What accounts for the rise of neo-conservatism in the early eighties?

Great Debates
1

Reagan’s death this week got me wondering why several Western countries made took a step to the right around 1980.

Thatcher seems to have gotten there first, in May of 1979, with Reagan following in the November election in the US. Mulroney was elected Prime Minister of Canada in 1984. All of these leaders were in favour of small government, few social programs, and supply-side economics. In 1982, Helmut Kohl of Germany’s moderate-right Christian Democratic Union also came to power. France’s Mitterand was a socialist, but by 1986 the National Assembly was strongly conservative, and Chirac was Prime Minister.

The victories are usually ascribed to specific conditions within each country – British Labour’s inability to get it’s act together, dissatisfaction with Carter, and Mulroney’s ability to build a coalition of disaffected Westerners and disaffected Quebeckers against the Liberal party, etc.

But is there an overarching factor here? Is there something else that accounts for the sudden rise in neo-conservatism in at least three countries, in a short amount of time?

2

Something in the water?

Counter-counter-culture movement? It happens frequently, and the 60s and 70s was a pretty big pendulum swing.

Probably a good chunk to do with the economic downturn of the '70s, as well.

3

I’d call it just plain conservativism, rather than neo-conservativism, which has a specific (although, to my annoyance, much abused) meaning in the US political spectrum, and say probably that the rise of the right in the 80’s was a reaction to the rise of the left in the 70’s, combined with an unstable global economy in the late 70s-early 80s.

So, in Britain, Labour was brought down by a series of strikes, in the US, the Democrats were brought down by high inflation, etc.

I think Mulroney is an exception, due more to Liberal corruption (those patronage appointments Turner made when he became PM), and Liberal division over the Quebec issue.

4

Have you considered the OPEC stranglehold on the economies of western industrial countries during the mid 1970s, which affected America, Britain, France, Canada, Germany, and Japan simultaneously?

5

In American political discourse, the term “neoconservatism” refers to a theory of foreign policy, a desire to spread American-style liberal democracy throughout the world, by force of arms if necessary. This includes unwavering support for Israel, even to the point (in the view of some neocons) of pushing all the Palestinians into Jordan. The neoconservative movement is really an elite intellectual movement – journals and think-tanks – with no mass-based element, although neocon ideology has struck a resonant chord with many in the broader American conservative movement since 9/11. Most of the leading neocon intellectuals – in the first generation, at least, such as Irving Kristol and his son Bill, and David Horowitz – were Jewish, were Northeasterners, and were disaffected leftists, many of whom had been active in Trotskyite organizations in the '60s – we’ve had threads on this before. There’s even a nominally leftist organization, the Social Democrats, USA (http://www.socialdemocrats.org/) (one of the three groupings that emerged from the breakup of the old Socialist Party in 1973), that espouses rather neocon policies, and supports the Iraq war. (Strange bedfellows, you know?) A major neocon organization is the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). The neocons had some influence in the Reagan and Bush I admins but they didn’t really come into their own until Bush II.

6

Reagan is generally considered to be a neo-con president, although the term wasn’t around then. But many of the big names in neo-conservatism today were members of the Reagan administration, and many of Reagan’s economic advisors would be considered neo-cons today.

Reagan himself was more of a classical liberal than a neo-con, although the line is blurry. But he shared many neo-con characteristics - first, he came from the ranks of Democrats. He voted Democrat until 1962. Before Reagan, conservatives were generally dour, old-world types who leaned more towards isolationism and were far too accomodating of racism, because they opposed an interventionist federal government. The old conservatives were also very fiscally conservative, and did not believe in running deficits.

Reagan was different. He bought into the supply-side theories of people like Jude Wanniski and Arthur Laffer - both considered neo-cons today. He believed in expanding liberty around the world, through force of arms if necessary. Again, a trait shared by neo-cons. Where traditional conservatives were of the ‘don’t change it if it isn’t broke’ school, Reagan was a visionary who promoted change - and the world changed more in the Reagan era than it had since WWII (or since). And while he did not support some of the civil rights initiatives of the 60’s, he felt that bigotry was the worst trait a man could have, and gave many speeches where he called on people to reject racism in all its forms.

Reagan also had a strong streak of Libertarianism in him. He was uncomfortable and conflicted about the drug war, even though it expanded greatly on his watch. He was a student of Hayek, Von Mises, and Friedman. In fact, Milton Friedman was on his council of economic advisors, along with other free-market economists.

But really, the ‘Reagan Revolution’ was really neo-con in its outlook and most of its policies. The neo-cons today consider him their direct ancestor, as the only ‘movement conservative’ to achieve the presidency (Nixon, Eisenhower, Bush I, and other 20th century Republicans were really not part of the movement, and varied in large degrees in there adherence to conservative principles).

7

And Bush II?

8

Ironically, no, not really. Neoconservatives were mostly shut out of the Bush II administration, because practically all the leading neocons (from William Kristol on down) were John McCain supporters. During his campaign, George W. showed little or no interest in foreign policy, which is why few leading neocons found him appealing.

The few neocons who DO occupy high positions in the Bush White House have gotten far too much attention, in my opinion. If there’s one man guiding foreign policy in this administration, I believe it’s Dick Cheney- who is NOT a neocon by any but the most ridiculously expanded definition.

9

Nope. Bush is a ‘compassionate conservative’. Reagan said, “Government is not the solution - government is the problem.” George Bush II says, “When people hurt, government must answer the call.”

Reagan wanted to scrap the Department of Education. Bush gave it a 43% funding boost.

Reagan championed free markets. Bush says he does, but he signed the steel tariff into law.

Reagan would have never signed off on the prescription drug benefit for seniors. I remember when Reagan first came to office, he went tooth-and-nail with the AARP. He caved to them somewhat eventually, but it was unavoidable - that lobby had too much power. But Bush signed off on that bill under no such pressure.

Where they would have agreed, however, was on foreign policy. Reagan believed in liberty. He believed it was the divine right of all people. Dictatorships offended him to his core.

10

Unless they were anti-communist dictatorships. In which case, he could overlook a death squad or two.

11

The United States took a turn to the right back in 1968 when they elected Nixon. The only interruptions since then were Carter, who was elected because Ford was a caretaker and the country needed to wash the taste of Nixon out of their mouth, and Clinton, who won on the economy and proved to be fairly conservative for a Democrat in his own right.

The US is a very conservative country. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

12

And yet, Bush II has done more to carry out the neocon agenda than any president since the ideology began to emerge – more than Reagan or Bush I. Reagan sent in troops to topple a Marxist regime in a Caribbean island nation no larger than the Florida Keys; otherwise, he met the Communist threat with spending and rhetoric. Bush I contained Hussein but did not actually invade or occupy his country. Bush II did, and has rattled sabers at the rest of the “Axis of Evil.” Why is that, I wonder?

13

Which is why John Kerry is running to the right as fast as he can now. But it still remains to be seen whether he can outrun his record, and whether the electorate will accept him.

I suspect this election is going to see-saw back and forth until the debates. That’s when the average citizen will start paying attention, and whoever performs well in those debates will get a big jump.

The latest polls, btw, show Bush back in the lead again, probably due to the ‘conservative bounce’ from the last week of tributes to Reagan. Bush is not a neo-con or as conservative as Reagan is, but between he and Kerry Bush is still the natural inheritor of that mantle.

Interesting that Reagan still has coat-tails 16 years after he left office. A measure of just how good a president he really was.

14

Sorry about that. Didn’t mean to ignore my own thread. Real life intruding.

I see this got hijacked rather quickly. I was using “neo-conservative” interchangeably with “the New Right” – one that focuses on supply-side economics, small government, and private-sector solutions to most problems.

Canada and Britain, at least, have another form of conservatism, which seems to have mostly vanished now, that was all about tradition, the queen, and hierarchical class structures. I was using “neo-conservative” to distinguish from this “traditional conservative” way of thinking, which Mulroney and (from what I hear) Thatcher were not a part of.

Thatcher and Mulroney were seen as a step away not only from the progressive politics of the previous decade, but as a step away from an older form of conservatism. Perhaps this second aspect doesn’t apply to the US, which seems to have the main source for much of the “New Right’s” philosophy?

15

It’s tempting to just dismiss it as a swing of the pendulum, or as a period of consolidating and recovering from earlier generations’ advances and correction of their errors. What you Canadians and Brits etc. think of as “conservatism” is, by US standards, still pretty liberal, after all - the pendulum may just not swing as far for you anymore.

The greater conservatism of the US than most of the West may reflect the growth in strength of the South in recent decades - that’s the neocon right’s stronghold, a bastion of evangelical Christianity unlike almost anywhere else, combined with some lingering atmospheric resentment of Washington for “externally” forcing an end to longstanding racial habits. That in turn is a repercussion of the Civil War, which still affects us in more ways than we’re used to pondering - the persistence of traditional conservative “states’ rights” rhetoric, also unlike the rhetoric in almost any other country, is easily traceable to its original use as a defense of slavery. It took hold, as well, in the plains states, which were settled largely by transplanted Southerners after the Civil War. Over the course of generations, it has metamorphosed into a general attitude of distrust of government of any kind at any level.

I mentioned evangelism - that fits well with our traditions of seeing ourselves as more advanced, even morally superior, and therefore with the burden of fixing the world’s problems. By allowing a religious rather than realistic tinge to our views, it also makes it harder to recognize and admit mistakes - or even, as in the case of Iraq “planning”, admitting that we can even make them. Those attitudes are not, of course, confined to the neocons, who are, after all, a product of our culture and not an alien imposition.

16

I’ve never heard anything to that effect. Do you have a source for that?

17

:rolleyes:

Those aren’t coattails, Sam. Those are the desperate efforts of an encumbent trying to salvage his re-election after the fiasco his presidency has turned out to be. If Bush thought felliating Reagan’s corpse would give him a 30-point jump in the polls, he’d have gladly performed an obscene act in full view of Nancy, Ron, and Patti on Friday afternoon.

18

I think the movement started with the election of Reagan. Who is and who isn’t a neocon is a matter of interesting disagreement in this thread. I would count Reagan, Bush II, and Gingrich as the godfathers of the neocon movement. Bush I is in my view a more conventional conservative and pragmatic enough to change his mind about “no new taxes” (if Kerry had done this, the “flip-flop” chorus would be deafening). I would say in the US, the neocons owe much of their electoral success to two groups of single-issue voters- the right to lifers and the gun rights advocates. Having two large voting blocs forever in your corner gives a huge edge in elections. They’ve also tapped into some white resentment over affirmative action policies and have inheirited the old Wallace wing of the Democratic party. Mix in the evangelical believers in America’s destiny to mold the world in its own image, and you’ve got a coalition that’s hard to beat in the polls.

19

MEBuckner: I should clarify. Reagan started out as a Democrat, and moved towards conservative economics while staying a social liberal. In the 1960’s as governor of California he signed some pretty progressive bills, including one that allowed abortion and some women’s rights legislation. Over time he headed more towards social conservatism. By the time he became president, he was probably a drug warrior.

Here’s what he said to Reason magazine in an interview in 1975, while his positions were still evolving:

Full interview here.

20

In the mid-seventies, America took a double kick in the teeth with the complete failure of the Vietnam War to yield anything worthwhile, and the disgrace and resignation of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon.

We were hurtin’. As Americans, we like to stand up and yell, “We’re Number One!” and that was not a time in which we could really DO that.

The Ford Administration was a government in escrow. Nobody much liked Ford, if only because he pardoned Nixon.

This left the 1976 Presidential race wide open. In what was largely a backlash against Nixon’s party, the people elected Jimmy Carter to the Presidency.

Carter meant well, and he got some positive things accomplished. If not for the Iran Hostage crisis, he might well have been reelected to a second term; his watch was relatively scandal-free, and he was a personable chap.

…until the Iranians began using our embassy for target practice.

Carter suddenly had a mess dropped in his lap. He would have been justified in sending in half the armed forces to level the entire country, but that would likely have gotten the hostages killed. He did see to a hostage rescue mission, but that came apart rather embarrassingly.

Rather than being the guy to make America stand tall again, Carter was left holding the bag when yet more humiliation came down the pike. Still, he was the incumbent.

…which brought us to Reagan, a likeable, affable, personable guy who was good at playing the patriarch, and wore an air of authority like it fit him. The Iranians promptly handed the hostages over when HE was in charge, and it was a good start to his first term.

… and therein began the tale. Conservatives got in in the early eighties, because Reagan was a conservative, and he was finally in the right place in the right time (after losing his previous presidential bids).