Requiem for the Right? Not Just Yet.

In a Newsweek Article entitled, "Requiem for the Right," Sam Tenenhaus, editor of the New York Times Book Review, offers a rather scathing indictment of the political right. Tenenhaus is working on a biography of William F. Buckley and offers this interesting bit of information:

Ronald Reagan liked to remind people (especially the press) he was a lifelong New Dealer who voted four times for Franklin D. Roosevelt. The consensus forged by Buckley in the 1960s gained strength through two decisive acts: first, Buckley denounced right-wing extremists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, and made sure when he did it to secure the support of conservative Republicans like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sen. John Tower. This pulled the movement toward the center. Second: Buckley saw that the civil disturbances of the late 1960s (in particular urban riots and increasingly militant anti-Vietnam protests) posed a challenge to social harmonies preferred by genuine conservatives and genuine liberals alike. When the Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan called on liberals to join with conservatives in upholding "the politics of stability," Buckley replied that he was ready to help. He placed the values of "civil society" (in Burke's term) above those of his own movement or the GOP.

However, given the resurgence that the right wing loonies have shown in recent months, I think it might be a bit premature to make a prediction about the lost fortunes of the Party of "No."

Rick Warren, pastor of a mega church and the man who gave the invocation at President Obama's inauguration, recently said that "...a fundamentalist is someone who has stopped listening." By association, I think that also means that a fundamentalist is someone who has stopped asking questions and getting at the issues. That certainly describes the Party of "No," particularly in the recent health care reform efforts.

With Americans' almost unique penchant for black/white, either/or, yes/no, with me/against me "thinking"--the seeming inability to see any kind of grey or middle ground--we've set the stage for some truly interesting politics in the next few months.

Truly interesting, but truly sad for our democracy.

Comments (1)

Bob Hooper

Will, you are quite correct. If you haven't read "The architect" by Moore and Slater, you might give it a look. The authors credit Karl Rove for building a divide and conquer strategy, using emotional wedge issues and relentless propaganda to divide voters into "for us or against us" camps -- looking for a slim but predictable majority. It's certainly not a new idea ("divide et empera), but it's still effective -- and more so in stressful times when fear and anger are widespread. Many people look for and are satisfied with simplistic but appealing answers to issues. And, ironically, the flood of "stuff"--some objective, much not--available on the internet via websites and e-mail forwards has, in my view, played into that: rather than making an attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff (or worse), many ordinary people just give up and accept the offerings of their favorite echo-chambers.

Posted by Bob Hooper | December 30, 2009 3:47 PM

Posted on December 30, 2009 15:47

Post your own comment

Name:

Email Address:

Remember personal info?

(To create links here or for style, you may wish to use HTML tags in your comments) We want to know what you think. Feel free to share whatever you'd like to:

Menu

Shortcuts

Frequent Contributors