Movement Conservatism and Angering Liberals

[_EAllusion]

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.

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

Yep, and I've been saying this for years. Folks like cinepro tend to deny that the radical Right and its media have had any meaningful influence, but good God, is it really just a coincidence that two of the Republican candidates on that stage hosted shows on FOX News (Huckabee and Kasich)? ANd teh rest are regular guests on FOX and talk radio shows?

Like you said, before it was drill baby drill, and today it appears they're competing with one another to see who could be the most anti-immigration. Trump is leading because he can get away with making ridiculously bigoted comments towards Latino immigrants and get people to defend him in the name of "political incorrectness."

[_MeDotOrg]

Good post, food for thought.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

...we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power proper to be lodged in the national government from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, so it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.

Hamilton recognized that the founders could not see the future, and that the government they designed should have the capacity to change.

People see government wrangling with the complex nature of modern society, and they wish to return to the good old days, when government was small.

To listen to the Originalists, this country has been running off the rails since 1789. Less government good, more government bad. Must stop government.

[_ajax18]

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.

Not me. Even just saying, "We're going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it," won Trump an enormous number of votes. Whether he could do it or not, the thought was appealing.

[_EAllusion]

Like you said, before it was drill baby drill, and today it appears they're competing with one another to see who could be the most anti-immigration. Trump is leading because he can get away with making ridiculously bigoted comments towards Latino immigrants and get people to defend him in the name of "political incorrectness."

What this theory says happens is that Trump calls Mexican immigrants mostly rapists and drug-dealers. He speculates that some might be decent people. John Stewart hilariously makes fun of this while his liberal audience hoots and hollers. CNN does a "Is this going too far?" story and then proceeds to actually debate whether Mexican immigrants are a bunch of rapists. A sizeable group of conservatives get wind of this process and are pleased. This improves their opinion of Trump.

Sure, there are Ajax types who are racists who are yearning for the most radically anti-immigrant sentiments they can find. They are ideologically consistent. But this theory says that what's more important for a sizeable chunk of conservatives is that these comments appear to reject what liberals and mainstream sources hold dear. It doesn't strictly matter what it's about. What matters is the in-group/out-group dynamic.

I'm not saying this is the only factor explaining conservative political behavior. I am saying that I'm persuaded that it is a major factor to consider.

[_Quasimodo]

If I understand this correctly, conservatives live in the past and yern for the "good old days" (which were never that good). "Give me that old time religion" seems to be their rallying cry.

I think this will lead will lead to an even greater marginalization of conservitalism in general. Isn't that what conservative means? An aborance of change?

One thing that evolution teaches us is that if you can't adapt, you go extinct.

[_EAllusion]

If I understand this correctly, conservatives live in the past and yern for the "good old days" (which were never that good). "Give me that old time religion" seems to be their rallying cry.

I think this will lead will lead to an even greater marginalization of conservitalism in general. Isn't that what conservative means? An aborance of change?

One thing that evolution teaches us is that if you can't adapt, you go extinct.

Nah. Conservatism in the Burkean sense is based out of a desire to preserve or more slowly change cultural institutions, but that doesn't map perfectly onto the twists and turns of history and what current conservatives think. For example, on the subject of social security, liberals are now traditionalists and conservatives are reformists.

What this is saying is that conservatives, or rather a whole bunch of them, are motivated more by contempt for what they perceive liberals and mainstream thinking to be than they are by political ideology. Think of BCSpace's posts and how calculated they are to offend liberal sensibilities and challenge common wisdom. The theory says that he's a good representative of what movement conservatism is about these days. As Kevin mentions, this sometimes gets described as being "politically incorrect." This is what many conservatives want to be and like in others.

[_huckelberry]

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.

Yep, and I've been saying this for years. Folks like cinepro tend to deny that the radical Right and its media have had any meaningful influence, but good God, is it really just a coincidence that two of the Republican candidates on that stage hosted shows on FOX News (Huckabee and Kasich)? ANd the rest are regular guests on FOX and talk radio shows?

Like you said, before it was drill baby drill, and today it appears they're competing with one another to see who could be the most anti-immigration. Trump is leading because he can get away with making ridiculously bigoted comments towards Latino immigrants and get people to defend him in the name of "political incorrectness."

Fox runs a 24/7 yearlong, every year, Republican campaign so after a while it will have influence. With the increase in time a more orchestrated form of policical propaganda can be produced O'Reilly has been manipulation anger about aliens for years now.

Lo, he has found another illegal alien who committed an atrocious crime somewhere.

[_EAllusion]

Over at Balloon Juice, this idea, if simplified, is referred to as "Cleeks Law." The law states:

Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily.

You see this play out over and over again when Obama adopts a position that huge numbers of conservatives agree with, only to see support for that position to crater after Obama adopts it. It's why hardcore liberal websites joke about encouraging Obama to come out in favor of breathing.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think you are onto something, EA. It would certainly explain this. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ervillains