There might be one of my usual 'Sunday Rumbles' later on but for the moment I want to try to use a (hopefully) quiet Sunday morning to clear my mind on a subject which has been niggling away at me ever since my e-pal, JK, sent me an essay by Prof. James Kurth written for the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) on the (almost certain) decline and fall of American conservatism. So what, you might ask, and who gives a damn? Well I do because the implications are enormous.
But first let me attempt to summarise Prof. Kurth's analysis although I do urge you to read the whole thing. He begins by analysing the three main 'constituencies' which have, hitherto, been the mainstays of the conservative Republican party over the last few decades. They are in turn, business and their 'free enterprise' advocates; social conservatives who are pro-church and traditionalist in their views; and national defence, pro-military and patriotic conservatives. According to Prof. Kurth it is the business lobby which has wielded increasing power within the Republican party out-trumping social and pro-military conservatives. By and large big business tries to diminish religious traditions and similarly tries where-ever possible to break down national borders to facilitate global trade. (As an aside, we see the same thing here with our very own Confederation of British Industry forever talking up the European common market and issuing dire warnings if we ever leave and opponents are derided as 'little Englanders'!) Prof.Kurth reminds us that the exception to his 'rule' was Ronald Reagan who managed to fuse these three disparate 'constituencies together for long enough to win two elections, although I would add that the disaster that was Jimmy Carter's presidency must have been a considerable help, in much the same way that the economic disasters of the Wilson/Callaghan labor governments in Britain helped Maggie Thatcher to a series of Tory wins. In both cases these exceptional characters were replaced by what the 'cousins' call RINOs - Republicans (or Tories) In Name Only!
Both here and in America it was the underlying failures of Keynsian economics which came to a head during the great stagflation of the '70s which opened the door - and some minds - to new philosophies of economics. Milton Friedman and Friedrick Hayek represented free market economics although, as Prof.Kurth is quick to point out, there are big conceptual differences between Friedman and Hayek. The latter is, in my words, a purist free marketeer, one who believes that even interest rates and money supply should be left to the market to decide without interference from governments or central banks. However, Friedman's gospel swept the board not least, I guess, because he wrote some marvellously clear and easily understood books which were seized upon by both the American and British public who, because of the miseries of stagflation, were open to new ideas. His philosophy seemed to offer the equivalent of "with one bound our hero was free!" But of course, our politicians really do not care for the people to be free, or at least, not totally free because that diminishes their power and as we all know - do we not? - they are only in it for the power! And so, gradually, free market economics were subsumed into what I can only call 'soppy socialism' - 'soppy' because it lacks the ferocity of out-and-out communism.
Progressivism never rests and if, momentarily it was thwarted by Reagan and Thatcher it simply used other channels - in the USA it was mainly the twin arenas of the judiciary and the academy. However, their momentous 1973 victory in Roe v. Wade at least served to galvanise the religious Right of the Republican party which fought vigorously on the 'Right to Life' campaign, although in itself this campaign has proved insufficient to seriously alter GOP electoral results. They were not helped by their so-called leaders, not even the eloquent Ronald Reagan, as Prof Kurth reminds us:
Of course, traditional conservatives had long been bereft of any credible national political leader (after the death of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater had briefly been the closest approximation to one, and he was much more a social libertarian than a traditional moral conservative). By itself, religious or traditional moral conservatism was not going to produce a credible national political figure. However, the fusionist project of the conservative movement had laid the intellectual groundwork for uniting social conservatives with economic and security conservatives. And Ronald Reagan, “the Great Communicator,” certainly had the gift of being able to speak to the different arenas of traditional conservatism, in words and concepts that they not only understood, but that they loved. It was Reagan who appeared to traditional religious and social conservatives to be, at long last, their authentic political representative and effective political vehicle. And it was he who brought them into the grand alliance of conservatives that provide the electoral base for “the Reagan Revolution.”
We have observed, however, that in regard to economic policy, the Reagan era and the following years of Republican political power did not really produce traditional-conservative policies, but ones which were merely pseudo-conservative. Much the same thing can be said for the social policies of the Reagan era and later Republican rule. Reagan and some other Republican leaders were excellent in their public speeches and pronouncements with respect to traditional moral values. However, when it came to implementing these values in actual legislation and practical policies, the results—after a period lasting almost three decades—have been virtually negligible. [My emphasis.] The main benefit that traditional social conservatives have received from Republicans in the White House and in Congress have been four Supreme Court appointments—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito. And so, in a sense, the reinvention of American conservatism in the social arena actually produced another kind of pseudo-conservatism—or at best quasi-conservatism—one which was parallel and analogous to the pseudo-conservatism in the economic arena.
In my opinion this stems almost entirely from the disdain by conservative politicians for ideology. We laugh at the 'Python-eque' satire of the 'People's Front for Judea' endlessly arguing with the 'Front for the People's Judea' but like all good satire it exposes a truth, that in progressive political circles ideology matters down to the last full stop. Conservatives simply cannot be bothered! And that, of course, leaves them free to commit colossal blunders!
Moreover, while the Republicans were in power in the White House and in Congress, they facilitated a major change in the demographic composition of the U.S. population—and therefore in the social bases of the two political parties and their ideological movements. This was the great increase in immigration—including illegal immigration—from Latin America, and especially from Mexico. Of course, this increase in immigration had originated with the Immigration Act of 1965, which can be seen as one of the progressive policies of the time, and it had steadily increased in numbers during the 1970s. However, it was during the era when reinvented conservatism was in ascendency and the Republicans were in power that the Hispanic immigration and the ensuing Hispanic births in the United States reached massive proportions. For example, in the 1980s, Hispanics accounted for 5 percent of the U.S. population; by the late 2000s, they accounted for 15 percent, surpassing the black population in numbers.
Thus, without much thought, or perhaps without any at all, the Republican party, at the behest of its business and middle-class constituents who were delighted at this influx of cheap labour, jumped into the electoral equivalent of the Grand Canyon! According to Prof. Kurth, in 2012 73% of Hispanics voted in favour of Obama. The words "sucker" and "even break" occur! And as the progressive - I was going to write 'bandwagon' but in view of its sinister implications I will instead write - tank rolls inexorably forwards under the leadership of a president who despises his own country and treats the constitution as no more than an irrelevent, old piece of paper, the Republican party remains utterly divided and ineffectual.
With some reluctance, one senses, Prof. Kurth, in his effort to view the future, is forced to face the rising problem of race in modern America. The relatively simple divide between black and white has been superceded by a split between black and brown, and white. This is no longer just a social divide but a very real political division because current progressive policies are aimed solely at impoverishing whites in an effort to enrich blacks and browns. The American economy is shrinking and heading for disaster, and efforts to shift wealth in this way will only add to the coming catastrophe. Prof Kurth sums it up this way:
These speculations lead to a prospective realignment—or rather a sharpening of
the current alignment—of the American party system along the following lines:
The core voting groups for the progressive coalition and the Democratic Party
are (1) blacks, (2) Hispanics, and (3) workers in the public sector. Conversely,
the core voting groups for the conservative coalition and the Republican Party
are (1) economic and fiscal conservatives; (2) Evangelical or Bible-believing
Protestants; and (3) white male workers in the private sector.
He adds one rider to this analysis - women! Or to be precise, white women. At the moment they vote ovewhelmingly in favour of the Democrats, either for economic reasons if they are working-class, or for social reasons if they are middle-class. Without their vote, Prof. Kurth is dismissive of the chances for Republicans to win the presidency or the Senate.
In my poor, ill-informed opinion only one thing will provide the Republicans with an opportunity and that is a galvanising, cataclysmic shock to the whole American system brought about by an economic disaster. However, they had better start thinking about it now because important elements of the Dem0crat party have already laid down their plans in that eventuality - indeeed, their own policies are deliberately designed to bring it about because it is precisely in that confusion and chaos that they will see their opportunity to suspend the constitution and seize power.
Please read Prof. Kurth's original essay - well worth it.
