance, as respectable pundits on TV and radio. The other side may want to smack him with a clue stick or the like, but the eliminationist talk is very one-sided.
Speaking of Republicans who have joined us – CalculatedRisk (guest Angrybear with his own blog as well) is a very sensible Republican who is very unhappy with this Administration. Even Andrew Sullivan has turned to occassional Bush bashing.
Can r4d20 kindly point me to the leftist “anarchist” or “socialist” he or she interacts with? Cuz to me it sounds like the continued Myth of the Far Left. R4d20 sounds like a leftist who simply hasn’t come to terms with being a leftie because there might be communists out there on the left somewhere and she/he doesn’t want to associate with them. I would LOVE to know where these people are, because outside of the imagination of Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, I never ever encounter them. This “conditioning” to believe in an extreme left-wing is entirely a product of the right-wing echo chamber. Show me the violence, aggression, or heated (and erroneous) rhetoric calling for violence from the left-wing communist/socialist media figure. Show me how it compares to what we hear every single day from the other side. There are no such leftists. But if I’m wrong, let me know where they are, because I would watch that show/read that book/see that movie. Meanwhile, the Far Right is the heart of the right, and if you’re not comfortable being on board with them, then you’re not a rightie.
It’s not really about right vs. left any more – it’s about extremists vs. moderates. It just so happens that all the extremists are right wing – there are no left wing extremists in America apart from a handful of isolated kooks like Ward Churchill – certainly none with any political power. Every day, more and more people who consider themselves Republican, conservative, libertarian or whatever are waking up and realizing that George Bush Junior is the worst president ever. We the moderates have to form a broad coalition to take this country back from Junior’s extremists.
Pingback: The Heretik » Blog Archive » Reign of Terror
I am glad r4d20 joined us and inspired such a great post!
However, I must take issue with one comment”But at least both agree I should be shot”……it may have been meant tongue and cheek but it disturbed me when I read it the first time and it bothers me even more given the events that followed the latest NYTimes piece on the vacation homes of our elite leaders.
I do not believe I have ever met a person on the left who would call for the death of someone because they have a different political view.I cannot say there are none, those on the left are not without sin for sure…but I don’t believe the vast majority of those who stand on the left feel that way….r4d20 I hope you understand that in your heart.
After the comments I saw this weekend calling for a NYTIMES freelance photographer and other employees children to be hunted I don’t think we should be knee – jerk with the death comments..this is a very serious matter… the discourse has just gone too far…people have indeed used words and emotions to loosely …and someone is going to get hurt.The right may be making calls for the use of bats and guns and gas chambers… the right may long for torture and never ending death and suffering for all who won’t conform….and the right may be looking to eliminate someone for thinking for themselves,,but the left seems to realize , for the most part, the solution isn’t to shoot anyone who dares to speak out of lockstep .
I don’t mean to be a stickler for words, or to nit pick, and as I said before the comment may have been tongue and cheek, and I certainly lack the ability to articulate ideas my own self more often then I care to admit..so I don’t have any room to talk, but I can’t leave stand the idea that the left carries the lynch mob ideal that the right does.
I found the following comment on the free republic this weekend, tell me if in your wildest dreams you believe a person on the left would ever make such a comment….
“Freepers have to expose these clowns.Work up some photos of their homes,mistresses’ apartments, their route to work,MAYBE WHERE THEIR CHILDREN ATTEND DAY SCHOOL, ALERT ALL OF THE SEXUAL PREDATORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD(their names and photos are now readily available on- line thanks to the do-gooders)ECT.The government cannot perform this task or the white house would be accused of Donald Sergretti’s dirty tricks or Gordon Liddy’s blackops(wetops?) Where is Mia T when we need her? CALL THE PAJAMAHADEEN TO MUSTER!”
When r4d20 says the left would agree with the right about shooting him,I feel as though the left is being lumped with the same group of thugs that spew sickening things about turning child molesters on reporters kids or sending lefties to the gas chamber…I am not saying this was the intent of the writer at all, I am just saying I feel like comments like that say, in so many words that the left is being tossed in the same “kill em all and let God sort em out” boat.
I welcome anyone new to the conversation,,and to a state of reason for that matter, but I just wanted to be clear while most on the left may be annoyed with righties, and they may want to give them a good swift kick in the ass sometimes I don’t think anyone on the left would ever desire to see anyone shot for holding a different political view..
.No this lefty would NOT agree,, and I would probably end up getting my dumb ass killed jumping in front of a bullet to save you but thats Justme
Interesting stuff. I’m going to go back and study it, but I just wanted to chime in with Qrazy Qat and justme. Nobody gets shot for disagreeing with me, not Malkin, not Rumsfeld, not nobody. Their opinions may inspire tears and recriminations, and possibly scolding, but on Planet Larkspur, there will be no hurting, shooting, hunting down, hanging, etc.
Furthermore, I don’t want to be a pendant either, but I’d prefer it over being, say, a hood ornament.
Excellent piece. This kind of conversation should be going on everywhere in this country. The extreme, my way or the highway, right & left are pretty much hopeless, but the rest of us have much, much more in common than the spin masters would have us believe. We don’t have any time to waste, either.
I agree with the previous posts that say that the eliminationist rhetoric comes from the right. A good compilation of violent right-wing rhetoric appeared on the Guardian blog. (I’m sorry, I don’t know how to embed a hyperlink in the text). Check out:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/melissa_mcewan/2006/06/lopsided.html
It seems to me that now, with the Right mostly radical, the Left has inherited the role of conservative. I have not heard any discussion of the term, “Conservative Left”, but I think it describes the true centrism of the day.
The basic idea of conservative leftism is to protect the poor, the powerless, the usual suspects; and that not in order to overthrow the system, but to prevent the system from overthrowing itself! The New Deal was classic conservative leftism; it saved capitalism from itself.
Nowadays conservative leftism has lots of cause celebres. We’re for, and the radical right is against, habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the rule of law, free speech, and the present planetary ecosystem.
paradoctor — interesting way to put it.
Pingback: The Mahablog » Dear Media, Part II: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Paradoctor,
You’re on to something.
Now, we have to get it to the few remaining politicans who might understand.
We stand for the rule of law. Not just the opinion in a member of this Cabal of Dunces’s. LAW!
Keep up the good work!
I suspect that most people who call themselves “moderates” really have views that fall further left than they think. Everyone thinks they’re a moderate because they perceive their own views as being sensible and not radical. r4d20 is the same; he “straddles the line” because he doesn’t label himself as a supporter of either extreme. Good for him, but he’s getting left out of the political spotlight zooming ever further to the right.
I kind of wish the discussion were more about ideas than labels, though. r4d20 doesn’t state what it is he believe in that has him so confused about where he belongs.
Pingback: The Mahablog » Bankrupt
Pingback: The Mahablog » “Hey, Hey, LBJ …”