Open thread: Bush’s farewell address; Update: Video added

PackerBronco on January 15, 2009 at 10:28 PM

You are correct, a myriad of issues played into Reagan’s victory, but…I’m not sure that he really did a lot to talk about the specific issues of the day, and when he did he was almost always factually wrong (this is when, wierdly, conservatism became linked with being anti-facts/”elitism” and more pro-gut/Cowboyism). It’s not insignificant that Reagan often talked about the importance of “states rights” it’s a rhetoric that was purposeful, as was all his rhetoric. It’s hard to imagine his discussions of “welfare queens” extricated from a backlash of an expansion of New Deal programs to poor folks of color who had been left out by FDR’s expansion of the social safety net.

My point remains though. Conservatism, by definition, is not forward thinking. People voted for Reagan, ultimately, because he hit people’s nostalgia buttons hard. The very notion of a Reagan Democrat is defined by a white, middle class person, in their 30s-50s who saw the 60s and 70s and longed to go back to the “good ol days.” Unless your going to claim that tons of minorities voted for Ronal Reagan, I’d LOVE to see that data. I don’t get why conservatives insist on denying this, it was the key to your electoral success during those periods. The problem though is that now people are “nostalgic” for FDR style statism because 30 years of the alternative didn’t really turn out so great for the country. Notice I said FDR style statism. We’ve had expansions in federal power and the size of the federal government, but the lionshare of that growth has come from the defense sector, more specifically the defense contracting sector. Meanwhile from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush we’ve bit by bit slashed away the F.D.R and Johnsons safety net. People aren’t “nostalgic” for the fifties because it was a “simpler time” they are nostalgic for the fifties because a single income could support a family of 4. It can’t anymore.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM

American liberalism seeks to create a social order of “bien pensants” floating above everyone else while expressing a cost free rhetorical solidarity with the common man.

No, what you’re describing is populism and its something employed by elites on both sides of the aisle. I don’t think I have to tell you about how a man from one of the nation’s most priveliged and prominent families, the son of a frickin President, campaigned as an average joe outdoorsman and won. Nor should I have to tell you about fiscal elites willingness to parrot back “family values” rhetoric to a Christian conservative base even as they made legislative choices that encouraged wage cutting and made it more difficult for “traditional” family structures to continue in this country. Your being 100% intellectually dishonest if you believe what you’ve described is limited to liberals.

The forward looking philosophy of “Conservatism,” more properly understood as “classical liberalism” is more forward looking because it trusts the individual to create his own future rather than serve the designs of an entrenched sclerotic intellectual class that fancies itself the vanguard of human history.

Which would be awesome if any Republican politician or Republican controlled legislative body enacted policies based on these principles…But they don’t and they certainly did not under Reagan, Bush I or II. It’s laughable that people believe that the bailout is the first intrusion of the government into the private sector. We know that a myriad of well connected industries have been awarded subsidies from state and federal governments, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is merely which corporations get those subsidies (and lately those differences have been minor). Are you actually going to say that when Republicans push for an energy bill with oil development subsidies that is the “free market.” Or is it merely a different iteration of your criticism of liberalism. What Republicans do is corporatism, not “conservatism” and Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the replacement of conservative values with corporate bottom lines as the engine behind Republican politics. Now, there may be a host of very good reasons why subsidizing certain industries has been good for America. But that’s not what we’re arguing here.

Perhaps you also feel that Reagan coopted conservatism and unfairly added to it a powerful sense of social nostalgia that belied the forward thinking nature of “classical liberalism.” And if so, I apologize for confusing Reagan with a conservative, but he is applauded as the “true” conservative President and if that’s the case than uncritical nostalgia is a huge part of conservatism and that, by definition is backward looking. Worse, it’s backward looking with rose tinted glasses. Sure life was “simpler” back then, because people of color and women didn’t demand a fair share of the American dream and if they did they were quickly silenced or worse, killed. There was a price to simplicity that Reagan voters knew was impossible, but they still longed for.

This is a serious question. How old are you? You talk about Reagan as though you read it in a textbook written by Paul Krugman or something. I lived through that time, and it was nothing like what you say

It’s actually not a serious question, it’s meant to marginilize my opinions. None of us were around for the Civil War, yet (hopefully) we’re able to educate ourselves on the issues that lead to it correct? But to answer your question, I’m 27 so I was just gestating when this all went down. To flip the script I bit I challenge your ability to objectively talk about the era having lived through out. Hindsight really IS 20/20 and so much of what we remember about our own history (let alone the history of the nation while we were alive) is colored by the present and, more importantly, by our identities. It is kind of in the interest of white folks who were Reagan Democrats to ignore the parts of Reagan’s candidacy that were explicit race baiting because that implicates Reagan fans of that era. I’ll concede that people had a multitude of reasons for supporting Reagan if you conceede that an explicit pro states right, anti civil rigghts progress message was part of Reagan’s candidacy. Deal?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 15, 2009 at 11:59 PM