Let me try to put some of this together in an analysis of who makes up the Republican party, and how they got there. I'd better stick in another general apology: these are the ruminations of a bemused outsider (except for the bits on religion, which I do know something about). Insiders could explain things better, avoid some mistakes, tell what it's really like to be there. On the other hand, insiders can be lousy at analyzing their own group. They want to expatiate on principle instead of admitting the human tensions and frailties which are more relevant and more interesting to outsiders; they can't set aside their assumptions even to explain what they are; what they say about their opponents is vitiated by tedious bias. I mean, just look at this screed on liberalism. So, an outsider's view can be worth looking at. Money First, there was big money, which didn't have to come to the party because it was already there. The Republicans have been the Money Party since the civil war-- and that's no coincidence; after the war they were the Northern Party, the people who won the war, the people who were creating the modern industrial economy. If you look at the rhetoric of the Republicans, you'd think the party is the playground of the fundies and/or libertarians. But the Reps in power don't do what they say they will (thank God). If you look at what they actually do, it's pretty much dictated by what big business thinks will be good for it: free trade, except where foreigners can do things better than us; subsidies for business, reducing taxes on the rich, bailing out failed S&Ls, opposing minor impediments to business like universal health care, unions, and regulation. The rich control this country; the richest 5% of families own 40% of the national wealth. Its only problem, really, is that to win elections you need not only money but masses of warm (or at least registered) bodies. So they need allies. It's not written in stone that those allies must be the religious right. There are Democratic rich people, after all, and if the rich go in for religion they generally prefer something a little more subdued, like Anglicanism or Reform Judaism. The Democrats are pro-business, but their power base includes unions, disenfranchised minorities, and statist academics-- all of whom are going to want to push the government's nose into business. The rich can work with these people if they have to-- e.g. back when the Dems controlled Congress-- but it's no surprise that they find the social conservatives more congenial. Those folks are fervent and numerous, and since their main concerns are social they won't stand in the way of business. The religious right There's the Religious Right, of course. This can be more narrowly divided into fundamentalists, evangelicals, and Catholics, each of which has slightly different understandings of religion and the state. From complacent to outraged Fundies were not always Republicans. For theological reasons they tend to distrust all worldly institutions, and arguably their natural state is to shun politics and keep to their little enclaves, getting right with God and watching the world go to hell. Historically, they've erupted into the political scene several times (last time, they were for William Jennings Bryan in a big way), and they ended up leaving in disgust when things didn't go their way. The father of a friend of mine is typical, I think, of a certain type of old-time fundie. He's socially conservative-- very-- but politically his roots are Chicago Democrat. He's a union man, and distrustful of big business... and the British, for some reason. He's a strong father, in Lakoff's sense, and a Nordic in Lind's. He's always voted more in line with his union principles than his religious views. Fundies have always found something to despise in society; but I think the '60s snapped them out of their complacency. Jazz and cigarettes were bad enough, but for God's sake, these hippies were getting naked, taking drugs, and questioning authority. Riots and bombings, increased crime, and lawsuits against school prayer showed that things were truly spiralling out of control. Feminism seemed like an attack on the way things should be. And above all there was abortion, which was not just perverse but truly evil. How they got into politics Hard as it is to picture now, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who first attracted conservative Christians as a bloc. He was one of them, after all; and his party was the traditional home of social conservatives. But Carter was discredited by Iranians and economic doldrums, and his "malaise" couldn't hold a candle to Ronald Reagan's sunny certainties. How did a divorced second-tier actor who didn't even attend church win the support of legions of Christians? And maintain it, despite twenty years' evidence that Reagan and his successors were paying mainly lip service to their concerns, taking action only on items of concern to libertarians and businessmen? Part of it was Carter's talk of "malaise". Fundies don't want to hear people dissing America; the American Way is as much a part of their theology as the King James Version. Another important factor was abortion, which only the Republicans promised to roll back. There was also disaffection in the air. Economically, there was stagflation and the energy crisis. People were feeling pinched, and bad times make people more conservative. And the sixties were widely perceived to have produced social chaos. And again, liberalism had gone mainstream, and therefore (as with the British Liberals) run out of steam. No one fights hard for mainstream ideas. The people who cared about the Democrats in the '70s were progressives, and they managed to alienate the ethnics and Southerners who had previously been important parts of the coalition; most spectacularly in the unseating of the Daley delegation at the 1972 convention. Their noisy but unsuccesful tenure Back in the '80s, it seemed like the fundies were going to take over everything; and the feeling returned in 1994 when the Repubs took control of Congress. Yet somehow, in six years, they haven't got around to recriminalizing abortion, or legalizing organized school prayer, or subsidizing religious schools, or censoring Hollywood. These would have been huge fights; but parties will fight for what they really believe in. The impeachment and trial of Clinton made things even clearer: though there is a solid core of Clinton-haters in the country, they are simply a minority, no more than 25% of the electorate, and it turns out to be a bad, bad move to let that 25% dictate policy. It's no accident that the top Republican candidates in 2000, Bush and McCain, tried to put across a softer, more widely appealing image. Libertarians Then there's the libertarians. These come in several flavors. You could describe big money as libertarian, since it likes laissez-faire and courts fundies but ignores their demands. But big money is a good deal more pragmatic and socially traditional than hard-core libertarians. Businessmen are not clamoring to repeal the drug laws, privatize the interstates, or allow gays to marry. And frankly, they don't need libertarianism to prosper. The system already works for them. Billionaires don't need extra stroking. When you have power, that's satisfying in itself; if anything, you think about endowing a charity. As well, people with real power are not likely to have an adversarial relationship with government. Cabinet officers, after all, return their phone calls, and Congressmen listen closely when they speak. Why fix what isn't broken? A more typical libertarian, I suspect, is one of my recent correspondents, who earnestly explained that prosperity was not based on "brute labor", but on "clever thinking". That's pure Randism; but the guy makes $14,000 a year. What's the story here? Randism seems to be built for billionaires. It's a transparent reponse to socialism: When people are calling for your blood as exploiters, it's mighty comforting to be told that your place at the top of the heap is heroic and even moral. I suspect Randian rhetoric appeals most to folks like my $14K/year correspondent-- basically, smart whites who have a grudge against the system. They're not doing as well as they'd like, but they're not in enough difficulty that liberals pay them any heed. Rand crystalizes for them their suspicion of socialism and the welfare state, and assures them that their ambition and hard work are the marks of future Nietzschean overlords. There's also a particular pleasure in being contrarian, in not merely opposing but scornfully rejecting the liberal idea that one should resist misery and injustice. It's a miserable and unjust world, baby! We are winners, and damn the losers! Only they're not exactly winning yet. Something must be holding them back. Ah, the government! I can't take Rand seriously, because I've worked for some of those "clever thinkers", and they were no Randian heroes. The founder of the first firm I worked for, for instance. I salute the clever idea that started the company. Problem was, he never had any more. He went off on one failed scheme after another, while brute labor such as myself kept the company making money to pay for his play. Eventually he was kicked out, and the money brought in another clever thinker, who proceeded, over five years, to halve the size of the company and leave the stock worthless in a booming economy. Libertarians, like French intellectuals, are also too fond of argumentation so abstract that it has no particular relationship to reality. They like to justify property, for instance, as compact between some undefined primitives at some epoch when it was clear that fencing off land couldn't harm anyone else. This is dubious enough at the theoretical level-- even if it didn't harm the non-owners in 4500 BC, who says it doesn't today?-- but it's criminally absurd as history. Just as a starter, after all, virtually every piece of property in the United States was ultimately stolen from the Indians, who've suffered greatly for it (those who survived the massacres and the relocations and the diseases). Anyone who owns some of that property-- such as myself-- has to come up with some specious bit of special pleading in order to live with themselves; but let's not insult our own intelligence by pretending that the process was completely moral. Illiberals A difficult category is people who just don't like liberalism. These are the people who (say) send me e-mail contesting my editorials. I've never seen a good analysis that explains these people. They're generally not fundamentalists, or businessmen, or Southerners, or even (say) white ethnics competing with blacks for jobs. They may be libertarians, but not extremely so-- they generally don't vote Libertarian, and don't seem to advocate simply tossing out the government. I'm not sure if they buy into Lakoff's "strict father" metaphor, though it's likely that they don't accept the opposing "nurturing parent" metaphor. They're not generally rich; some of the most fervent consies I know make substantially less than the median salary. Some elements of a tentative explanation: The Democratic Party is still run by moderate liberals; but the more radical wing is louder and gets more press-- especially in the rightist media. And the progressives' agenda (gay rights, suspicion of big business, affirmative action, PETA-style environmentalism, multi-culturalism, lower defense spending) and their anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian rhetoric works like sodium on water for some people. They are unable to dismiss it as a fringe phenomenon; they find it outrageous and frightening, and it taints the whole Democratic Party for them.

by moderate liberals; but the more is louder and gets more press-- especially in the rightist media. And the progressives' agenda (gay rights, suspicion of big business, affirmative action, PETA-style environmentalism, multi-culturalism, lower defense spending) and their anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian rhetoric works like sodium on water for some people. They are unable to dismiss it as a fringe phenomenon; they find it outrageous and frightening, and it taints the whole Democratic Party for them. Many people's views are formed in college , and progressives and radicals are not only more prominent there, but are in positions of authority. This may be the first exposure many young suburbanites have to progressive ideas, and they become allergic to it. They fail to realize, however, that academia is a small, strange subculture, and that progressives' presence there is an anomaly.

, and progressives and radicals are not only more prominent there, but are in positions of authority. This may be the first exposure many young suburbanites have to progressive ideas, and they become allergic to it. They fail to realize, however, that academia is a small, strange subculture, and that progressives' presence there is an anomaly. The country is too rich for progressive causes to be understood, much less championed. When prosperity moved people into the middle class, they took up middle class politics-- liberalism. A substantial number of people, however, have moved into the upper class, and they've adopted upper-class politics-- conservativism.

for progressive causes to be understood, much less championed. When prosperity moved people into the middle class, they took up middle class politics-- liberalism. A substantial number of people, however, have moved into the upper class, and they've adopted upper-class politics-- conservativism. As a corollary of the last two points: the people we're talking about just don't know anything about what it's like to live in the ghetto, or to be gay-bashed, or to have no health insurance. They judge liberal sentiments based on their own experience, and of course condemn them... hey, I don't need state assistance, why should Joe Black in downtown Detroit? And, frankly, these folks are not very good at empathy. Lakoff comes closest to an explanation for this-- empathy is a central part of the "nurturing parent" model; it has a place in the "strict father" model, but subjugated to such virtues as self-reliance and order.

about what it's like to live in the ghetto, or to be gay-bashed, or to have no health insurance. They judge liberal sentiments based on their own experience, and of course condemn them... hey, don't need state assistance, why should Joe Black in downtown Detroit? And, frankly, these folks are not very good at empathy. Lakoff comes closest to an explanation for this-- empathy is a central part of the "nurturing parent" model; it has a place in the "strict father" model, but subjugated to such virtues as self-reliance and order. I wonder if Frank Sullivan's theories about firstborns and laterborns fits in here. Firstborns tend to be more conservative; they easily adopt adult values and feel comfortable in the world as it is. Laterborns are more rebellious (they have to be to get any attention; they can never outcompete the older brother in maturity). I suspect that firstborns are going to feel ill at ease with liberalism. Several reasons arise out of liberalism's long tenure: the Democrats ran Congress for nearly forty years, and liberals-- counting Nixon and Ford as social centrists-- controlled the Adminstration for half a century. Liberalism has succeeded too well , in that it's no longer perceived as fighting for things that most people need or want. Social security, unemployment insurance, the FDIC, the FDA, a fair amount of freedom for minorities and women-- these were popular battles, because they benefitted the middle class which still makes up the majority of Americans. The progressive agenda is now perceived as fighting for minorities only. And a political movement cannot survive based solely on empathy.

, in that it's no longer perceived as fighting for things that most people need or want. Social security, unemployment insurance, the FDIC, the FDA, a fair amount of freedom for minorities and women-- these were popular battles, because they benefitted the middle class which still makes up the majority of Americans. The progressive agenda is now perceived as fighting for minorities only. And a political movement cannot survive based solely on empathy. Decades-long tenure is bad in itself. It's not good for a political party to hold power for a long time; it becomes complacent, stops examining its methods, and even dips into corruption.

is bad in itself. It's not good for a political party to hold power for a long time; it becomes complacent, stops examining its methods, and even dips into corruption. It also stops explaining itself with any eloquence or passion. Many noisy consies, such as Salon 's David Horowitz, were once liberals; their descriptions of what liberalism is are usually unrecognizable, and their reasons for leaving it are adolescent. (E.g. one recent apostate decided that conservativism was more 'sensible'; his example was that the homeless weren't disadvantaged people, but street lunatics. So, it was just 'sensible' to keep blacks from voting or holding good jobs? And the 'sensible' way to treat lunatics is to keep them as filthy, drunken vagrants?) Similarly, many people abandon the Christianity of their childhood without ever achieving an adult understanding of their religion. They think they've left the religion for rational reasons, when all they've defeated is the Sunday-school simplification of it.

with any eloquence or passion. Many noisy consies, such as 's David Horowitz, were once liberals; their descriptions of what liberalism is are usually unrecognizable, and their reasons for leaving it are adolescent. (E.g. one recent apostate decided that conservativism was more 'sensible'; his example was that the homeless weren't disadvantaged people, but street lunatics. So, it was just 'sensible' to keep blacks from voting or holding good jobs? And the 'sensible' way to treat lunatics is to keep them as filthy, drunken vagrants?) Finally, there's post hoc propter hoc. Long-term liberal rule gets blamed for everything that went wrong in the world during its tenure, from hippie excesses to the drug epidemic to rising crime to communism. Hierarchs Another (overlapping) category is hierarchs-- people who believe that some people are superior to others. Of course, this describes everyone, in some fashion. But liberalism as a whole denies many traditional claims of superiority, such as those based on religion, race, gender, orientation, and culture, and promotes equality of all persons (at least) under the law. Many people, to put it mildly, feel out of sympathy with this view. This particularly hits certain groups: Christianity thinks hierarchically: there is a scale of value from brute matter, to living things, to humans, to angels, to God; and Christians traditionally and unapologetically made sharp divisions of value within the 'human' category, too.

The military depends on hierarchy-- it can hardly do its job if obedience to superiors hasn't become second nature.

And the successful in life-- or those who identify with them-- find hierarchy congenial. It's human nature to assume that you are and should be on top because you're a superior being. The hierarch in extreme form is of course the bigot. Liberals should not think that every conservative is an unreconstructed redneck who viscerally hates blacks, gays, Jews, and immigrants. But they're out there, and there's enough of them for their vote to matter. They put Republican leaders into an uncomfortable bind. If they pander to the bigots, they'll be severely criticized, and may even lose the respect of moderate members of their party. But if they attack them, it's bye-bye to their votes. Not surprisingly, the usual solution is weasel-speak and code words. Democrats have the opposite problem. There are anti-white bigots, of course, but also various radicals and progressives whose agenda is completely impossible in today's political climate. Bill Clinton has an amazing ability to walk this tightrope. In 1992 he gained moderate cred by attacking Sister Souljah; and he's pursued a largely center-right program. Yet he projects compassion and listening ability, especially in person, to the extent that Toni Morrison called him "our first Black president". (Gore, who doesn't share this ability, has decided to simply fight Bush for the center, a tactic which leaves his left wing dangerously weak.) A genteel subcategory of hierarchs is the antidemocrat-- generally a cultivated man of leisure, who does not scruple to disparage the "mass-man" and lament that he can vote. Wills's book provides a brief tour, highlighting Thoreau, H.L. Mencken, and Albert Jay Nock, an early inspiration for William F. Buckley (and thus an influence on American conservativism). It's hard not to smile at the educated misanthrope, so toad-fatuous in his own self-congratulation, so gleefully vicious toward his fellow humans. One smiles less at (say) Nock's expressions of sympathy for the Final Solution ("Thinking over Hitler's antisemitism, one is forced to admit... that the Nazis could not have carried their program through... without clearing the Jews out of Germany."), or at Mencken's insistance that "the Negro, no matter how much he is educated, must remain, as a race, in a condition of subservience [to] the stronger and more intelligent white man". What keeps these people from real evil is not much more than fastidiousness: they don't like to dirty themselves with mere politics. Nonetheless, they're some of the few people we've met in our survey who can mount a substantial and consistent, if unattractive, case against liberalism. The usual consie has to argue against liberal solutions on liberal grounds: e.g. affirmative action is bad because it doesn't treat all races equally; gays are really demanding "special rights". The antidemocrat can argue more directly: he doesn't believe in equality.