One thing that makes me hesitate on the left learning from the successful
right strategy and tactics is , as I mentioned, it might not have been
better strategy and tactics, but basically infinitely more money than the
real left that made the right's method work. The left activities from 1964
-74 were significantly non-electoral too, but they didn't have any money.
Also, (this is loosely formulated), I have this idea that from a logical
standpoint, only real leftism, i.e. socialist-communist positions, can
refute the rightwing perspective. Liberalism accepts fundamental bourgeois
ideas on the main questions in dispute. Liberals argue with conservatives
with one arm tied behind their backs, because they agree with conservatives'
premise that capitalism is the best system. So, eventually, U.S.
conservatives won the arguments with liberals at the cite of U.S. public
opinion. Only fully socialist-communist arguments can counter conservative
arguments in a logically satifactory way; and real leftists never really had
the ability to broadcast to the American masses. Reaganite capitalism is
more internally consistent than New Deal capitalism, and therefore,
eventually, Reaganites defeat Rooseveltian arguments in the public mind.
Ultimately, it's not possible to argue congently for the New Deal while
arguing for anti-socialism and anti-communism.
I gotta give an example , I guess. It is not possible to make the strongest
argument for unemployment insurance and welfare without saying that mass
unemployment and poverty are inherent to capitalism as a system , not due to
lazy,immoral individuals. Liberals won't make this strongest argument for
unemployment insurance and welfare. Therefore, eventually, Reaganites can
defeat liberals in the public debates on these issues.
So bluecollar Reaganites in Warren, Michigan are actually being logical when
they accept Reaganite arguments over half-ass Democrat arguments...maybe ?
Also, the state-repressive apparatus was used to destroy the left movement
in '64-'74, but not the right movement. Rightwing radical leaders weren't
assassinated like left radical leaders. Rightwing radical organizations were
not infiltrated and destroyed as leftwing radical orgs were. Detroit had a
local red squad (operated by rightwing radicals in the police department),
but no white squad.
Gee, having said all that, now I'm amazed that the left accomplished as much
as it did in the last 45 years. :>)
CB
Michael Hoover :
-clip-
populist right's origins of
which are in the 'other 60s', so much bigger story than has generally
been recognized or acknowledged)...
^^^^^
CB: The "other 60's": I wonder if that is to suggest that while the left
likes to think of the "60's" as a left upsurge, in hindsight, the right was
building its current successes at the same time, and we should diabuse
ourselves of a sort of romanticizing of the time period. The backlash has
turned out to be bigger than the frontlash ? Of course, the right-center had
all the money,making it easier for them to win.
<<<<<>>>>>
i posted below to pen-l some time ago, have bracketed additional
comments... michael hoover
events between 64 and 68 eroded liberal direction in which country
*may* have been headed, set stage for conservative turn that rightists
were poised to take advantage of and turn into backlash, recall john
mitchell saying in 69/70 that u.s. would go so far to right as to be
unrecognizable...
long untold - and still too little recognized - story of 60s was
right-wing activism of likes of young americans for freedom (yaf) and
others who came out of goldwater candidacy...
[[in contrast to new deal consensus that eisenhower & reps of his ilk
accepted, goldwater platform railed against government intrusion
in economy, on stump goldater consistently called for voluntary system,
right-to-work laws, selling tennessee valley authority, in foreign
policy,
goldwater and rep platform excoriated dems for not sufficiently aiding
those
resisting communism, on social issues gop platform condemned moral
decline, called for constitutional amendment protecting ritual christian
prayer in public schools, on civil rights, goldwater and reps took
strong
stance in favor of states' rights placing it on side of segregationist
status quo, in each issue context reps staked out position in sharp
contrast to dems and 'liberalism'...]]
goldwater's defeat had been convincing enough for moderate reps such as
those in ripon society to argue that problem was not just his candidacy
but cause/ideology itself, rightist control of party meant electoral
defeats...
right-wing was much more activist - don't recall who used phrase
'fanatic volunteers' to describe goldwaterites - in its
pursuit of party control, strategy was to concede short-term electoral
concerns for long-term transformation...goldwater defeat enthused
conservatives who were spirited by fact that his campaign received
contributions from several million people in contrast to previous rep
candidates whose contributions numbered in thousands (list of
contributors in 64 served as prototype for richard viquerie's late 70s
direct-mail politics)...
[[believe strategy of conceding short-term electoral concerns for
long-term transformation key point]]
most important element in immediate post-64 period was goldwater
faction that controlled rep party in south (even though goldwater
himself polled fewer electoral college votes in region than had
eisenhower and nixon), these people laid groundwork for so-called
'southern strategy', an often racist appeal to white southerners opposed
to civil rights and social change...
bigots thought they had found vehicle for their prejudices, young
americans for freedom opposed federal intervention in civil rights on
constitutional grounds ('dual' federalism), potentially volatile mixture
emerged within rep party...
right-wing was also more effective than moderates in defining ideology,
debates among conservatives - between libertarians ('libs') and
traditionalists ('trads') -o notwithstanding, they formed american
conservative union (acu) to develop conservative 'establishment' that
could compete with what they believed was 'liberal' establishment -
model was americans for democratic action (ada)...
most rightists believed that rep party was means to power but
post-goldwater right was neither candidate-dependent nor
candidate-specific (although reagan became darling for many),
as such, they formed numerous groups (many of them simply fronts) and
sought various coalitions, they maintained continuing presence
irrespective of electoral outcomes, they had functioning political
action
organizations not tied to electoral cycles or party hierarchies...
[[another key element - post-goldwater right was neither candidate
dependent nor candidate specific, had functioning political action
orgs not tied to electoral cycles or party hierarchies]]
if events between 64 and 68 eroded 'liberalism', those between 68 and
74 largely sealed deal (and sapped 'new left' of its energies)...nixon's
exit cleared away last hurdle in rep party and viguerie's direct-mail
efforts in response to late 70s i.r.s. decision to strip religious
schools of tax exempt status for racial discrimination was early flexing
of 'populist conservative' muscles...
