Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: The Rise of the American Right ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   3 Comments )
Question  
Subject: The Rise of the American Right
Category: Reference, Education and News
Asked by: rubyslippers-ga
List Price: $50.00
Posted: 08 Aug 2004 23:16 PDT
Expires: 07 Sep 2004 23:16 PDT
Question ID: 385301
How do you account for the rise of the American right (alternatively,
"conservatism?"  What did it consist of and what was it's agenda? Did
the emergence of the feminist movement contribute to its advancement
in some fashion?
Answer  
Subject: Re: The Rise of the American Right
Answered By: politicalguru-ga on 09 Aug 2004 04:21 PDT
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
 
Dear Ruby Slippers, 

There is more than one reason for the "rise" of the American Right.
However, I am also not so sure that one could distinctively pinpoint
the processes going through the American society as "rise" of the
Right, especially when referring to Conservatism, which could be seen
as a continuation of an established American tradition, combining
moral, religious and political values into one thematic ideology.

One of the main reasons for the rise of the Conservative Right is as a
counter-reaction to the permissiveness of the counter-culture. The
counter-culture of the 1960s, with the dismissal of "family values",
of traditional religious values and with the widespread distrust in
the government, created - as one could expect, a backlash. Here, the
feminist movement, and especially the radical parts of the feminist
movement, have indeed a central role in the development of the
post-war Conservative camp as a backlash to sexual permissiveness, to
the changing role of women in the family and workplace and to the
general ideas the feminist movement propagated.

However, the roots of the American Conservatism could be traced before
the 1960s, and before the creation of the feminist movement. It could
be traced to pre-war period, and was the subject of much research
since.

In his book, "Triumph of the Right: The Rise of the California
Conservative Movement, 1945-1966 " (ME Sharpe, 1998), Kurt Schuparra
mentions several of the sociological and political theories (mostly
functionalist approaches) which explained the rise of the Right as a
product of alienation, displacement or dissonance:

"In the wake of the anticommunist "witch hunts" by Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the first half of the 1950s, these liberal intellectuals
theorized that McCarthy's supporters suffered from "status anxiety."
This angst particularly afflicted nouveau middle-class Americans, many
of whom were resentful and fearful of government and the Eastern
"establishment" and of the increased emphasis on social levelling in
post-war society. In the early 1960s, sociologist Daniel Bell warned
that this anxiety manifested as pathological political behaviour on
the part of an emergent "radical right," and that that behaviour
ultimately threatened the moderate pluralism and "'fragile consensus'
that underlies the American political system." Culminating with the
Republican nomination for president in 1964, the rise of Senator Barry
Goldwater alarmed numerous liberals and other non-conservatives of the
growing "danger on the right." Goldwater's ascent led the pre-eminent
historian Richard Hofstadter to identify a certain "paranoid style" as
a chief characteristic of the senator's "pseudo-conservative" backers.
Hofstadter claimed that while not clinically paranoid, the exponents
of the paranoid style saw a "'vast' or 'gigantic' conspiracy as the
motive force in history." Goldwater's failed presidential bid could be
written off as an aberration born of the "animosities and passions of
a small minority," but the election of Ronald Reagan as president in
1980 could not. The persistence and successes of the conservative
movement after Goldwater's crushing defeat, and the concomitant
decline of the GOP's liberal wing and liberalism itself, necessitated
paradigms of new explanatory power. Consequently, the status anxiety
thesis and its corollaries have been reformulated or applied more
precisely. Moreover, virtually all the studies of the American Right
undertaken since the mid- 1960s have acknowledged at least some
normative political beliefs and values among staid conservatives.
?(SOURCE: ibid. p. xiii).

In other words, functionalist theorists (although Schuparra does not
call the child by its name at this stage) ignored any moral or
religious sentiments that contributed to this ideological shift, and
rather have looked at it as a "diversion".

"In the late 1950s and early 1960s conservatives were widely dismissed
as "kooks" and "crackpots" with no hope of winning political power. In
1950 the literary critic Lionel Trilling spoke for a generation of
scholars and journalists when he wrote that "in the United States at
this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole
intellectual tradition.... It is the plain fact [that] there are no
conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation" but only
"irritable mental gestures which seem to resemble ideas." The
historian Richard Hofstadter echoed Trilling's assessment, arguing
that the right was not a serious, long-term political movement but
rather a transitory phenomenon led by irrational, paranoid people who
were angry at the changes taking place in America."
(SOURCE: Matthew Dallek, "The Conservative 1960s" - book review,
Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 1995,
<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95dec/conbook/conbook.htm> -
available to subscribers only).

In fact, as Schuparra and others have written (for example, James Aho
in his book on the "Patriotic Movement" and other fringes of the
extreme right), there is a stable ideological component, present since
the early days of the Republic, which carries a Conservative overtone.

Constituency and Ideology
=========================

In her "Turning Right in the Sixties" Mary C. Brennan traces the
change, in the change of the power-base of the Republican Party. From
a party centred on Northern industrialists, it became in the post-war
years a party supported by Southerners, due to its ideas and ideology.

"[I]n the post-war years a growing number of businessmen and political
leaders from the Sunbelt, many of whom had prospered in the post-war
industrial boom, began playing a greater role in national politics.
Stressing individual initiative, free enterprise, and a militant
anti-communism, conservatives formed a variety of single-interest
groups to challenge the ideas and programs of the liberal eastern
establishment.

In the early 1960s conservatives continued to benefit from large-scale
social and demographic changes. In the South the growth of the
civil-rights movement, industrial expansion, and the rise of an urban
middle class revitalized the Republican Party. The policies of the
Kennedy Administration also helped the conservative cause. As
President, Kennedy courted many eastern business leaders, drawing
their support away from liberal Republicans. He also undercut much of
the appeal of moderate Republicans: his position on civil rights, for
example, was virtually indistinguishable from theirs. As conservatives
began to develop positions on key issues which increasingly appealed
to voters, liberal Republicans had trouble distinguishing themselves
from Kennedy-style liberals."

(SOURCE: Dalleck, ibid.). 

The changes in constituency and the strengthening of the conservative
camp were interchangeable:

"AT the beginning of the 1960s conservatives were in a better position
than at any time since the 1930s to challenge moderate Republicans for
control of the party. But large obstacles remained. Not only were
conservatives widely viewed as wild-eyed fanatics but they squabbled
among themselves, had trouble articulating a positive program of
reform, had few grassroots organizations, and lacked the funding to
make the movement a serious political force.

The year 1960, though, brought a turning point for the conservative
movement. That year Barry Goldwater published The Conscience of a
Conservative. Generally dismissed in the national media, the book
stands today as one of the most important political tracts in modern
American history.

As the historian Robert Alan Goldberg demonstrates in Barry Goldwater,
his fine new biography, The Conscience of a Conservative advanced the
conservative cause in several ways. Building on William F. Buckley's
path breaking work at National Review, Goldwater adeptly reconciled
the differences between traditionalists and libertarians. The
expansion of the welfare state, he wrote, was an unfortunate and
dangerous development that undermined individual freedom. Suggesting
that New Deal liberalism marked the first step on the road to
totalitarianism, Goldwater argued that government should be removed
from most areas of American life. Yet he was no strict libertarian.
Appealing to those on the right who longed to recapture lost
certitudes, he argued that the state had a duty to maintain order and
promote virtue. "Politics," Goldwater wrote, is "the art of achieving
the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with
the maintenance of social order."

Goldwater also united disparate conservative factions by focusing
their attention on the dangers of Soviet communism. He wrote,


And still the awful truth remains: We can establish the domestic
conditions for maximizing freedom, along the lines I have indicated,
and yet become slaves. We can do this by losing the Cold War to the
Soviet Union.
Goldwater rejected the containment strategies that had guided U.S.
foreign policy since the late 1940s, and called for an aggressive
strategy of liberation. Conservatives might disagree about the proper
role of government in American life, but surely they could unite to
defeat the "Soviet menace."

Goldwater also dispelled the notion that conservatives were a
privileged elite out to promote its own economic interests.
"Conservatism," he wrote, "is not an economic theory." Rather, it
"puts material things in their proper place" and sees man as "a
spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires."
According to one right-wing magazine, Goldwater gave conservatives
humanitarian reasons for supporting policies usually "associated with
a mere lust for gain."

But perhaps the greatest achievement of Goldwater's book--and the
reason for its startling success with the right--was that it gave
conservatives, for the first time, a blueprint for translating their
ideas into political action. In his introduction Goldwater rejected
the idea that conservatism was "out of date."


The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of
God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the
Conservative political position is based ... are derived from the
nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His
creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped
by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the
problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of
date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments
or Aristotle's Politics are out of date.
Supporting states' rights, lower taxes, voluntary Social Security, and
a strengthened military, Goldwater emphasized the positive in his
philosophy and demonstrated "the practical relevance of Conservative
principles to the needs of the day."

The Conscience of a Conservative altered the American political
landscape, galvanizing the right and turning Goldwater into the most
popular conservative in the country. By 1964, just four years after
its release, the book had gone through more than twenty printings, and
it eventually sold 3.5 million copies. "Was there ever such a
politician as this?" one Republican asked in disbelief. The Conscience
of a Conservative "was our new testament," Pat Buchanan has said. "It
contained the core beliefs of our political faith, it told us why we
had failed, what we must do. We read it, memorized it, quoted it....
For those of us wandering in the arid desert of Eisenhower
Republicanism, it hit like a rifle shot." The book was especially
popular on college campuses. In the early sixties one could find
Goldwater badges and clubs at universities across the country.
Expressing the sense of rebellion that Goldwater's book helped
inspire, one student conservative explained the phenomenon: "You walk
around with your Goldwater button, and you feel that thrill of
treason."

(SOURCE: ibid). 

Consequently, any analysis of the Conservative movement outside the
purview of a social movement with wider implications - demographic,
ideological and with a power base within grassroots activity is doomed
to fail.

"Many observers have cited a white backlash to civil rights. Surely
this played an important role, but conservatism seemed to benefit from
a complex convergence of forces, only some of which had to do with
race. Unprecedented prosperity, for example, gave rise to a new middle
class that was hostile to high taxes and to many of the social
programs they financed. Social unrest--most notably urban riots,
violent crime, and student protests--also pushed many Americans toward
conservative candidates who promised to restore law and order. But
perhaps most important was a growing disillusionment with the federal
government. Vietnam, deteriorating conditions in the cities, and
forced bussing affected the lives of working- and middle-class
Americans in profound and often unsettling ways, and led them to
believe that government no longer served their interests."

(SOURCE: ibid). 


The Feminist Movement and the rise of American Conservatism
===========================================================

As mentioned earlier, the connection between these two events might
not be direct and there might be no direct causal relationships
between the two processes.

However, one cannot avoid several points of interactions between the
two movements:

- First, as mentioned before, if one counts the feminist movement as
part of a larger counter-culture that flourished in the 1960s,
conservatism and especially the call for return to "Family Values" is
certainly a response to feminist ideology. (See, among other sources:
Cathy Young, "The Right and Left of Feminism ", The Women's Freedom
Network Newsletter Winter 1997, Vol. 4, No. 1.
<http://www.womensfreedom.org/artic412.htm>; Petchesky, Rosalind
Pollack. "Antiabortion, Antifeminism, and the Rise of the New Right"
Feminist Studies, Summer, 1981, pp. 206-246.
). 

- However, within the feminist camp, some radical feminists such as
Catherine A. MacKinnon formed coalitions with the Conservative
movements on topics such as censorship of pornographic material.
(SOURCE: Christopher M. Finan, "Catherine A. MacKinnon: The Rise of a
Feminist Censor, 1983-1993",
<http://www.mediacoalition.org/reports/mackinnon.html>).

It should be mentioned, that the feminist movement, much like the
Conservative camp, transformed itself during the years and is
certainly not homogeneous. Some feminists today, in fact, identify
themselves as "Conservative", trying to express issues of concern to
women within the conservative camp (See for example: Manning, God Gave
Us the Right: Conservative Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, and
Orthodox Jewish Women Grapple with Feminism; and "Conservative
Feminism: An Oxymoron?" discussion, 1998, on WMST-L web file Radical
Feminism <http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/fem_con.html>).

An important attack on the Feminist movement by the Conservative women
could be read at "Women Against Feminism" by Rebecca Klutch (1987, in:
Chafe & Sitkoff, A History of Our Time). The fight for the ERA raised
a lot of opposition. As an analysis of Klatch adds:

"Klatch begins her argument by equating feminism and the women's
movement with the social and moral decay caused by the 1960s. The
implication is that feminist, civil rights, student, anti-war, and
other political movements of the 1960s damaged American society. But
how did the women's movement damage America? Klatch charges that
feminism was in fact an ideological attack on the family that has
caused the decline of the family and "family values" in the United
States in the 1970s and 1980s. Along with the other radical changes in
the 1960s, she argues, feminism helped cause the "internal erosion of
the moral bases supporting family life, particularly with the rising
divorce rate and increased number of working mothers."

Klatch, like other religious and political conservatives, argues that
many of the major social problems that faced the United States in the
1970s and 1980s were caused by the women's movement and its moral and
political campaign against the family. Anti-feminists charge that
rising divorce rates, drug-use, the breakdown in families, youth
violence, homosexuality, and growing poverty among women and children
are all caused by feminism and so-called "women's liberation." But how
does this work? Aren't these problems symptoms of larger social and
political crises facing American society? How can feminism possibly be
responsible for all these growing problems?

Klatch argues that in demanding social, economic, and political
equality for women, feminists have undermined women's traditional
roles in American society. Women's traditional roles of wife and
mother, many conservatives believe, is the glue that holds the family
and the larger society together. If women give up these roles and try
to "become like men," Klatch argues, then society and the family will
break down. She writes:

"When individuality and freedom of self extend to women as well as to
men, marriage, the family, and society itself are
threatened....Feminism is a threat, then, because when women pursue
self-interest, not only is the family neglected but also ultimately
women become like men. Hence, "macho feminism" is destructive because
if everyone pursues their own interest, no one is left to look out for
the larger good, that is, to be altruistic, to be the nurturer, the
caretaker, the mother. In short, the underlying fear expressed by this
critique of feminism is the fear of a total masculinization of the
world."

By demanding to have the same rights and freedoms as men, Klatch
argues that feminism is anti-family, selfish, and narcissistic. Her
underlying assumption is that only women can care for, support, and
nurture the family and society. If women give up their roles as wives
and mothers and try to become like men, then the family, marriage, and
society will not work. But what about men? Why can't both men and
women care for, support, and nurture the family and society?

Anti-feminists argue that American society can't afford to grant women
equality with men. Women need to continue to be granted protection and
"special rights" if they are expected to carry out their roles as
wives and mothers. Klatch now reveals the anti-men assumptions held by
the anti-feminist movement:

"The underlying image of men is of creatures with uncontrollable
passions and little sense of commitment or loyalty. Only moral and
legal authority can restrain the savagery of male nature....Thus, when
feminists remove the safety valves that currently exist to protect
women, they leave homemakers particularly vulnerable to men."

Only if men are forced to support and protect their wives and children
will men accept their responsibilities. By threatening the rights of
women to be supported and protected by men, Klatch argues the ERA
threatens to undermine women's traditional roles and undermine the
American family.

But if men are moral monsters, as Klatch argues, then why should women
allow men to dominate their lives and rule the family? Shouldn't women
be trusted with the authority to run the family if men are so morally
irresponsible? Here, the anti-feminists make an amazing move. They
argue that women are, in fact, "the real power behind the throne."
Despite what men think, women only pretend to accept men's authority
and domination; women are really in control. Phyllis Schlafly, the
leader of the "Stop ERA" movement, argues:

"The Positive Woman accepts her responsibility to spin the fabric of
civilization, to mend its tears, and to reinforce its seams....God has
a mission for every Positive Woman. It is up to her to find out what
it is and to meet the challenge."

Thus, the ERA must be defeated because it threatens women's
traditional God-given role of wife and mother. If women don't accept
their traditional roles, Klatch concludes, then the family, marriage,
and society will not work.

Even though the majority of American women and men supported the ERA
and equality for women, there were enough conservative men and women
to defeat the ERA and derail the women's movement. Just as in the
past, Americans were reluctant to give up their traditional belief in
two separate and distinct roles for men and women. Supporters of this
"women's sphere" argued that women must not demand the same rights and
freedoms as men because if they didn't carry out their traditional
roles and responsibilities the American family and society would break
down. Basically, their argument is that the strength of American
society lies in the family, and anything that threatens the family
threatens America.

Faced with the growing power of the Religious Right in the 1980s and
1990s, the women's movement was forced to retreat and protect the
victories they had already won. In fact, some conservatives in the
early 1990s were calling supporters of feminism "feminazis." Women and
feminists have become useful scapegoats for conservatives who want to
blame America's social and economic decline since the 1970s on the
1960s and the women's movement attack on "family values." The
challenge facing women today is how to convince Americans that
granting women political, economic, and social equality with men will
help the family and will help America solve some of the major problems
and crises it faces. Until feminists can do this, many Americans will
continue to believe that America cannot afford to grant women equal
rights. And the contradiction remains: America can grant Blacks,
immigrants, and other minorities? greater rights, but it can't seem to
grant women equal rights. Equal rights for women continue to be more
controversial and politically unacceptable than equal rights for
racial minorities. This is one of the larger contradictions that grew
out of the civil rights and women's movement of the 1960s."

(SOURCE: Chris H. Lewis, "The Women's Movement for Equal Rights"
<http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/feminism.htm>).

I hope this answered your question. Naturally, whole books have been
written about the subject, so there is much more to explore.
Therefore, I hope that the books I've mentioned in my text would help
you investigate further some issues, which you find more interesting.

Please contact me if you need any further clarification on this answer
before you rate it.

Search terms: rise, conservative, right, feminism, feminist
rubyslippers-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars and gave an additional tip of: $5.00
Wonderful!!!

Comments  
Subject: Re: The Rise of the American Right
From: tlspiegel-ga on 09 Aug 2004 00:37 PDT
 
Hi rubyslippers,

Perhaps this article will be of interest to you.

Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism by Michelle Nickerson
http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/nickerson.html


Best regards,
tlspiegel
Subject: Re: The Rise of the American Right
From: rubyslippers-ga on 09 Aug 2004 09:56 PDT
 
Thanks much for this!  It was a very helpful addition! Very cool!
Subject: Re: The Rise of the American Right
From: politicalguru-ga on 09 Aug 2004 12:59 PDT
 
Thank you for the rating and the tip!

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy