Perlstein article summary: Did you know American history is full of right wing groups pushing kooky conspiracy theories, racial resentment, and fascist ideology? It’s true!
I’m not sure how one writes such a long article about Trump’s rise without mentioning the cultural landscape of the right for the last 30 years: religious television, right wing talk radio, and Fox News. Trump said what conservative audiences had been hearing, what they wanted to hear. The stuffed shirt establishment pushing guys like Jeb! and Rubio were out to lunch. Sounds like this guy was part of that establishment. He could’ve also mentioned the corrupt business duopoly called Democrats and Republicans who look for ways to screw workers and the tremendous resentment this builds in the country.
It means the same as when Obama ran as a true blue progressive and then immediately filled his cabinet with bankers and Wall Street cronies. It means the system is corrupt. You can’t vote them out because you don’t vote them in. Follow the money.
An excellent example of the problems I am seeing in most such debates. You are using closed loop logic. Conflating all kinds of people and motivations into a single set of ideas, because they all voted for the same guy. You ignore that they voted for Trump for all different reasons.
You think that EVERYONE who voted for Trump, did so because they wanted a wall? Explain why most of the Republican leadership opposed that. You think EVERYONE who voted for Trump want to expand coal mining? And do you REALLY think that the bulk of the Republican party wants to “play nice” with Putin?
The only thing that tied enough of the GOP together to win the election, was that they all HATED certain things. They have entirely different ways that they want changes made to deal with those things.
The reason why they couldn’t put together a health care program, is because they are NOT UNITED in any way, save that they don’t like the ACA as currenly configured.
Please. Look again, and explain why all the obvious divisions between the many people who thought Trump was The Guy, prove that The Right is identical to The Republicans, is even remotely related to Conservative.
The post title showed promise, but unfortunately it’s the same old high-horse stuff. The idea that the CIA agent Bill Buckley was a principled conservative is hilariously wrong. He explicitly endorsed a totalitarian state. Yes explicitly, as in he used the word “totalitarian”.
I think that Perlstein is a good historian. His book on the rise of Barry Goldwater is well worth reading. But a lot of tomndebb’s points here are spot on.
I think Perlstein makes some good points in this essay, although i think that the overall tone of it is far too polemical, and in places he seems to be offering a rather blinkered view of conservatism. The general position he takes is along the lines of, “The biggest failure of historians is that we didn’t realize how racist and bigoted the conservative base was,” and that’s not a very sophisticated or tenable analysis of the conservative movement.
Perlstein is definitely correct to separate the conservative intellectuals out from the rank-and-file members. In conservatism, and in liberalism, there is often a pretty big chasm between the intellectual movement and the broad political base. That gap is, possibly, larger in conservatism. I also agree with tomndebb that Perlstein never manages to make a very convincing argument that conservative intellectuals have jumped on the Trump bandwagon. Indeed, some conservative intellectuals, like Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, have responded to Perlstein in the last few days, and have noted that they and their conservative outlets have been plenty critical of Trump both before and after his ascent to the Presidency.
It’s not clear to me what you mean when you say “their own historians” here, but it’s worth pointing out, for those who don’t know his work, that while Perlstein is a historian of conservatism, he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative himself. He’s very much in the liberal mainstream of American academic history.
There are a couple of places in the essay where his emphasis on some of the sins of conservatism shades over into dishonest historical analysis and a sort of “No True Scotsman” view of ideology. For example, look at this section, where he asserts that there were times when “far-right vigilantism and outright fascism routinely infiltrated the mainstream of American life”:
His description of Coughlin and his supporters here is quite accurate, but what he doesn’t tell you, and what you would never find out from this article, is that it’s pretty problematic to describe Coughlin as a conservative, especially in the broader context of a discussion about the American conservative movement.
Coughlin came from a conservative Catholic background, in Canada, and he kept a lot of his Catholic conservatism. But he also embraced a Catholic tradition of social justice, and during the Great Depression he criticized Franklin Roosevelt as not pursuing social justice with sufficient vigor, and laid out a 16-point plan (PDF) for achieving social justice in America:
Doesn’t really sound like a conservative platform, does it?
Perlstein is right about the anti-Semitic and the pro-fascist tendencies of Coughlin and his supporters, but anyone who knows about American history should also recognize that being a prejudiced populist does not necessarily mean that you’re a conservative. It’s pretty dishonest to suggest that Coughlin was an important part of American conservatism, without separating out the different components of his ideology and his politics, and Perlstein should have done better here.
Speaking as a religious conservative with delusions of being an intellectual…
I appreciate much of what Tomndeb said, and I would have made many of the same points myself if I’d gotten here first. Rick Perlstein got a lot of things utterly wrong, and his tone is an irritating, “See, Trump proves there are no real conservative principles besides racism and greed.” On that score, he’s repulsive and wrong. He proves that he really doesn’t understand conservatives.
But then… obviously, neither did I.
I was sure Trump wouldn’t really run for President. And that he couldn’t win GOP primaries. And that, when he did win primaries, that was just about name recognition. And that eventually, his enemies would rally around Cruz or Kasich to beat him. And that he couldn’t win the general election. So where do I come off criticizing Perlstein? Clearly, I didn’t understand my party or my country as well as I thought.
Principled conservatives, intellectual or not, still HAVEN’T embraced Trump. But we’ve learned that most Republican voters aren’t particularly principled or conservative. The Republican coalition includes many factions that are hostile or indifferent to the principles I consider vital.
Trump proved that people like myself (or George Will or WFB) don’t really have much power or control in the GOP. Of course, Pat Buchanan and Steve Bannon are learning to their chagrin that THEY don’t either.
Responding to the article linked in the OP – I don’t know. I’ve met “real” and non-bigoted, non-xenophobic conservatives. I’ve also met plenty of bigots and xenophobes (most of whom claim to be conservative). And I’ve met folks in the middle – people with real conservative philosophies, but also some serious blind spots with regards to race (for example: a guy in my office who swears he’s “to the right of Attila the Hun” insists that the reason that black people vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party is because “they want free stuff”).
IMO racism and xenophobia are a very large part of Trump’s success (which, as many posters have pointed out, is nowhere close to overwhelming), but I’m not sure if it’s the biggest part.
There was a psychologist from Harvard or Princeton that did a study to see who was smarter; Liberals or Conservatives.
His findings were that Liberals were smarter and as soon as the study was concluded he himself stopped being a liberal. So the guy smart enough to conduct the test, and likely the smartest person of the entire group as he ran the group, QUIT being a liberal.
Anywho there is a psychology book that came out recently that goes into the psychology of left and right wing types and group thinking and following. Basically youre all watching and listening to what you want to hear so youre not learning anything or getting smarter. Im a progressive and im finding libs are all talking like crazy fox news viewers. Ive gotten more credible info from Breitbart than huffpo over the last year and I dont even read breitbart and have since stopped reading and trusting huffpo. I have heard a dozen liberal conspiracy theories in the last 4 months and 0 have come true. Its like the left became the nuts that the right was for the last 8 years. The left also now hates science it doesnt agree with so much it will silence it or get you fired if you dont agree with the lefts position. its like religious tyranny, FROM THE LEFT!
Remember back in the 1950’s if you did something perceived as anti christian/catholic you could get fired? WELL THAT’S WHAT THE LEFT DOES NOW! THEY GET YOU FIRED FOR NOT AGREEING WITH THEIR RELIGION!
Dont ever read or mention the identical twin studies or talk of experiences living near chicago or else youre a homophobic racist bigot- who also happens to be a progressive with black,gay, and muslim friends and who happens to read science and lived near chicago and is trying to help the poor black people in that region and you just silenced him! WHOOPS!
Your point here is logically 100% valid. But as I said in an earlier post:
At the end of the day, our system forces absolutely everybody to choose one of two teams. [Or choose to effectively sit out by not voting or voting 3rd party.]
As an academic matter the Rightists, Conservatives, and Republicans are different categories. As are the Leftists, Liberals, and Democrats. Not to mention the many dozen sub-flavors of each.
But when discussing the results of an election all that doesn’t matter. All that matters is the aggregate outcome that they chose candidate A over candidate B for president, senate, congress, governor, etc. Why any given voter preferred A over B is immaterial.
You’re 100% right that this time around the congressional Republicans are especially all over the map and as such have a hard time coming up with coherent legislation, despite the headline reality of “Republican majority in both houses”. And that they will face extra challenges in working with a president who’s truly a RINO, a party of one man with an especially inconsistent agenda who borrowed the Republican banner just long enough to get elected under it and who has no ongoing loyalty to it.
are you a moron? over the last few years anyone perceived as not pro gay enough or who voted against gay marriage has been fired. big name ceo’s and stuff. and thats just one issue! MORON! You’re a moron!
You mean like the Vice President (and many/most other Republicans in office)? The owners of Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil-A? The Pope? Countless others who oppose same-sex marriage who haven’t been fired?
you will have to search on your own. I was misinformed (by my crazy conspiracy lib friend no less) that the recent high up uber guy was fired for anti gay reasons and just read it was sexual harrassment. Also every search I do comes up with a bunch of Pence articles. Im in CA and I recall hearing people being under massive scrutiny or being fired for voting against pro gay bills 1-3 years ago. I thought there was a silicon valley guy or two affected for sure. One was in trouble or fired for supporting a bill deemed anti gay or for supporting the politician supporting the anti gay bill. Someone else was in trouble for being pro mexico wall. If I can recall a name or someone under scrutiny I will post it. I would like to know the specific names myself so I will actually try to find them when I think of the bills names or better searches.
In CA if you are against any pro immigration or pro gay issues you are in some serious shit if it gets out. Celebrities, politicians, Silicon Valley are all either pro liberal or stay quiet for fear of backlash. Im progressive but Im white so in CA Im assumed to be a pro Trump anti everybody conservative. Its annoying as hell and gets kinda racist and extremely ignorant.
I think the firing of the mozilla CEO for voting against prop 8 was the big one I was thinking of but I think there was a large firing more recent than that. Mozilla CEO is pretty massive though and makes my point on its own under the circumstances. Professor John McAdams.