McCarthy as the Father of Modern Conservatism
So posits Neal Gabler in this morning’s LA Times op-ed.
But there is another rendition of the story of modern conservatism, one that doesn’t begin with Goldwater and doesn’t celebrate his libertarian orientation. It is a less heroic story, and one that may go a much longer way toward really explaining the Republican Party’s past electoral fortunes and its future. In this tale, the real father of modern Republicanism is Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the line doesn’t run from Goldwater to Reagan to George W. Bush; it runs from McCarthy to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. It centralizes what one might call the McCarthy gene, something deep in the DNA of the Republican Party that determines how Republicans run for office, and because it is genetic, it isn’t likely to be expunged any time soon.
As they say, go read the whole thing.
This, “McCarthyism is a way to build support by playing on the anxieties of Americans, actively convincing them of danger and conspiracy even where these don’t exist.” certainly goes a long way towards explaining how Republican operatives can see the strategy of personal destruction as just politics. This is how the game is played and yadayada. It also explains the crazyness of conservatives whining and moaning about the repeal of the Fairness Act, when there is no credible legislative effort afoot to do anything about it. It explains the crazyness of going on a gun and ammo buying binge in certain parts of the US since they’ve convinced themselves (there’s certainly no evidence of it) that Obama is a threat to their guns and ammo. There are still folks who are perfectly comfortable with the manipulation of their anxieties — and certainly Fox News and all of wingnut radio make buckets of money of of these folks.
But that this also means is that a return to conservative principles necessarily means figuring out whether the old Reagan Democrats and moderates are ever going to be available to the same kind of conspiratorial rhetoric again, and being on the lookout for the new conspiracies designed to bypass any rationality.
Then again, there is this proposal to just stop listening to those who have been so wrong on it all anyway. That will certainly keep the hard core 26% who are comfortable to lead with their anxieties and conspiracies largely talking to themselves.
Tags: National Republicans
I’d like to think that we can ignore the MIchelle Malkins, Dave Burris’ and Sean Hannitys of the world but, although it sounds oxymoronic to say it, in the age of wall to wall Drudge and Fox News they are the Republican intelligentsia now.
It is obvious that they don’t believe in the fear mongery that they trade in – but seem to be able to use it as an effective tool to mobilize the half-wits and mental defectives who are the Republican rank and file.
This article is very interesting and it makes a lot of sense. Modern conservatives certainly have a lot more in common with McCarthy than with Goldwater. I know Ann Coulter had some material defending McCarthy in at least one of her books. We’ve seen a lot of McCarthy-like tactics in the last election (palling around with terrorists). I’ve certainly noticed conservatives’ obsession with trying to get Democrats to disown some of the more vocal left.
How ironic that a post about the ghost of Joe McCarthy would serve as such a perfect example of modern McCarthyism in action. Bravo.
Are you about ready for your “are you now, or have you ever been a conservative?” witch trials?
Nice turn-around there, TPN. 😉
Especially since there is nothing about either the article or my own post that gets to witch trials.
But we should thank Tyler for providing an example of the business of “creating danger and conspiracy where none exist” right here in our own blog for closer examination.
Wait. Are the liberals going to take our guns after the witch trials, or before? Also, where does the stuff come in about making our kids gay and destroying Christmas? I just want to know the sequence in order to know how much ammo I might need.
Puzzler, we haven’t decided the order of indoctrination yet. Be assured that we have the best minds available on this.
LOL. Nice feedback loop, cassandra.
It’s all about broad stroke demonizing / dehumanizing those of mutual disagreement with you. The people you are comfortable labeling and lumping together in caricature. Those who to you are “them” or “those people”. Par for your course.
No danger or conspiracy here (spare me). Just hypocrisy.
But please, let she who is without sin….
Nemsk, it’s not indoctrination just cheap short-hand partisan diatribe from both ‘sides’.
Liberals don’t do that stuff, Tyler. We can’t even prosecute people for torture, let alone get out the torches and pitchforks for a good witch hunt.
By the way, what is said on blogs and in the press is quite different from McCarthyism, which was using the official machinery of government for political prosecutions.
Are you going to DSO at the Grand on Thursday?
Tyler, Cassandra’s post was an attempt to interpret some pieces of relatively recent history that include some very dark and cynacal tendencies within conservative circles. Arguing that she’s wrong about the history OR that some similar darkness and cynacism has been manifest on the left would be relevant. But accusing her of ‘demonizing / dehumanizing those of mutual disagreement’ whatever it means, is somewhere between a stretcher and a whopper.
I disagree, Puzzler. It is at the root of it all. Condemnation en masse is the easiest and cheapest form of divisive diatribe. McCarthy was a master. Agreed as to anonone’s point about the official aspect versus mere opinion. Nonetheless ideas have consequences.
Yes, I will be at DSO this week. I spent Friday night with them in NYC, and had a chance to catch up with Donna-Jean Godchaux (formerly of the Grateful Dead). She flew in to sing with them in the two shows, one of which was a Rex Foundation benefit. The show was excellent, as always.
Dan Healy (former Grateful Dead sound engineer) is doing their sound now (the sound is amazing). I am trying to work out the details of interviewing him on WDEL with Mascitti, maybe Wednesday. Their tour schedule is pretty dense and nearing the end (until their NYE run), but they will be in Wilmington for their day off before the show. If you call or email me before the show I’d be glad to meet you there at some point and introduce you to some of the band during their set break. It’s always a great time seeing them play. Hope you can make it.
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for the invite. I am going to see Laurie Lewis there the day before, so I won’t be making DSO this time around, but I will watch for them when they come around again.
Sounds like you have been having a great time. I hope you and the band have a great show in Wilmington!
The problem is that Tyler is quite attuned to those instances where conservatives get painted with a broad brush (even when he is wrong) and delighted to do it when it suits him — whatever those posts accusing Obamabots or Obamacons or Statists or whatever group he is lumping together for some reproach or demonization over some imagined bit of offense.
But this is the usual, right? No real refutation or even engagement with what Gabler writes — just some vague accusations and hand waving in hopes that no one notices that you’ve got nothing to add.
Keep reducing all you like, cassandra, ad absurdum, and continue your pogroms and rationalize them with all the equivalencies you wish to dream up.
As far as broad brush, you’re comparing my admittedly rather absurd here-and-there use of the term Obamabots with accusations of emulating Joe McCarthy? You can’t be serious.
As far as statists, McCarthy certainly fit that bill, as anonone alluded.
By the way, it is amusing you won’t directly engage those who call your nonsense out in plain terms.
“See, folks, Tyler is blah blah blah”. Another demonization tactic, like I don’t exist as an actual human being, but rather Exhibit A in your little fantasy sideshow.
Really, I think you’re better than this nonsense. But that’s just a feeling. No proof yet.
There is no reduction — of course — just one more observation that you have one set of rules for us and another for you. No one has accused you of McCarthyism, which just goes right back to the business of creating danger and conspiracy where none exist.
We all get that actually engaging in a refutation of something in this post is not what you are going to do. We all get that you think I’m a bad guy for even thinking that Gabler has an alternate history that matches up with current behavior. Behavior that you keep demonstrating here, BTW. And if you are going to ask people to treat you like a real human being, you need to be able to extend the courtesy. And in this forum that means not making shit up to argue about when there is already plenty there to engage with. Or — in other words — deal with the message if you can, rather than trying to insist on the messenger being some bad person.
And now we’ve come back full circle to Gabler’s thoughts on how repubs need to present themselves and our own personal demonstration as to How It All Works.
The entire premise of this post is little more than made-up shit, purposed on demonizing your rendition of ‘modern conservatism’.
The title of this post is about as true as a post titled “Marx As the Father of Modern Liberalism”. Undoubtedly some right wing hack could fill in the blanks just as easily.
That you demand some type of faux-intellectual engagement of such drivel as laid out here is just a bit too much self-seriousness without much seriousness of thought.
So, Tyler, would you say that Goldwater as the father of modern conservatism is equally composed of “made up shit”? Clearly, from your viewpoint, Bush isn’t a libertarian like your heroes. So who is he descended from, ideologically?
The difference between Marx and the title of this post is that McCarthy was a post WWII politician from the US and Marx is a foreign philosopher. Clearly, you are making shit up.
Y’all are ripping TPN a new a-hole here.
I think that Gabler conveniently ignores several important factors in the rise of modern repubs:
– The Southern Strategy used by Nixon to get the racist vote after Johnson and the voting rights act
– The rise of the Christianist theocrats as the repub base
– The stolen election in 2000
None of these have anything to do with McCarthyism.
I think that it Gabel’s historical stretch is amusing given the wide swath of history he he tries to link together. I’d be surpassed if Palin even knew who McCarthy was.
It is sufficient just to say that repubs can’t govern and they have repeatedly shown this to be true. As some one once said, arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin makes pinheads out of us all.
Anonone: I disagree. The southern strategy is basically McCarthyism rejiggered for a different, less powerful enemy. If you don’t think racism counts as an arrow in the quiver, try talking to a dittohead. It won’t be long until he or she starts in on people “who don’t feel like going to work so they want me to support them.”
If there was nothing to engage with here, then one wonders why you felt it necessary to just jump in with some made up shit about witch trials, Tyler.
And Geezer is right — the Southern Strategy is certainly a form of McCarthyism playing instead on racial anxieties and fears. I’d also say that the play to the theocrats is also of the same cloth. You have only to look at DV’s Jimmy Swaggart video below to see it in action — this time pointed at gay people and those who support them.
If you’re going to make that argument, Geezer and Cassandra, then McCarthyism is just a “rejiggered” something else going on back to the beginning of recorded history. Racism was around long before McCarthism and was used by the Dixiecrats as a political tool at the same time McCarthy was using communism. Repubs just took Southern racism over from the Dems as a political wedge after Johnson.
That is the basic problem with Gabler’s proposition: you can see patterns in just about anything you want. McCarthy was an evil person, but his crusade was not primarily racist.
Maybe we can just say that repubs are just another party based on building a totalitarian theocratic government like many other movements throughout history.
I think Gabler’s proposition was put forward to take the shine off the GOP’s scrubbed-clean version of its own history.
Gabler is a movie/cultural critic by trade, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that he assigns such a prominent role to McCarthy, as it tore apart the film industry. Outside of Hollywood, the McCarthy period gets short shrift in history books because nobody wants to take responsibility for it.
OTOH, your emphasis on the theocratic aspects of the party has been well-documented. Just because he sees a pattern and it doesn’t embrace the things you consider significant doesn’t invalidate anything he says. Frankly, your contention seems a lot further off base, IMO.
Another libertarian voice chiming in here.
Quick thought experiment. Suppose that Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter were to posit the following:
But there is another rendition of the story of modern liberalism, one that doesn’t begin with Jefferson and doesn’t celebrate his liberal orientation. It is a less heroic story, and one that may go a much longer way toward really explaining the Democratic Party’s past electoral fortunes and its future. In this tale, the real father of modern liberalism is Karl Marx, and the line doesn’t run from Jefferson to Clinton to Barack Obama; it runs from Marx to Roosevelt to Obama and possibly now to Nancy Pelosi. It centralizes what one might call the Marxist gene, something deep in the DNA of the Democratic Party that determines how Democrats run for office, and because it is genetic, it isn’t likely to be expunged any time soon.
—–
How exactly would that sort of propaganda differ materially from the article cited above?
Utter lack of supporting argument would be one significant difference.
I don’t see a supporting argument in the original piece, either — just a lot of ad hominems and unsupported statements presented as “facts.”
Again, I’m struggling to see how this piece differs materially from an Ann Coulter “factual analysis of the morally bankrupt ideology of liberalism.”
It’s a bit ironic that those who purport to oppose right-wing tactics and methods are increasingly emulating them.
LOL, Mr. Miller….L.O.L.
I am the Proletariat!
If you take anyone who knows nothing about American political history and show them the tactics used by McCarthy and the current GOP regime…I’m pretty sure that person would find distinct similarities, especially as it pertains to demonizing certain groups, the practice of exclusion, and hyper-patriotism.
It’s elementary assessment skilz, yo.
You all have crossed so many streams here I no longer know what the hell you’re even talking about any more.
Am I gathering you are at heart alleging that anti-communism was evil, and therefore the successive line of anti-communist ideology within conservatism makes Joe McCarthy, a short-lived rabid overkill red-baiter over 50 years ago, the father of modern conservatism? Otherwise your post and the op-ed is no more than revisionist, if not plain ahistorical, hyperbolic poppycock.
Geek- GW Bush descended ideologically from Dick Cheney’s anus. There is no coherence to his nonsense, nor any relation to conservative tradition in history (versus the one so aggressively subject to fantasy re-writing in this blog).
Anonone makes an interesting distinction, exposing how some here really don’t know what the hell they are talking about since they can’t distinguish between the history of a political party (as you see it) and an ideological tradition (as you see it), both to which you are avowed haters.
You should be far more worried about whether your Democratic party will, in fact, advance your liberal values, than what historical boogeyman most resembles George Bush’s horrid “governance”, falsely called conservatism by you and George Bush himself. But at least you agree with him on one thing.
If you take anyone who knows nothing about American political history and show them the tactics used by McCarthy and the current GOP regime…I’m pretty sure that person would find distinct similarities
Of course, one could say the same thing about ANY recent administration — including the Clinton White House.
And Barack Obama’s administration, despite not taking office yet, has also shown a worrying proclivity for savoring various police powers created through bipartisan “consensus.”
So I’ll accept the thesis only if Democrats are willing to admit their culpability in it as well. Warrantless wiretapping, secret air travel lists, government audit lists, and other apparatus of the McCarthyist state were created with large Democratic Party supermajorities voting in favor as well — including the president-elect during his term in the Senate.
Did either of you libertarian geniuses even read Gabler’s piece, or are you simply reacting to the DelLib gloss on it?
Nobody gives a rat’s ass whether you, Brian, “accept” this thesis. Outside of Heinlein and Ayn Rand book clubs, nobody cares what you libertarians think, because you’re so dreadful at either articulating it or showing any real-world examples of it working.
Gabler made clear he was talking about electoral strategy, not party philosophy. If you and Tyler want to be taken seriously, you might start with improving your reading comprehension.
Brian,
The fight for freedom and civil liberties doesn’t end with the D’s in power, that is for sure. I am a member of the Democratic party mostly so I can vote in the primaries, but I am ready to hold Obama and his crew to the same standards that I held Bush and his crew.
I am an American liberal before I am a Dem and I’d give up my membership in the Dems faster than my membership in the ACLU.
For the record, “warrantless wiretapping” and FISA did not have dem “supermajority” support and I think (hope) we’ll see a restoration by legislation under Obama of some civil liberties discarded by Bush.
Geezer’s post typifies, almost to a tee, the unfortunate pattern that I’m seeing as of late in the Democratic Party.
You could, with very slight modifications, post his identical post on FreeRepublic.com and get rousing cheers from the lumpen masses of the unthinking right wing that he doubtlessly claims to oppose.
The article in question is just another example of how that dynamic is moving upwards to infect “intellectual” liberalism as well.
If Democrats knew what was good for them, they’d arrest this poison process. That process led to the collapse of the Republican Party.
You’re walking a razor’s edge when you start screaming “who cares what you think” — after all, that was a direct quote uttered by none other than President Dubya when confronted by a US citizen who told him his Iraq policy was a mistake. You are rapidly becoming that which you claim to despise.
“warrantless wiretapping” and FISA did not have dem “supermajority” support and I think (hope) we’ll see a restoration by legislation under Obama
I wouldn’t hold my breath too much on that, considering Obama voted for the FISA statute (breaking his promise to do so).
I also find it disturbing that we’re talking about restoring “some of” the civil liberties abrogated during the Bush era, rather than ALL of them.
While that’s doubtlessly another topic for another discussion, it disturbs me to see some who would argue against McCarthyist statism turn a blind eye to its manifestation when it’s their guy supporting the bill.
I’m not saying everyone is doing it, but a significant number are — you need only look at the thread for evidence of this.
Utter lack of supporting argument would be one significant difference.
Sorry, Geezer, but I think the same can be said for Gabler’s piece. It is easy and fun to string together bits and pieces of history to try to make some point, but Gabler doesn’t do it very well. He should stick to Disney.
You’re right, Brian. Now is not the time to become complacent. Obama’s support of FISA was unsupportable and outrageous. And unnecessary.
Yes, I hope they’re all restored. Some by legislation rolling back Executive Orders, some by de-politicizing the justice department, and some by appointing more civil liberty-minded judges.
Unfortunately, governments don’t often cede power to the people willingly or easily.
Did either of you libertarian geniuses even read Gabler’s piece, or are you simply reacting to the DelLib gloss on it?
LOL. Why, Geez?
Is this “DelLib gloss on it” doing it injustice?
Did they get it wrong here, or just carry its distortion so far that even you need to point this out for the sake of simple coherence in this thread?
Try not to get your knickers in such a twist. Incoherent propositions make for incoherent arguments. Witness.
NB : This libertarian stands with anonone and others who ultimately say eff party politics and ideological tea squabbles….we need justice and the rule of law, starting with our Constitution, restored in this country, with no one in any government getting a pass from delivering it – whether Bush’s ilk or Obama’s crew.
It is mindless to believe that neo con blue democrats are not now in control. Obama has not lived up to “change” by installing some of the worst reactionaries in modern history to his cabinent.
Its not about dems or repukes…both parties are corporatists and war mongers. Obama blamed Bush for pre emptive strikes in Iraq, yet he himself has no qualm about a pre emptive strike in Pakistan!
Why don’t the democrats get rid of the Patriot Act, THEY signed without reading. Where is the reestablishment of Posse Comitas? Why are they permitting the vile evil traitors Bush and Cheney to walk free! They have committed the worst acts of atrocity our nation has ever seen, violated the Constitution on a daily basis. I think what we have installed is nothing more than a “unity government”, bringing both corporate parties under one banner and calling it change.
We have no freedom of the press under Dem or repuke rule. Our Consitution has been all but shredded and I don’t hear even one blue dog neo con democrat even speaking to fixing it.
I will not hold my tongue no matter who is president or what party they claim. This is about the citizens of this country who have been so demoralized and terrifed we are encapable of progressive thought. It the corporations and multi nationals who are destroying America “without a shot fired”.
Frankly, I suspect that none of these so-called libertarian geniuses have read the Gaber piece and if they did, they’ve read what they wanted — not what the man has to say.
This op-ed piece (meaning that some of us know that this is a bit of speculation, rather than “fact”) isn’t so much about ideology than it is about style. And a style of campaigning and communicating with voters that is rooted in the business of wedge politics — the kind of politics that pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans by playing on prejudices. So the constant claims that gay people are threats to marriage, that an Obama government will take all of your stuff, that the Dems are trying to destroy talk radio by bringing back the fairness doctrine — all of these are the ways that fear and anxiety are played on for some electoral advantage — even when these claims are quite wrong.
What is interesting to me is how the libertarians on this thread apparently want to defend this kind of wedge politics — even as ugly and as ineffective it was this past season — while rushing off to point out the Obama issue of the day or today’s issues with the Democratic party. We’ll count you as fans of the wedge politics, then.
Cassandra, you need to type slower when writing for our visiting libertarians. 😉
LOL, nemski!
If I type slower, that will certainly reduce the rate of typos in my posts….
“I will not hold my tongue no matter who is president or what party they claim.”
No, Liz, nobody would expect you to. If your tongue started saying something intelligent, though, that would be a nice change.
Brian: Way to ignore everything except your own contentions. Try to figure out the difference between tactics and philosophy, and get back to us if you someday figure it out. Stop “imagining” what I “would” say or write and try responding to what’s actually in front of you. Oh, wait. If you could do that, you wouldn’t be a libertarian.
Anonone: You still haven’t articulated any actual problems with what Gabler wrote. You just keep repeating that you don’t think much of it because it doesn’t conform to your particular claims about Republicans. As I noted above, he makes a far better case for his interpretation than you do for yours.
Pretty amusing to watch all you wannabes rail against a piece of expository writing that none of you seem up to the challenge of debunking.
They are not defending “wedge politics”, Cassandra. What they are trying to say (I think) is that “wedge politics” did not start with McCarthy, and that Gabler is trying to make some clever point that isn’t there.
Look, I love to bash repubs as much as anyone (and usually more), but I think Gabler is trying too hard to make a point that isn’t there. Yes, repubs practice wedge politics. Ascribing this to some “McCarthy gene” is a silly useless simplification, in my opinion.
And Gabler doesn’t say that wedge politics started with McCarthy — he does note that it becomes a permanent feature of the Republican tool kit shortly after McCarthy.
Maybe now that the Republicans have been exposed, Libertarians can go back to voting for Libertarians again.
“I don’t see a supporting argument in the original piece, either — just a lot of ad hominems and unsupported statements presented as “facts.”
Ad hominems? You mean the timeline he traces? You see any factual errors in it? Feel free to point them out.
Cass,
No one reads what we link to actually. the stuff we link to get’s clicked on about 5x’s per post.
What is interesting to me is how the libertarians on this thread apparently want to defend this kind of wedge politics — even as ugly and as ineffective it was this past season
Talk about making shit up out of thin air. Your whole post is a perfect example of angry recriminative wedge politics. You just have a different set of wedges to grind.
Interesting? No.
False? Absolutely.
Twisted? I’d say so.
From self-described liberals I am amazed at such brittle self-serving myopia in your ‘thinking’.
Like I said earlier, keep reducing away. Your version of reality will eventually be simplistic enough to match your compartmentalized simple-mindedness.
Truly I hope such ignorance at least brings you some bliss.
Well, if redefining “wedge politics” is the only way you can still justify your stance, Tyler, then so be it.
In the meantime, the rest of us are pretty clear that your arguments have pretty much come down to ‘So’s your old man.”
You talking about anybody’s ignorance in light of the mess you’ve managed to post here is too much like the pot calling the kettle. But hey! Whatever blows your skirt up, buddy…..
So DV — are you telling me now that we aren’t supposed to read the links? Man, there’s a lot of time I won’t get back….. 😉
The “rest of us are pretty clear”? Oh please.
Now you’re back to bolstering your arguments with “hey look, everyone agrees with me (or disagrees with you)”?
Brian said it repeatedly, and I have said it myself : you have become that which you claim(ed) to abhor. Dance away, mama cass, you’re still a hater. That’s all there is to it really.
I certainly expect no self-criticality from you about this incessant tack you take, given your steady pablum of demonization.
It makes no difference you gauze this tripe over with pseudo-reflective pretense, as though you are laboring to discern and dispense truth. “Wedge” politics are about division, and division is what your politics are about.
But let’s also talk about the politics of distraction. You are quite top-heavy here on your continued retroactive blame game : “Look over here. McCarthy is the father of conservatism! Will we ever be rid of these evil people?!? Oh, but don’t look over there, that’s just Obama stacking his administration with neocons and beltway bunches.”
This is all such meaningless entertainment, in the last analysis. It’s great!
Seriously, Tyler, you’ve pretty plainly become a caricature of the kind of reaction that Gabler describes. And while we’re talking about self-criticality, I don’t expect you to deal with that at all. Because it is always going to be easier for you to just accuse people of the behavior that you are indulging in and hoping that no one notices that. And nor will you account for your own habits of demonization — just because you view yourself as somehow superior to the statists and the Obamabots and the Obamacons and whoever else you set your sights on as somehow being misguided. And it is the business of being ohsosuperior that you’d never see the demonization or belittling you indulge in when it so suits you. So save the lectures on the politics of distraction or the repurposing of other people’s writing (and threads) for whatever your jihad-of-the-day is for your own blog, where you may have a few readers who will buy that crap.
Obama stacking his administration with neocons
Who, exactly? Specific names, please, and neocon pedigree.
BTW, I read your blog post on this – in spite of all the “praise” from Obama’s political opposition (which is customary at this point), not a single appointment was named as a neocon. So what names do you have?