How Reagan ruined conservatism

How Reagan ruined conservatism
"Battling my way through Sarah Palin’s book, Going Rogue, last weekend, I began to wonder how American conservatism had come to this. Ms Palin’s book is smug, lightweight, nationalistic, entirely free of original ideas. How has this woman become the darling of the American right? How has she become so popular that some bookmakers make her the favourite to win the Republican party nomination in 2012?

And then I realised – the rot set in with Ronald Reagan.

This might seem an odd conclusion, since President Reagan is a conservative hero who won two presidential elections. But the ideas that are now known as “Reaganism” are, in fact, profoundly subversive of some of the most important conservative values. Traditional conservatives disdain populism and respect knowledge. They believe in balancing the government’s books. And they are pragmatists who are suspicious of ideology. Reagan debased all these ideas – and modern American conservatism is still suffering the consequences."

www.ft.com...

I found this article to be interesting, especially the idea of the "wise fool."

Yee Gods. You read Palin's book?

It's odd how Reagan has been elevated to a deity. He wasn't popular at the time. Now he has become "the Gipper!" (queue shiny lights and trumptets).

In actual fact he increased the size of government. He was also the "author" along with Thatcher of "Trickle-down" economics.

Basically, Reagan / Thatcher were the start of the rolling back of the middle class and democracy.

Oh yeah, he also removed the Free Airways Law which has now led us to the loonies like Limbaugh.

Although it is important to remember that his Alzeihmar's was so far gone in his second term he couldn't tie his shoelaces.

I wonder who was tying his shoelaces...

As a what I like to call a pragmatic liberal I agree with you whole heartedly and give you a star.

At one point I could agree with conservatives on certain issues and agree to disagree on others and still respect each other in the morning. No more. Ideology has taken the place of common sense.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary American liberalism as represented by the Democratic party has drifted center right while American conservatism as represented by the GOP has bolted to the far right and seems stuck there.

The fact that neither true American liberalism or conservatism are actually represented by the parties that claim the mantle doesn't help matters either.

reply to post by rizla

That is a real cheap shot. I hope no one mocks you if you become a victim of Altzheimer's disease.

Leftism morphed into intellectual disciplines (postmodernism, feminism, post-colonialism, et al.) at universities and cultural centers. It became the dominating paradigm for an upper strata in society who wanted to break with earlier traditions.

While this was going on, what did Conservative intellectuals do? They became radicalized and oppositional in character. As a result, Conservatism today is a defensive, largely split movement, while leftism has influenced and spawned countless new strains of its Marxist-Socialist ideology. Modern leftists understood something modern Conservatives never did: The easiest way to change a society is to control its intellectual and socio-cultural foundation.

The so called "New Right" attempted to revive Conservative ideas as a counter-cultural force to intellectual leftism, but was eventually reduced to just another radical school of thought to which only a small number of basement intellectuals paid any attention. Conservatism needs to become appealing and culturally relevant again.

They need new memes and a new way of presenting themselves. Here are some ideas:

Family-oriented: Protect the abilities of families to raise normal, non-politicized kids in a safe and happy atmosphere.

God helps those who help themselves: Everyone knows this cliche, but societies are healthier when less effort is spent on the hopeless and more on rewarding those who rise above and do well.

History is our guide: Historians don't pay attention to current politics. If they do, they get depressed. Look at how civilization designs in the past have affected outcome, and plan for reality.

The scientific party: Don't get caught up in the meaningless debates on stem cells and abortion. Instead, focus on developing science and de-politicizing it, so we can get accurate truths.

Skeptical: We should be cynical about human beings. Most of them, as we can see in abundance, are thoughtless and destructive. Let's reward the better ones and make more of them.

Make hard choices: "I wanna do what I wanna do" is the sign of a decline. We need to come together and make things work.

Leadership, not control: Our goal should be to set out a reasonable plan and reward those who follow it, and shift those who don't to anarchy zones. Let's not spend our time busting drug dealers/users, psycho neo-Nazis and anarchist kids. Send them to Florida, make it an anarchy zone and let the rest of us get on with life.

Conservation: Conservatives should conserve. This means more natural land set aside, more cultures preserved, more attention to history and philosophy.

These would be somewhat of a shock to current Republicans, but if they think about them a moment, they're the ballsy things conservatives have traditionally stood for -- something interrupted recently by trying to compete with the Left in populist appeal. Populism too easily becomes demagoguery. Fight back with hard reality, and emphasize the positive aspects for those who are heading somewhere in life.

reply to post by pteridine


reagan couldn't possibly ruin "conservatism".

"conservatism" just means a set of political beliefs that perpetuate the established order. in China in 2010, a communist is a conservative, in the US in 2010, a reganist is a conservative.

much like everyone else, you were duped into pigeon holing yourself as being "conservative". someone suggested that it was associated in some loose way with the right-wing or something. sounds like you've woken up.

although this leads me to a shocking conclusion, if this turns out to be a wide spread effect of reading sarah palin's book, she might actually turn out to be a force for good in the world.

reply to post by concernedcitizan

In the long run conservatism is the losing gambit in history. We always move forward. The societies that move backward stagnate and die.

You read like you know what you are talking about but you are wrong. American liberalism what you call leftism is in no way connected to Marxist socialism.

Public education...penal reform...the abolition of slavery...women's suffrage all came from out of the churches not Marxism...Teddy Roosevelt first proposed universal health coverage not Marxism.

Certain aspects of labor reform do come out of the European socialist model but it was Bismark who created the first Social Security and social safety net.

You say that societies are healthier when less effort is spent on the hopeless...

How totally callous. I hope you never find yourself in need.

One of the reasons Bismark put into place a social safety net in the first place was as a stabilizing force...people starving in the street and living in hovels are not.

Finally the problem with such critiques of liberalism (besides the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about) is that it assumes that all liberalism and what you call leftist thought comes out of Marxist political theory and that there is no difference between say Stalinism and the British Fabians or American liberal thought. And that is totally wrong.

It shows more than anything a poor understanding of history.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan

God helps those who help themselves: Everyone knows this cliche, but societies are healthier when less effort is spent on the hopeless and more on rewarding those who rise above and do well.

I agree with much in your post cc. What I would inject about the above is that conservatives don't ignore those that have no hope and can't help themselves. This is charity and not entitlements. This is a tough topic to describe in conservative terms to be sure but I think there are those that need and deserve our consideration. I assume here that you are addressing specifically "users" and government entitlements and there's no argument there.

Originally posted by iMacFanatic

Public education...penal reform...the abolition of slavery...women's suffrage all came from out of the churches not Marxism...Teddy Roosevelt first proposed universal health coverage not Marxism.

This is true and I prefer my own conscience and faith to retain their historical function and my government to carry out the will of the people and not preach. The reason Marxism and churches don't play well together is that they are in the same business vying for the same clientele.

reply to post by iMacFanatic


Any nation can become third world by becoming disorganized and disunited from consensus. However, the problem is that when bureaucratic government is the agent of this task, people stop enforcing it on themselves and others. We need a society where whenever some wrong is seen, action is taken. Not necessarily violence, but challenging of it. That's where discipline comes in. Discipline of one's own desires. Discipline of perception of reality. Discipline of needs (we don't really NEED those SUVs, do we?). Discipline meaning moral alertness, and when others err, a willingness to get in there and point it out. Not snarkily, like people do now. But with a sense of urgency like, "Dude, if you keep cheating, everyone's going to think the system is bunk and we'll all be at each other's throats." That's Plato's point from another angle: civilizations break down when people can no longer trust the culture and system to work fairly, rewarding the best and ignoring or exiling the worst.

That's probably why he was critical (to say the least) of private culture: when things are not public, people cheat, because the consequences of their actions will not be recognized in time. He's right, of course. society where whenever some wrong is seen, action is taken." But people lack that inclination if they're fed with Nanny propaganda. You become impotent and wait for the Nanny to do everything for you. Welfare socialism has destroyed this inclination in many countries. People simply turn their heads the other way. It's horrible. Thankfully, in places like Germany, culture still means so much, that the elderly expect the young people to offer them seats at a full-packed train. Here, nobody gives a rat's.

Plato saw that when a society became divided into private and public culture, it was a dead man walking. People were going to start conspiring against it internally for their own needs, and would pull it apart. This is why a single national culture is needed per nation, and each locality needs its own culture, too. Bring people together and reinforce those values daily. It's like how on battleships they are constantly doing safety training and fire drills. Keep everyone focused on the goal and the methods used to reach it. There are only two ways to rule: cooperation or control. Cooperation requires we each give up something to work with others; control means a central force must decide what's right and apply it to us. I'm sorry, it can also be decentralized: if people share a political dogma, they can use it against each other, as happened in Russia and now in the West.

It's sound conservatism: government cannot replace cultural functions. It's insane to have a gov't regulating what you eat, how you have sex, how you should work out etc. It's also costly, ineffecient, creates impotent citizens, and is probably detrimental to the health of our younger people. The local cultural model is a working one.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by iMacFanatic

 

Any nation can become third world by becoming disorganized and disunited from consensus...

...Discipline of one's own desires. Discipline of perception of reality. Discipline of needs (we don't really NEED those SUVs, do we?). Discipline meaning moral alertness, and when others err, a willingness to get in there and point it out...

...That's Plato's point from another angle: civilizations break down when people can no longer trust the culture and system to work fairly, rewarding the best and ignoring or exiling the worst.

...Welfare socialism has destroyed this inclination in many countries. People simply turn their heads the other way. It's horrible. Thankfully, in places like Germany, culture still means so much, that the elderly expect the young people to offer them seats at a full-packed train. Here, nobody gives a rat's.

...This is why a single national culture is needed per nation, and each locality needs its own culture, too. Bring people together and reinforce those values daily....

It's sound conservatism: government cannot replace cultural functions. It's insane to have a gov't regulating what you eat, how you have sex, how you should work out etc. It's also costly, ineffecient, creates impotent citizens, and is probably detrimental to the health of our younger people. The local cultural model is a working one.

Starting from the top:

(1) Not true. Societies rise an fall, true but not in the sense you mean. Societies rise and fall because they cease to inspire. When you look at it what killed the Soviet Union was not that it spent itself to death trying to compete with us militarily but it died because the system had stolen its peoples dreams. They had ceased to care. But while it went through a very rough transition it did not become a third world state.

(2) Who has the right...the authority to point out another's lack of discipline? If either political party tried that they would be laughed out of the country.

(3) Nonsense. No system is fair and you know it. Yet they continue to thrive and grow.

(4) Go ask the people of Denmark or any of the other Scandinavian states about that. I think you might get a totally different response. Don't go making such sweeping remarks about other societies.

(5) Again nonsense. No society can thrive in isolation and it is the constant mixing and mingling of cultures that give them the motivation to grow and develop. Isolation breeds stagnation.

(6) Government is a cultural function which is why you cannot go and impose democracy on a country that has little to no history of it. It can be cultivated yes, but from within and with the governments cooperation.

Also modern American conservatism meddles constantly in matters of sexuality...opposition to abortion or gay rights for example...if you actually followed your rhetoric you wouldn't involve yourselves one way or the other.

US Presidents are not dictators.

Reagans principles of small government, low taxes, less regulations, and a strong national defense are still conservative values.

If Reagan had Obama's majority, that he enjoys but can't control, things would have been alot better.

Checks and balances, it's what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution.

The national debt tripled under Reagan. It will probably triple again under Obama.

The size of government under Reagan expanded sixty-some odd percent. It will probably do the same with Obama.

Reagan raised payroll taxes and instituted a $100 billion tax increase with the help of the Congress. Obama will undoubtedly do something similar if he plans to make good on his promise to half the budget deficit.

The first amnesty of illegal immigrants occured under Reagan. Obama is pushing for another.

How are these two any different?

Give me a Calvin Coolidge, or even a Dwight Eisenhower over these two any day.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by pteridine

 

much like everyone else, you were duped into pigeon holing yourself as being "conservative". someone suggested that it was associated in some loose way with the right-wing or something. sounds like you've woken up.

although this leads me to a shocking conclusion, if this turns out to be a wide spread effect of reading sarah palin's book, she might actually turn out to be a force for good in the world.

I was not duped into anything along these lines; you assume too much. The quote about reading Sarah's book was written by Gideon Rachman, the author of the linked article. I didn't buy or read Sarah's book. I think that her version of events is too far from reality to make it worth reading.

Reagan was the first real puppet of corporate America...and it's beyond me why some conservatives and right-wing groups glorify him as hero while pretending he was "a man of the people".

He was an actor before becoming president, and nothing but a corporate sponsored actor once he became president. He was the first president to increase the power of Wallstreet, and was instrumental in the downfall of the US middle class.

Anyone claiming he was a hero or good guy will definitely not get my vote, because anyone worshiping a puppet is destined to become one himself. Yes, that includes puppets such as Huckabee, and anyone who thinks Limbaugh should have an influence on how the country is run.