Movement Conservatism and Angering Liberals
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:55 pm
In the early 2000's, I came across a provocative argument. It contended that due to a a coinciding of factors, a large percentage of self-defined conservatives had stopped caring about political positions per se and began to define themselves in terms of its rejection of what they perceived modern liberalism to be. The idea was that conservatives, through right-wing media, belief in liberal biases, think-tanks, etc. had by happenstance developed a large, well-funded, tightly networked, self-amplifying cultural identify that that defines itself through rejection of what it thinks liberals like, what it perceives the mainstream media to be, and how it thinks liberals reason and argue in academic settings.
The idea was that this is maintained through shibboleths that movement conservatives readily understand, but can be confusing to outsiders who do not routinely engage with their culture.
As I said, I heard about this in the early 2000's. The argument was that if liberals continued to try to compromise or perceive increasingly radical conservative views as subjects for legitimate debate - if the media continued to try to just portray "both sides" while avoiding judgments of accuracy or fact - then the movement would just be pushed further and further into extremity. As liberals and media try to meet them "half-way" the conservatives will just define themselves in terms of rejection of that too. The shocking position has to get ever more shocking as it is fueled by rejection of whatever it is the liberals are saying they like, what mainstream media is saying, what they think is going on in academia, etc. A seat at the table and compromise just makes them more radical.
The short version of this is that many conservatives don't care about lowering taxes, tight immigration policies, petroleum based energy policy, or anything like that. They care about pissing off liberals. They only like those things to the extent it appears to annoy liberals. (Which it does.)
So, when I initially heard this argument, I heavily criticized it. Understanding a fair amount about the diverse political philosophies that have influenced the coalition of people that get called conservative, I believed real conservative philosophy was filtering down through conservative idea-makers into the general public to a greater extent than this argument gave credit for.
I still think this, but as years passed, I've become more and more sympathetic to this being a significant factor in explaining what is going on in the Republican party. It is radicalizing at a rapid and disturbing rate. The turning point for me in thinking there was something to this case was the 2008 convention. I watched speaker after speaker get up and say things that were just perfectly calculated to double-down on anything that the crowd thought liberals hated, no matter how reasonable it might be. That liberals dislike what they were saying (Drill Baby Drill!) wasn't incidental. It was the point. That crowd clearly defined itself by hatred of liberals and the desire to say things they dislike. And that crowd represents the taste-makers of the party. If liberalism became defined by love of puppies, there would've been an attack speech on puppies.
So here we are today, on the cusp of the 2016 primary, and the current surge candidate is someone whose popularity is driven by his willingness to say obscenely offensive, juvenile things. Virtually all the other candidates are competing by trying to find ways to be equally radical in their rejection of anything that gives a whiff of liberal sensibility or the "lamestream" media. Conservatism as it interfaces with the public is more an emotional sentiment - contempt and anger for liberals - than it is an articulation of policy preferences. We're to the point that major conservative politicians have to pay homage to right wing media hosts that do things like genuinely advocate that Mexican immigrants be rounded up and made slaves. Take that, elitists!
This is a disaster. These people will win at some point and they are on a self-reinforcing feedback loop into insanity. The best hope is to try and figure out which candidates are only pretending to go along with this and to support them.
The idea was that this is maintained through shibboleths that movement conservatives readily understand, but can be confusing to outsiders who do not routinely engage with their culture.
As I said, I heard about this in the early 2000's. The argument was that if liberals continued to try to compromise or perceive increasingly radical conservative views as subjects for legitimate debate - if the media continued to try to just portray "both sides" while avoiding judgments of accuracy or fact - then the movement would just be pushed further and further into extremity. As liberals and media try to meet them "half-way" the conservatives will just define themselves in terms of rejection of that too. The shocking position has to get ever more shocking as it is fueled by rejection of whatever it is the liberals are saying they like, what mainstream media is saying, what they think is going on in academia, etc. A seat at the table and compromise just makes them more radical.
The short version of this is that many conservatives don't care about lowering taxes, tight immigration policies, petroleum based energy policy, or anything like that. They care about pissing off liberals. They only like those things to the extent it appears to annoy liberals. (Which it does.)
So, when I initially heard this argument, I heavily criticized it. Understanding a fair amount about the diverse political philosophies that have influenced the coalition of people that get called conservative, I believed real conservative philosophy was filtering down through conservative idea-makers into the general public to a greater extent than this argument gave credit for.
I still think this, but as years passed, I've become more and more sympathetic to this being a significant factor in explaining what is going on in the Republican party. It is radicalizing at a rapid and disturbing rate. The turning point for me in thinking there was something to this case was the 2008 convention. I watched speaker after speaker get up and say things that were just perfectly calculated to double-down on anything that the crowd thought liberals hated, no matter how reasonable it might be. That liberals dislike what they were saying (Drill Baby Drill!) wasn't incidental. It was the point. That crowd clearly defined itself by hatred of liberals and the desire to say things they dislike. And that crowd represents the taste-makers of the party. If liberalism became defined by love of puppies, there would've been an attack speech on puppies.
So here we are today, on the cusp of the 2016 primary, and the current surge candidate is someone whose popularity is driven by his willingness to say obscenely offensive, juvenile things. Virtually all the other candidates are competing by trying to find ways to be equally radical in their rejection of anything that gives a whiff of liberal sensibility or the "lamestream" media. Conservatism as it interfaces with the public is more an emotional sentiment - contempt and anger for liberals - than it is an articulation of policy preferences. We're to the point that major conservative politicians have to pay homage to right wing media hosts that do things like genuinely advocate that Mexican immigrants be rounded up and made slaves. Take that, elitists!
This is a disaster. These people will win at some point and they are on a self-reinforcing feedback loop into insanity. The best hope is to try and figure out which candidates are only pretending to go along with this and to support them.