Conservatism
Back when they came up with the shtick about divine right, was a time when the people were more amenable to such. If not, then they, the people, could almost always be convinced. After the monarchies, and their off-shoots the sub-monarchies of Lords and Ladies, began losing some of their divine radiance, this at about the same time that the people started to become more enlightened, the true blues realized that they needed to come up with something better. This time, they would need a more subtle way of convincing the masses of their entitle. They, the true blues, of course, did neither the coming up with nor the convincing. True to form, they found someone to do it for them. Not that finding someone would be difficult in the least. Seems there was always a few sycophants, would be court philosophers, toadying about; the George Wills, the Grover Norquists, the Bill Kristols, …, of the day, if you will.
—
Thus begun and so proceeded the evolution of thought on hierarchical conservatism: Those accepting of divine rights called themselves ‘Tories’. They were to be followed those who spoke of this they called conservatism, a new way of according special rights to those of wealth whilst acknowledging that sovereignty belonged to the people; rather a combination of the hierarchical and the parliamentarian. Clear as mud, no? Still and all, it was all about rationalizing the right of the wealthy to more rights than anyone else, and not about clarity. Modern political/economic, hierarchical, conservatism is still very much all about this rationalization. Those making up this support group for the better off call themselves conservatives. Call themselves what they will, there really is no other underlying philosophy other this rationalization for skewed wealth distribution. Wouldn’t do to leave off the many economists who have also served as court philosophers. Names Milton Friedman and Fred Hayek ring any bells? These hierarchical conservatives are invariably republicans.
—
If someone is of a bean-counter bent, chooses to see government as some kind of business, doesn’t understand Keynesian Economics nor care to do so; they might self-identify as a fiscal conservative. As such, they might, based on other core beliefs, identify politically with either the democrats or the republicans. Of either party, these folk are susceptible to being politically co-opted by the hierarchical conservatives.
—
There is a significant portion of the population that wants things to always stay the same; believe that if there must be change, it should be slow-paced. These are those who long for those golden days of their memory, who can’t wait to get back to ‘normal’, who fear and detest change. Often, for many in this group, religion plays a big role in their lives. Due this resistance to change, this group, also, thinks of themselves as being conservatives. Some Republican politicians would have us believe that the yearners for the past and the sycophants to wealth are one and the same. They are not; though as we have seen of late, neither is above using the other when it suits their purposes.
—
This clinging to, longing for, the past can have a dark side. When Richard Nixon went a hunting Barry Goldwater’s ducks/votes, he went hunting amongst the then yet southern democrats in the formerly segregated southern states, mostly. In exchange for their now disaffected votes, he offered them an alternative to their now-defunct white supremacist southern democratic party that had just abandoned them. A new political avenue to fight off integration. A way to maintain the status quo; to leave the democratic party. In many of these states of the confederacy, things hadn’t changed that much in the first hundred years since the Civil War. Nixon offered them a shot at burning through another hundred years while retaining as much white supremacy as possible. No denying, this resistance to change in re racism and white supremacy, too, was a form of conservatism. This was its ugliest form of all.
—
More broadly: Conservationists are nature’s conservatives in the sense that they want to maintain the status quo. A difficult task, given that nature is always in flux. It has been a good while since conservative politicians aligned themselves with conservationists.
—
For years and years now, those aligned with political and economic (hierarchical) Conservatism have sought and gotten the support of the fiscal, and culturally conservative, and, to their everlasting shame, the white supremacist. Now, something has gone terribly wrong. These last two election times around, now, much to the chagrin of George Will, Bill Kristol et al, the more extreme of the cultural conservatives and the white supremacy conservatives have wrested control of the republican party away from the hierarchical conservatives. Have taken over. The marriage of convenience has become a nightmare from hell. The chickens have come home to roost.
Ken, While I agree with most of your posting, I am also a believer that a little conservatism is a good thing and in its best form needs to be taken into account in political decision making. I am extremely fearful of the latest trends as you say of the “cultural conservatives and the white supremacy conservatives” (bad conservatives) wresting control of the Republican Party away from the “hierarchical conservatives.”
Because we are a two-party, political democracy the lines between good and bad conservatism get blurred especially when it comes to voting and casting that all important ballot. While a similar scenario occurs within the Democratic Party (more extreme v. moderate) it is very difficult for a party member of either party to crossover and actually vote for the other side. The reasons must be compelling and without hesitation.
It is for this reason that I have an extreme fear of the bad conservatives and their influence on Republican voting, particularly when Democrats give them excuses to vote against critical, democracy-saving legislation.
Let me try to explain. On the subject of HR1, the so called “Voting Rights” bill — probably the most important piece of legislation related to saving the democracy to be under consideration in many decades. The bill that has passed the House and is now under consideration in the Senate. As it stands, I would bet there is not one Republican that will vote to support it. So you may say Republicans are against the right to vote.
Actually no. They will argue that they are totally for the rights of people to vote, BUT HR1 (a massive 700+ page bill) is not just about voting rights it is about much more including the government takeover of elections and public funding of campaigns. They will say it’s about “election and campaigning reform” and all kinds of other excuses. [HR 1 calls for sweeping election reforms (a wish list of policies promoted by voting rights advocates for years). See: What’s in HR 1 — https://tinyurl.com/2c25x5t4.] Unfortunately, they will be right and they will be able to prove it and document it.
There are a whole lot of people that have problems with public financing of campaigns and controlling how elections are run, as well as other non-voting rights provisions included in the 700+ page bill. BUT, media and Dems are characterizing HR1 as a “voting rights” bill — not really explaining the other controversial provisions including their impacts and costs and the fact that the bill deals with much more than “voter suppression”.
I think Democrats are going to fall into their self-made trap of putting their wish list of goodies in the bill and giving Republicans (good & bad) and many Independents all kinds of reason to vote against it, AND reinforcing their claims that Dems are misleading the public, and the media is willfully biased. These same claims will be a part of every midterm campaign and will give those “good and bad” Republican voters the reason to vote against Dems in the 2022 midterms and probably 2024.
I am fearful that Democrats are going to blow this unbelievable, incredible opportunity (maybe once in a couple of decades) to get DC Republicans on record (no excuses) as being for or against ALL People having the right to simple, easy, unencumbered voting. They need to separate out JUST the true “voting rights” sections that are going to prevent the 240 voter suppression bills in 43 states and allow ALL persons their constitutional right to vote without obstacles now and in the future.
Please note that I am not saying that the other, non-voting rights provisions are not important or even essential. They are simply beyond the very basic constitutional right that every citizen should be able to vote without arbitrary provisions purposely designed to make it difficult for certain sectors of the population to vote. First, we should IMMEDIATELY let the public know which DC politicians are FOR or AGAINST THE BASIC RIGHT FOR ALL TO VOTE. Then, secure that right in federal legislation with a “carveout” filibuster provision, if necessary. After the right to vote is secured we should move on to all of the other critical issues of the day; knowing that future elections will be free from voter suppression.
Thanks so, J.P.,for your thoughtful response. I, too, remember the Eisenhower republican, saw the hierarchical conservatives take over the party, saw an Eisenhower republican named Barack win the office, and now this coup by idiots.
As to the loading up? Kill the filibuster.
Fact be: Trump did set the Nation back 60 years. Now we have to fight the fight for voting rights in a Trump/McConnell packed Court. This is going to take this year and most of the next. None of the Six really believe in the right to vote for everyone.
Yes
P.S.
I spoke to the voting in dearly-beloved
J.P.
i mostly agree with that. but let me add that “conservatism” has been replaced with “meritocracy.” who can disagree with that (that the best and brightest should rule)? well, the b and b turn out to be the ambitious and ruthless. nothing in the SAT measures honesty or even depth of thought, not to say decency.
but i would warn against conflating “conservatism with “hates change and hates blacks and hates immigration and is superstitious.”
i hate changes like global warming, and am not at all fond of the Left’s rushing to embrace every “feels good to me” that comes along. some changes are not wise… and i have no doubt that the Left (or for that matter the brown and black) in power would behave same as the old boss.
i think we could go a long way toward sanity by examining our own hates and half-thoughts, and try to rebuild a democracy that respects the rights of the “minority” even if the minority turns out to be white and rural and a little old-fashioned for our tastes.
politicians will use “conservative” values when it suits them, and they will use “liberal” values when that suits them. but the game is always about power.
There is a huge difference between small R “republican” and capital r “Republican.” In fact, I think the future of USA and saving USA from the conservative / neoliberal drive to turn USA into a corporatist plutocracy / oligarchy, is to revive the civic republicanism of the founding era. I think it is time to begin a campaign to get people to start using “not Republican Party” instead of “Republican Party.” It would be more honest, and hopefully begin to move people to begin looking into what a republic is supposed to be, and how far we have fallen from the ideal.
There is NOTHING in the USA Constitution or even in The Federalist Papers about capitalism. Find them online and do a text search if you don’t believe me. So, how did we end up with a capitalist economy now dominated by predatory finance? Look at it that way, and you can begin to identify where things went wrong and what can be done to fix them. Such as the reaction of railroad companies to the 1877 Munn v. Illinois decision affirming that business regulation by government could and should balance the rights of the community against entrepreneurial liberty to use private property as it pleased. It is the pushback to Munn by the railroad companies that created a new, pro-corporate interpretation of the equal protection clause, leading to the terrible Lochner era of jurisprudence.
[See Property, Liberty, and the Rights of the Community: Lessons from Munn v. Illinois Paul Kens [Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal, Volume 30 (2011) https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bpilj/vol30/iss1/6/%5D
I found Frank Michelman’s contribution to the “republican revival” issue of The Yale Law Journal (1998), “Law’s Republic” https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol97/iss8/1/to be a very difficult read, but richly rewarding, as he eviscerates conservative jurisprudence by articulating the process of how politics, then Constitutional law, comes to obey the dictate of social change, which he calls “jurisgenerative politics.” Michelman explains how a conception of Constitutional law grounded in his conception of republicanism necessarily results in protections to civil rights, and to LGBTG rights. Indeed, Michelman’s essay is centered on refuting the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
I would also point people to the 1962 Minnesota Law Review article by Arthur E. Bonfield“The Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4: A Study in Constitutional Desuetude” https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/863/
Tony
all very interesting. but what you are up against is that the R’s have been using “America is a republic not a democracy” to mean something like “any laws that benefit the people are unconstitutional.” The money interests don’t really care what you call them. They use words to confuse and deceive, and they are very successful at it. The wonder of it is that sometimes the Supreme Court seems to get it right.
Just to start a fight, I am all for LGBTG rights, and I think the “religious freedom” claim for violating those rights is ridiculous (I think Jesus would agree with me). But I can’t see why a gay couple would have any trouble finding a gay caterer for their wedding. This is not an issue with the importance of blacks not being allowed in restaurants, or women not being paid the same for the same work, but in both cases i think there are work-arounds that would achieve the “rights” without arousing the backlash.
Rulers are the shadow cast by the willful ignorance of the people.