Rick Perlstein's new book on the history of modern American conservatism

Thanks for answering.

First, I initiated this discussion to point to Perlstein's work but also to look at and discuss "movement conservatism" which, as Perlstein holds, can surely be considered the most consequential political phenomenon of the last half century.

Second, re taxation and safety net, on that basis alone, Nixon or Eisenhower or Gerald Ford or Bush Sr. could call themselves "conservative Democrats". It's the Reagan and movement conservative era that fell over the cliff on progressive taxation and social programs (and even Reagan expanded the EITC). And if you are voting for R pretty much across the board and, apparently, wishing for a R victory in 2016, defining yourself as a "conservative Democrat" seems a tad convenient here.

Third, I'll leave the Michigan thing unaddressed but it is not as if the Republican party hasn't had numerous instances of their primary process manipulated by factions within the party for perceived benefit. You can look at what happened in '64 or what happened in the last primary (Paulites v "establishment") and someone with a broader historical grasp than I could surely point to more.

But in any case, I still don't understand the basis for your prediction re 2016. That opinion must be based on tendencies you see in the political realm or on some polling. As it happens, georgeob is optimistic re 2016 as well but george lives within the realm of right wing media (that might sound unfair but I think it's accurate). Could you lay out why you think that result will come about?

And Karl Rove was predicting on election night well after the numbers were being counted that Romney would win. It's being blind to reality that seems to make a movement conservative.

Divergence between a predicted outcome and final result obviously entails a failure to get some element(s) of reality wrong. Apparently it also took the Romney camp a really long time that evening to confront that they had it wrong.

And I have to say, this still puzzles me somewhat. These are the boys that are paid very big bucks to get it right. Of course, they're also being paid to influence opinions and voter behavior so they can be counted on to fudge reality in their statements ("Our polls are showing victory!" or whatever message they deem helpful) but to convince themselves of something quite wrong is another matter. Part of what they get paid for and gain a professional reputation through must be based on them not falling into that trap.

I'm not sure what the key figures in Romney's camp are now up to but Rove, though suffering a blow to his reputation following that Fox debacle, remains at the top of right wing strategizing and analysis for some good reasons, I think.

All of this brings up a significant aspect to America's present political dilemma - the vast industry now built up around elections and access to political power. Just take lobbying alone, one small component. There are 4.5 lobbyists working in DC for every single reporter. If we read at all, we understand how much time elected officials have to spend on raising cash rather than on actually doing the job of governance.

More critically, I think, is what Citizens United has unleashed (and it was already a terrible situation before). The billions that flow into the electoral game monetize huge PR firms and thus all the myriad front groups (commonly misrepresenting who they are, what they are up to, and who is funding them), provide huge profits to media entities that run the advertisements produced, etc. The bigger the cash spigot, the less likely it is that any sort of election reform might come about. And maintenance of partisan conflict is an essential component of this game, obviously. So the pressure on reps to raise cash (with all the risks of corruption that go with this) becomes much greater still.

America is an experiment. A rather noble one, in my view. It may well not end up working.

@oralloy

Here's some data I just bumped into from Nate Silver...

"It’s extremely rare to see a non-incumbent candidate poll so strongly so early. In the earliest stages of the 2008 Democratic nomination race, Clinton was polling between 25 percent and 40 percent of the vote — not between 60 percent and 70 percent, as she is now. Clinton could lose quite a bit of Democratic support and still be in a strong position.
But suppose you see those polls as a lagging indicator. Another early measure of a candidate’s strength that can have predictive power is the amount of support she receives from elites in her party, as measured by endorsements from elected officials. Clinton, despite not having declared her candidacy, has already picked up 60 endorsements from Democrats in Congress. As far as I can tell, there isn’t any precedent for something like this. A database of primary endorsements we compiled in 2012 found only a handful of endorsements of a presidential candidate so early in the race." http://wapo.st/1lVAqVN

Nah. They are country club Republicans. They may tolerate a social safety net, but they'd happily weaken it in the name of big business. They also are incredibly weak on the social issues front. Not my people at all.



Interesting. I never thought about that before.

I guess I am wishing for it a little bit, as I am looking forward to the Supreme Court rulings that will come after a few Liberal justices retire and are replaced by Conservative justices.



It is the political grouping that most-closely fits me.



I think the public is growing weary of Mr. Obama being unable to get any legislation passed through Congress, and this weariness will lead to a general negative attitude towards the idea of keeping a Democrat in the White House past 2016.

Come election day it will be six years since Mr. Obama has managed to get any legislation through Congress.

What Republican presidential candidate or portion of the modern conservative movement on the horizon would tolerate or support the existing social safety net, which you say you desire? It wouldn't be the "libertarian" crowd nor the religious right.

What positive consequences do you see from a SC that is even more conservative than this one? It has been a highly pro-business SC since Roberts and Alito and it has not been friendly to those less advantaged in society. Again, your stated desire for a strong social safety net seems in contradiction to your desires here.

Your answer re why you think R will win in 2016 merely repeats what you've said before. You don't even provide any supporting evidence or opinion for why you think citizens are tiring of Obama because of his "failure" to pass bills over the last few years. Why would you think that is the case?

And on this last, do you think citizens don't get that Republicans have stymied him in order to bring about exactly that result? Have you seen the polling on Republicans in congress? That's precisely the group that polls worse than any other and far lower than Obama polls.

I can't think of any. That's why I call myself a conservative Democrat as opposed to a conservative Republican.

I also support regulations on business to prevent pollution and labor abuses. I suppose regulations can be overdone if they just amount to filling out paperwork for the sake of filling out paperwork, but I'm all for things like safety standards.



I am looking forward to a ruling that forces all levels of government to allow Americans to carry guns whenever they go about in public, even in the hearts of our largest cities.

The Supreme Court has thus far been refusing to hear the issue. A few more conservative votes on the court will make all the difference.

I've never been into the abortion fight really, so this is more a Meh for me than a positive consequence, but I know that a lot of my fellow conservatives will be very happy to see the end of Roe vs Wade.



Yes. I find that many people in public office only support half of my views, and oppose the other half.

If I were entirely on one extreme or the other, it would probably be a lot easier to find politicians that I agree with across the board.



It is likely that I have explained my position as far as I am able.



Over my years of paying attention to politics, I've found that when a politician has little to show for their time in office, the voters start thinking about making a change.

I am not likely to have any supporting evidence until election day rolls around in 2016. At that point I will either be clearly right or clearly wrong.



If he had not wasted his political capital forcing people to deal with gun legislation that had no chance of ever passing muster with the NRA, he could have used that political capital to force the Republicans to deal with some other legislation that had a chance of passing.

Climate change legislation for instance. What if early 2013 had been devoted to passing some sort of carbon regulations?

As Mr. Obama cannot again stand for the office of President, "time for a change" is a meaningless phrase, unless one assumes that the next Democratic standard bearer would be a cookie cutter version of Mr. Obama, an unwarranted assumption. As for the conservatism of this court, and leaving aside the obsession with firearms, what is far more alarming is their decision regarding prayer at public meetings in the Greece, New York suit. The Supreme Court is the most arbitrary and authoritarian institution of the United States government, from the decisions of which there is no appeal other than to amend the constitution. When a decision by the Supremes overturns a provision of a constitutional amendment, there is effectively no appeal.

I believe the effect will result in the voters swapping which party controls the White House regardless.

At any rate, I'm either right or wrong. We'll know which it is come election night 2016.



I think I remember hearing about that case. I've forgotten the details though.

You've been candid and thorough in answering my questions. Thank you. The gun thing seems to be your main focus, a stance with related notions completely alien to me. I suspect your wishes for the shape of a future SC have this at the center as your other stated preferences will be damaged by such a court.

In the 2016 race, I think it near certain that SC appointments will be a major thrust of both sides' campaigns. Conservative strategists are bright enough to get the influence of this body over the shape of the nation and its institutions (after all, the Federalist Society was set up a long while ago and it has been amazingly effective in its goals) and they will use this issue to motivate their base, already well primed to think in the desired manner. But we folks on the left, after the Roberts court, are now increasingly aware of just how critical this aspect is. What will work in our favor is that the voting base we need to show up includes those groups who are most at risk by a SC moving further right, a situation that would extend for decades further into the future; women, minorities, the disadvantaged, those with progressive ideals and ideas.

Another review of the book, this one from George Packer at the New Yorker. Here's one short passage. Well worth your time...

"Compared with Chicago in 1968, there wasn’t much at stake in Kansas City. Ford was racing toward Reagan’s right-wing positions as fast as he could, in order to forestall defeat. The platform, with pro-life, pro-gun, pro-God, and anti-détente planks, was the first that sounded like the Republican Party we now know. “The fight here was between two groups of conservatives,” an old Goldwater hand said. The battle for the Republican Party was over, and the winner was the loser. Reagan’s failed challenge in 1976 became a grand dress rehearsal for 1980—the subject of the next, and concluding, installment of Perlstein’s epic tale." http://nyr.kr/1m0XIJT

I can't believe the total lack of talent being put forward by the Republicans

Not bad as a discussion.

I have avoided political pillow fights here for a number of years except to throw an occasional Molotov cocktail in for fun.

I heard Perlstein on (perhaps) Fresh Air. Interesting. Will read the reviews linked here.

I couldn't agree more. I know you don't care if I agree, smiles, but I've experienced the chill at council and design review meetins and other such elaborations. Like don't even frown or your client's project will have a bias against it.

Worthy of attention, I guarantee.

I am about to take back anything I said about this thread being interesting and balanced.

Oralloy -- If you do not mean to hijack a thread and if you truly do not mean it to be about you, perhaps, you ought not to explain yourself in such detail. This thread is supposed to be about Rick Perlstein's book and not about your personal politics, not about the 2016 election, not about which laundrymat you use and what brand of Scotch you drink.

Here as on any board, it's advantageous or even necessary to simply ignore posts or exchanges now and again. No big thing.

The problem is, it is hard for me to resist answering when someone asks me a polite question.

The thread is back on track. Let's let sleeping dogs lie.

I have no problem here.