Quantcast
Connect with us

Today’s conservatives are terrified of ‘socialism’ — but it wasn’t always that way

Published

on

This may seem hard to believe today, but there were once such things as “enlightened conservatives,” to borrow a term used by the Yale scholar Immanuel Wallerstein. From Otto von Bismarck to Dwight Eisenhower, these enlightened conservatives were more pragmatic than dogmatic, and more reformist than reactionary. Concerned primarily with maintaining social order and preserving the status quo, they were open to social reform for the simple reason that they saw it as a way of preventing radical movements from gaining traction.

In some ways, the modern welfare state was as much a product of this enlightened conservatism as it was a product of socialist movements and working class struggle (even though it was the latter that prompted conservatives and liberals to introduce reforms in the first place). Bismarck, the chancellor of Germany from 1871 to 1890, created the first modern welfare state — which included old-age insurance, later serving as a model for social security — for the purpose of de-radicalizing the proletariat and undermining the radical socialist movements that were growing in Germany at the time.

More than a half-century later in America, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower defended the reformist policies introduced under Franklin D. Roosevelt two decades earlier, remarking that it would be political suicide for any party to attempt to abolish social security or eliminate labor laws and unemployment insurance. Only a splinter group of “Texas oil millionaires” and right-wing politicians and businessmen believed it was possible to dismantle the welfare state, and, in Eisenhower’s estimation, they were “negligible” and “stupid.”

Enlightened conservatives like Bismarck and Eisenhower understood that reformism was more conservative than radical, and the global threat of communism was a daily reminder of this reality. Without the social democratic reforms that reduced class antagonisms and limited the excesses of capitalism, the poor and working-class masses would be far more susceptible to radicalization — and thus the status quo would be far more at risk.

Toward the end of the 20th century — especially with the fall of communism — “enlightened conservatives” became a negligible splinter group within the GOP, and right-wing politicians quickly took control of the party — unsurprisingly, with the help of oil billionaires (no longer just millionaires) from states like Texas and Kansas. By the time the new century came around it was no longer political suicide to go after labor laws or entitlements, and there was even bipartisan support for policies that Eisenhower would have thought impossible (e.g. ,welfare reform, financial deregulation, social security privatization). With the threat of communism gone, free market fundamentalists worked to liberate the global market and dismantle the welfare state, while left-wing movements grew precipitously weaker. As labor unions declined, billionaire activists pushed their own reactionary agenda.

ADVERTISEMENT

More than a half-century later in America, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower defended the reformist policies introduced under Franklin D. Roosevelt two decades earlier, remarking that it would be political suicide for any party to attempt to abolish social security or eliminate labor laws and unemployment insurance. Only a splinter group of “Texas oil millionaires” and right-wing politicians and businessmen believed it was possible to dismantle the welfare state, and, in Eisenhower’s estimation, they were “negligible” and “stupid.”

Enlightened conservatives like Bismarck and Eisenhower understood that reformism was more conservative than radical, and the global threat of communism was a daily reminder of this reality. Without the social democratic reforms that reduced class antagonisms and limited the excesses of capitalism, the poor and working-class masses would be far more susceptible to radicalization — and thus the status quo would be far more at risk.

Toward the end of the 20th century — especially with the fall of communism — “enlightened conservatives” became a negligible splinter group within the GOP, and right-wing politicians quickly took control of the party — unsurprisingly, with the help of oil billionaires (no longer just millionaires) from states like Texas and Kansas. By the time the new century came around it was no longer political suicide to go after labor laws or entitlements, and there was even bipartisan support for policies that Eisenhower would have thought impossible (e.g. ,welfare reform, financial deregulation, social security privatization). With the threat of communism gone, free market fundamentalists worked to liberate the global market and dismantle the welfare state, while left-wing movements grew precipitously weaker. As labor unions declined, billionaire activists pushed their own reactionary agenda.

ADVERTISEMENT

More than a half-century later in America, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower defended the reformist policies introduced under Franklin D. Roosevelt two decades earlier, remarking that it would be political suicide for any party to attempt to abolish social security or eliminate labor laws and unemployment insurance. Only a splinter group of “Texas oil millionaires” and right-wing politicians and businessmen believed it was possible to dismantle the welfare state, and, in Eisenhower’s estimation, they were “negligible” and “stupid.”

Another conservative named Virginia Kruta wrote for the Daily Caller about her experience at an Ocasio-Cortez rally in mid-July, and though her piece reads like a parody it is very serious indeed. Kruta saw something that she describes as “truly terrifying” at the rally; namely, “how easy it would be, as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education,” and how easy it would be, “as someone who has struggled to make ends meet, to accept the idea that a ‘living wage’ was a human right.” Truly frightening stuff!

Kruta later went on “Fox & Friends” to describe the harrowing experience. “If you’re not really paying attention to how they’re going to pay for it, or the rest of that, it’s easy to fall into that trap,” remarked the conservative writer, who felt “uncomfortable” at the rally because everyone seemed so angry (she has presumably never been to a Trump or Tea Party rally).

ADVERTISEMENT

A moderate or enlightened conservative of the past would have found this kind of disconnect remarkable, not unlike a certain French queen telling starving peasants to “eat cake.” Modern conservatives like McCain and Kruta like to think of themselves as the only adults in the room, and ask questions like “How are you going to pay for it?”, as if they’re coming from a pragmatic perspective rather than an ideological one. At the same time, these conservatives see nothing wrong with the fact that their party just handed a massive tax break to the rich that will cost more than $2 trillion, or that President Trump and the GOP-controlled congress recently added more than $80 billion to the bloated defense budget (that single annual increase is far more than Russia’s entire defense budget, to provide some context).

Enlightened conservatives were no radicals, but they recognized that discontent breeds radicalism, which led them to cautiously embrace reforms that would limit popular discontent. Today, many conservatives are shocked at the resurgence of left-wing politics, even though the “democratic socialist” candidates who have emerged from this revival are more reformist than revolutionary (at this point, at least). Enlightened conservatives wouldn’t have been surprised. If anything, they would have been surprised that it took this long for socialists to re-emerge in this age of skyrocketing inequality and corporate power. It is doubtful whether the socialist comeback will remind today’s rigidly dogmatic conservatives of what their predecessors once knew, but if history is any guide, the more reform is resisted from above, the more one can expect radicalism to take hold below.

 


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

The real problem wasn’t the racism — it was the Trump taking ‘the Lord’s name in vain’ twice: supporter

Published

on

President Donald Trump was widely condemned after supporters at a campaign rally in West Virginia turned his racist "go back" message into a "Send Her Back" chant against one of a woman of color in Congress.

One Trump supporter in West Virginia also criticized the speech, but not for the racist targeting of Rep. Ilhan Omar.

State Senator Paul Hardesty, a Democrat, wrote to the White House to complain about Trump's use of the word "goddamn."

The letter was republished by the Montgomery-Herald.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Tongue-tied GOP strategist crashes and burns on-air while trying to deny Trump’s racism

Published

on

Republican strategist Amy Tarkanian crashed and burned on CNN on Saturday while attempting to deny President Donald Trump's racism.

"I do not believe that the president’s tweets were racist. I do believe they were not well thought out. He needs that extra, 'Are you sure?' button on Twitter," Tarkanian argued.

"I'm a black man, I'm a Republican and a black man," the Rev. Joe Watkins interjected. "My mother's an immigrant, I would be angry if someone said that to my mother."

"Oh, it’s very offensive. But he did not say, because you are this color, go back to where you came from," Tarkanian argued. "I’m not supporting that tweet. Was it racist? No. Was it stupid? Yes."

Continue Reading
 

CNN

Trump supporter blames Democrats for being targeted by the president: ‘Why is that racist?’

Published

on

CNN interviewed a supporter of President Donald Trump in Eau Claire, Wisconsin who refused to acknowledge the racism in the president's "Go Back" attacks on four women of color in Congress.

The network interviewed Kerri Krumenauer of Wiersgalla Plumbing & Heating Company about Trump's attacks.

"How is it racist?" she asked.

"If you don't like this country, get out," she demanded. "Leave!"

She then showed how misinformed she was about the incident.

"He didn't use any names -- they stood up," she falsely claimed. In fact, Trump did use names and the targets did not stand up as they were not at his North Carolina campaign rally.

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Join Me. Try Raw Story Investigates for $1. Invest in Journalism. Escape Ads.
close-image