Explaining the Politics of the Right Turn and Reagan ascendancy

Key points

· economic restructuring, restructuring of politics, politics of polarization is the key to understanding right turn, even as some aspects had a populist veneer

· Corporate shift toward new social structure of accumulation (global economy, end of social responsibility to nation state) was essential backdrop (see previous outline)

· Economic restructuring and “right turn” was not the popular mandate we assume: recall reading from Right Turn (from March 26-review) one poll listed: In 1980, only 21% of Americans thought too much was being spent on environmental, health, education, welfare, urban aid programs, 42% thought too little was being spent-- By the time Reagan was elected in 1980, total of 73% of American people thought that the amount spent on these programs was right or too little

· These polls suggest no popular mandate to reduce government oversight of corporations, no endorsement of “free market” over human needs

I. Corporate Influence in both parties had much to do with the success of the Right Turn. .

Right turn began under Carter (Pres, 1977-1980)

· This is how to understand that a Democratic Party administration would have coaxed concessions out of a key constituency, organized labor (recall reading on concessionary bargaining)

· Breakdown of the “New Deal” coalition in the Democratic Party-- had been a coalition party that welcomed business, labor, Northern Blacks, urban voters; (recall my comments on LBJ reveling in the fact that he could meet with corporation heads as well as union leadership)

· Key sectors of Big Business and Wall Street had allied with Democratic Party since the 1930s because of that Party’s commitment to trade expansion, military expansion across the globe had underwritten trade expansion

o As business profits were squeezed in 1970s, seek new playing field, including reducing regulations s and prior deals of corporate elite for self-regulation

o Seek political alliance for new “social structure of accumulation”—ability to make higher profits

· Democrats responded to business demands in a way that ruined their opportunity to build on the new constituencies from the 1960s—women, African-Americans, others who had come into the Party

· Carter: began Presidency trying to make good on “outsider” reputation, popular mandate to reign in Nixon/Ford excesesses--by attempting to forcefully regulate business demands;

Example: Canceled water projects in West that damaged the environment

o angered those beneficiaries of this corporate welfare; Carter backed down, but many Western Democrats pulled out of the Party anyway;

o Carter trying to play the old Democratic game of pleasing all constituencies in the Party, and ended up alienating all

· When US rate of inflation continued to climb above Western Europe, anxiety about the dollar grew, so Carter followed demands of bankers to rein in money supply; Carter sought to reduce budget deficit, cut government hiring, eliminate regulations;

· most important appointee: Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve Board. Volcker, appointed in 1978, Volcker raised interest rates to reign in inflation and trigger a recession, at the behest of banks and Wall Street interests; interest rates were highest ever; as result, economic growth, the linchpin of growth liberalism, ceased and even became negative. Think of it:Carter’s appointee intentionally caused a recession in election year: this speaks to the power of money over Party politics!—the decision was fatal to Carter’s election campaign

Carter, pressured by military/Wall Street sector, increased military spending by 5% and reduced welfare and unemployment programs for the poor by 10%.

· with no economic growth, funding for military had to be taken by cuts in funds for blacks, poor, inner cities; Carter complied

· Carter responds to elite commitment to arms buildup, as means of flexing muscle internationally; some sectors of Wall Street had been hesitant since 1968 about role of global policeman, but by 1979, as “regional policeman” Shah of Iran is driven from Iran(see legacy of Vietnam outline),

· Nixon doctrine and “surrogate cops” instead of US troops were not producing sure results.

· Under Nixon doctrine , US had funded Shah, who ordered $20 billion in arms from US arms manufacturers 1970-1978, and technical assistance for weapons operations (by 1978, 10,000 American personnel were working in Iran on arms-related projects);

· US arms manufacturers/CIA regularly advised Shah on internal surveillance, repression.

· But revolution succeeded nonetheless, liquidating arms manufacturers assets; consequently, many arms manufacturers pressed for “enhanced American capacity for direct intervention abroad.”

· disenchantment with Nixon Doctrine among the elite led to increased pressures for military outlay; in addition, many arms manufacturers, feeling the pinch from competitive sectors (airplane, car, etc) sought increased government funding for military sector of their businesses. ;

· Most important group Committee on the Present Danger—leading buisnessmen and onetime military figures, funded initially by David Packard of Hewlett Packard

-business community teetered between fears of inflationary consequences of arms buildup (government spending) and need to protect global investment environment (to prevent another Iran)

· many business leaders had previously sought to integrate the Soviets into the global econmy or do business with them. But by the late 1970s, defense debate shifted;

· critical to remember that this shift toward military spending had been advocated by business sector before Iran and Afghanistan= little public support evident for increased military spending until after Soviet invasion and loss of Iran;

--But military spending increases in times of no growth (the old strategy of liberalism—growth would bring increased spending on guns and butter; meant that other things would be cut, indeed Carter cut spending…

Nevertheless, though he did their bidding, all but a few investment bankers and handful of multinational business figures abandoned Carter for Reagan after Reagan adopted free trade mantle –critical point of alliance with Reagan—see below

II. GREAT TAX REVOLT OF LATE 1970S

· Background: In response to their business constituency, Democratic administrations in 1960s had cut corporate taxes and increased reliance on regressive (unequal, those with less income pay a higher percentage) social security payroll taxes to finance major social programs

· Between 1960 and 1970 the share of federal revenues provided by corporate income tax dropped from 23.2% to 16.9%, while the share provided by individual incomes and social security taxes increased from 59 to 70%. During 70s, trend continued, so corporate income taxes dropped to 12. 1%

· From 1969-1980, Social security taxes grew a whopping 92% while corporate income tax actually declined by 14%

· So the Democrats had actually increased the tax burden on working people while reducing it on wealthy/corporate and thus created the means for attack from the Republicans/Reagan.

· Inflation pushed people into higher tax brackets, which took a hard toll on those with lower incomes, while tax loopholes for the wealthy increased;

· Tax Revolt –started in California, with passage of Prop 13 –1978; 20 states followed-property tax caps; initially, aimed at equitable distribution of tax burden, but then, as eroding industrial base left the burden on homeowners, and as stagflation took hold this populist solution replaced with calls to reduce state tax burden

· Reagan in 1970s took political mileage from association with this (though he had raised sales and income taxes by more than 50% during 8 years as Governor of California

· Reagan ran against big government and ran on “populist” theme of helping the working class by reducing the tax burden of the “little guy”

· Rebellion against taxes unified many different aspects of the conservative message. Those who opposed taxes for sex education in schools, abortion, united with those who opposed regulation. Republican party could make an anti-government coalition out of it, new unifying themes rather than just backlash against 1960s

· Meanwhile poll after poll confirmed that Americans rejected significant reductions in public services even as they opposed taxes and resented bureaucracy; in addition, poll after poll also suggested that strong majoirites favored increasing taxes for corporations and the rich;

· Key source of impetus toward reducing taxes came from businesses—and they were the most successful, as they sought to bolster profit margins in a more competitive global economy; (see decoupling social responsibility in previous lecture outline-March 26)

III. CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY THROUGH POLARIZATION

· Origins: Recall that Richard Nixon, who took cues from “McCarthy” Cold War red-scare period and racist appeals of George Wallace, used “southern” strategy and polarization to win in 1968: recognized he could win if he emphasized social issues that were polarizing Americans:

· campaigned against anti-war protestors and hippies destroying American culture, abortion, prayer in school, feminism, for “law and order” (meant to appeal to suburban and southern whites who wanted the government to clamp down on black men), and for more defense spending in southern states. Vice President Agnew was point-man for this. In 1972, he charged that if George McGovern was elected, you would have “acid (LSD), amnesty(for draft-evaders), and abortion” and black men would come to the suburbs in a crime wave.

· Campaign successful--for the next generation Republicans and most Democrat Presidential candidates would look to this same strategy—strategy of both Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee (elites of both parties)—was building a “popular” constituency by appealing to southern whites and white suburbanites. Democrats more hampered by this, because of presence of blacks in the Party.

· Polarization builds “populist” theme—suggesting appeal to “silent majority” and those who weren’t defined as “interest groups” (women, Blacks, etc—though corporate interests weren’t discussed)

· Unlike 19^th century populism, elite is defined not as the bankers and wealthy, but as Supreme Court, liberal media, Congress and President who backs up “rights” of minority against the majority.

· This continues through Reagan, famous for the totally false stories of “welfare queens” who owned Cadillacs and who attacked affirmative action

· Social issues, not economic issues used as polarizing tools (no appeals to class consciousness, as had 19^th century populism )

IV. INFLUENCE OF “NEW RIGHT”

· appeals to cultural and social conservatism and new evangelical religious ferment

–see Viguerie, Reagan article as examples.

· Viguerie started in 1974—saw the need to use organization to build a new constituency for the Right in the Republican party—Jerry Fallwell, Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly were important parts of the new group – credited 4 keys to success (see reading)

· 3 main organizing issues to develop new right-wing organizers

1) Anti-elitism (ala George Wallace, south, whites as victims of state control)

2) “Family” values coalition

· antifeminism anti-homosexuality key here (funded Anita Bryant’s campaign to get Miami, Florida to repeal gay-rights ordinance in late 1970s

· drew strength form Christian schools movement and broader Christian right it ==anti-busing campaigns from Boston to California, attempts to get their tax-emempt status revoked drew fire and caused more organization among Christian schools

· This last led to the founding of the Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” in 1979—organization played a key role in Ronald Reagan’s race for presidency

3) ) Rejected thawing of cold war under Nixon, Ford, Kissinger, Carter; distrusted Chinese, opposed negotiation with Soviets; opposed arms control, favored military buildup; rejected giving up Panama Canal, (for Reagan, this a big issue) – this the least of the issues

· Coalition built by appealing to working class people on social issues, and building ideological assault on the idea of government. This campaign enormously successful.

· New Right a major force in U.S.policies 1970s-present

· —credited with influencing elections, passing state abortion restrictions, leading backlash against social welfare spending and affirmative action programs;

· self-described as “Pro-family” movement—emphasizes social traditionalism over economic libertarianism and militant anticommunism, the other definining issues of US conservative ideology—see chapter on Conservatism in Sixties book;

Women a key constituency in New Right—used as “bridge” group

Groups: Concerned Women of America, Schlafly’s Eagle Forum;

most women get involved in new right over abortion, defense of traditional womanhood, but new right organizations have a larger issue agenda than traditional womanhood; garnered women’s activism over these issues as a way to use them as a bridge a broader conservative agenda;

· in these organizations, women are standardbearers of opposition to policies that promote gender equity, a strategy that deflects criticism by pitting women against women, and uses gender as a “socially acceptable proxy for race”;

· ironically, women’s continued marginality in society brought this constituency forward; by attacking feminism as a symbol for all that is wrong with liberalism and by using anti-feminism as a bridge for female mobilization to other right wing issues— here working class women, even as they are the largest group identifying with feminist issues, are used by these organizations for purposes that harm their economic equity issues that poll after poll find them supporting

Example: Eagle Forum and CWA oppose state intervention to achieve equal employment opportunity, discount importance of violence against women as a social problem.

· Schlafly lobbied to defund the Violence against Women act; denounced the resignations of US naval officers in the wake of the infamous Tailhook incident as a “Feminist lynching” made possible by a “bunch of wimps” among the military leadership

· Schlafly argued that the Violence against women agency would give women “free housing while you accuse your husband of spousal ‘rape’ “; argued that female victimization is a myth, while male victims of feminist excesses abound; that feminists are responsible for divorce and are “bitter” women; these organizations argue that they defends traditional homemaker against the gender-role changes advocated by the feminist movement, but their typical policy solutions reflect mainstream conservatism and business elite, including tax reforms to benefit single-earner households and IRAs for nonemployed women; neither EF or CWA argue that employment is root of evil, mainly because so many conservative women work outside the home.

· Rather, it is the erosion of male authority and male absence that is identified as source of social ills, and feminists are responsible for these ills—polarization is the key to success (recall feminism meets terrorism article) ;

· If one looks at Schlafly’s career, feminism replaced Communism as targets of suspicion—like communists, feminists said to arrogantly advocate a social experiment at odds with “human nature”, “biology” and the Bible;

· argue that the sexual revolution turned morality on its head and rejected motherhood; use a divisive rhetoric to demonize the opposition as anti-religious, encourage conspiratorial explanation of political disputes (Rush Limbaugh the master of this actually)

New Right rhetoric transforms almost every social issue into a moral question derived from an errant feminist agenda. –feminism replaced communism as the bogeyman of anti-modernism

Themes:

· Crime could be eradicated with better moral teachings in the home; the solution is a two-parent family and a firm paternal hand.

· Welfare is wrong because it encourages illegitimacy and makes husbands dispensable; it is the “prime example of the Irreligious Left imposting its lack of morals on the rest of society.

· The media, controlled by “moral perverts in Hollywood and Broadway” influenced by feminisms agenda, ”promote carnality among the young” (this is just the reemergence of themes from HUAC in 1950s—same themes expressed there; here feminists have promoted this (contrary to reality-many feminists have opposed pornography, but have different explanation for its proliferation)

· increased importance of issues previously defined as ‘private” such as sexuality and reproduction, which became the cornerstone of the “pro-family” agenda; New Right appealed to these issues to attract a newly mobilized constitutency, especially women, who even on the right appeared as new public actors;

· used feminism as the basis for moral attacks on liberal policies—used strategy of acquiring female recruits for a broader New Right agenda through assaults on feminism; women such as Hillary Clinton and other women appointees serve as a way of ridiculing liberalism generally…. Negative sexual stereotypes encourages right wing paranoia about feminist political conspiracies—continual reference to hidden agendas and secret plans

V. CONSERVATIVE “THINK TANKS” AND FOUNDATIONS MAKE IDEOLOGICAL ASSAULT ON THE IDEA OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY==back what became known as Reaganomics and social polarization

· Corporate and Elite Foundations fund organizations whose primary purpose is to strengthen de-regulation, but also that seek a rejection of sixties “multiculturalism “and target social issues to complete the right’s electoral coalition

· Beginning in mid 1970s, corporate foundations started funding massive amounts of money to change ideology to reign in government regulation and calls for corporate and elite social responsibilty

– William Simon of Olin Foundation (money from chemicals, munitions—part of the military industrial complex) called for “books, books, and more books” to attack liberalism and to argue for deregulation, business tax relief

"Funds generated by business...must rush by the multimillions to the aid of liberty...to funnel desperately needed funds to scholars, social scientists, writers and journalists who understand the relationship between political and economic liberty. [Business must] cease the mindless subsidizing of colleges and universities who departments of economy, government, politics and history are hostile to capitalism." --William E. Simon, Time for Truth (1979)

· shift in media noticeable:

· These foundations funded mostly by corporations and wealthy; funded authors who agreed with their viewpoint; much of the key “intellectual” arguments for the deregulated government come not from academics but from “think tanks” funded by wealthy donors;

· many of the key arguments don’t hold up under rigorous academic scrutiny, but they have “status” from the foundations that house these “scholars”—American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, etc (see recommended article on conservative foundations);

· if you pay attention to media, you will see that these organizations dominate current media (contrary to notion that the media is the bastion of liberalism—another argument funded by these think tanks that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny—see recommended website on the myth of the liberal media)

· key anti-affirmative action arguments, anti-regulation, anti-government tracts are funded and legitimized by this foundation money.

· Arguments are often not based on verifiable evidence, but now permeate media and culture nonetheless

Main arguments, from philosophy to hard sciences, funding for these ideological tenets:

· Need to have lower taxes and less regulation for business, allow “free market” to work.

· Government is the source of all problems. Greed is good for society.

· Government solutions only hurt the people they were intended to benefit, often the poor, or women--and that these will be helped most by unfettered corporate capitalism.

· Use distrust of government to argue for a return to a mythic past

· also use scapegoating of dangerous “Others”--like blacks, welfare recipients, immigrants, feminists .

Example 1:

Jude Wanniski, The Way the World Works—the book that Reagan used to justify his economic policies

· Wanniski had no formal training in economics and no academic credentials, but got $50,000 to write the book from conservative foundation

· made a very simplistic argument on behalf of the now infamous supply side "Laffer Curve," (itself no more than a note written on a napkin) which argued that lowering taxes on the rich would lead to more government revenues

Example 2:

The Bell Curve (1994) by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein (for more on Murray, see recommended article by Eric Alterman)

· Cited research funded by by the Pioneer Fund, whose roots go back to the anti-immigration promotion and Eugenics movement of the 1920s; had ties to Nazis in 1930s; fund grew in 1970s, and money from wealthy industrialists 1971-1992 gave $4.6 million to support work relating work to IQ. Energized by reaction to Brown v. Board of Education decision; Pioneer gave $770,000 to research attempting to prove the correlation between cranial size, penis size and IQ (Black men had larger penises, smaller craniums, smaller IQ than men)

· Other funding for research from the Heritage Foundation, Coors money

· Bell Curve argued that tests “proved” blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. Social problems of minority groups, sucha s poverty, crime and teenage pregnancy, are attributable to low IQ and cannot be remedied by programs such as welfare or affirmative action

· Fueled, with seeming “academic” evidence, the debate to cut affirmative-action plans

· Seemed to give evidence that government was lifting up those who were “undeserving” above those who were “deserving”.

· Merit replaced by liberal “do-gooderism” that harms the poor, as they advance to a position they aren’t qualified for; this ultimately harmed the people the programs were intended to help, as their lack of qualification became evident; in general, society harmed because unqualified people were attending college, law schools, getting jobs, over the more qualified white candidate

· In respect to intelligence, the Murray book argued, you either have it or you don’t

· However, the data was reexamined by many scholars, exposed very quickly as a fraud. Using the same data as Murray, sociologists and others have shown that the Bell Curve didn’t account for differences in educational experiences before the subjects went to college.

o It ignored a simple but crucial factor: how the quality of elementary and secondary school education affects IQ scores.

o During senior years in high school, white tend to outscore blacks by as much as 15 IQ points. But if those same students graduate from college, the IQ scores of blacks increase more than 4x as much as those of their white classmates. Thus, education makes a huge difference, thus implicating the uneven quality of the natioan’s educational system

o These revisionist studies, without huge money to back them, have not gotten the huge funding, so they have yet to enter the public arena as credible arguments. The Bell Curve continues to be cited as though it’s data holds up.

· "My personal inclination is to believe that The Bell Curve is not too far off the mark." remarked George W. Bush in the 2000 election campaign.

Example Three: More recently, the recent thesis about terrorism as the result of the “clash of civilizations” between the western and Muslim world emanated from funding by the Olin Foundation, which is tied to military industry money. (see Alterman article and media transparency site

· My point here is not that these ideas are not worthy of debate. But when funding elevates ideas and places books on best sellers list (often by buying huge numbers of books to give away to politicians, etc) to confirm their “popularity” it isn’t a “free” marketplace of ideas, but rather a loaded dice game.

· Our ideas, thoughts and convictions are influenced by ideological arguments, and if certain ideas are brought to the public arena more easily by money and funding, then it is not a free exchange of ideas anymore, but one in which the wealthy can load the marketplace with ideas favorable to their interests.

VI. SUNBELT CONSERVATISM AND NATIONAL POLITICS OF “ANTI-GOVERNMENT”

“Sunbelt” —stretching from Virginia to Florida, southern California

Term coined for its political meaning by Kevin Philips--Republican Party strategist

predicted it would be the base of conservative majority in the US

grew out of Nixon’s attempt to steal the thunder of George Wallace, appeal to southern white male who felt “disenfranchised” during Civil Rights era; once Democratic, Republican Party triumphed as the Democratic Party sought to redress racial injustice

Betweem 1970-1990, South’s population rose 40%, 2x national rate

· contributed to new political constituency as south’s role in national politics increased with population growth

As businesses shifted from North to south in search of cheap labor and defense dollars, new constituency was born—corporate agribusiness, defense, aerospace, oil, leisure—based in what one analyst has called “a conservative, reactionary, racist cowboy culture”

religious revival of 1970s hosted here;

· some Northern elderly whites—many with union-won pensions from industries that were fleeing unionized North-- fled the increasingly integrated Northern urban areas on retirement, building separate communities; often sought to reduce their tax burden

source of sunbelt strength: military, industry shift, defense spending, retirees, air conditioning;

· low labor costs and low union membership; only 14% of nonagricultural workforce unionized vs. 25% nationwide; by late 1980s, 16% remained;

· southern and western state govts spared no effort to maintain union-free ;

· right to work laws enacted in 1950s; states lured jobs and factories through inducements (free land, factory, tax-free status);

· some Northern elderly whites—many with union-won pensions from industries that were fleeing unionized North!-- fled the increasingly integrated Northern urban areas on retirement, building separate communities;

Key ethos of “politics of the sunbelt” was anti-government sentiments;

ironically, sunbelt was indisputably built on government “handouts” from WWII on (see earlier handout on welfare state)

from military to south’s large-scale agribusiness that had been subsidized by technology given by government; to federal highway, to social security that allowed northern retirees to move south, to arms manufacturing and defense technology spending in south and west, to space program-an outgrowth of defense agenda, was also a bonanza for South; -military bases and training camps in south also brought new young to areas of the south;

Novelist William Faulkner acknowledged this when he said, “our economy is no longer agricultural .. Our economy is the Federal Government”;

· links between Sunbelt politicians and Pentagon brass made the region the richest fortress and armory;

· Southern Democrats had used longevity to chair key committees, and they brought home the pork

· One example South Carolina Congressman L. Mendel Rivers: Chair of House Armed Services Committeee; Poured air force base, naval base, Polaris missile maintenance center, naval shipyard, submarine training station, naval hospital, mine warfare center, Sixth Naval District Headquarters, South out and got defsne contractors like McDonnnell-Douglas, Avco, GE, Lockheed ;

· In Sunbelt, worst excesses of racism had been outlawed, blacks now voting and sending representatives; racial moderation, not demagoguery allows south more leverage; conservative populism of George Wallace, drawing on anti-elitism and anti-government remained a defining characteristic; opposition to government programs perceived as benefiting blacks: welfare, job training, urban renewal—but now this also defined the national mainstream;

· Congressman Newt Gingrich a key example of the power of this constituency: anti-government campaigns, Contract with America (1994), yet Gingrich’s Marietta, Georgia district had the highest per-capita federal government expenditures: when asked if he was willing to give up any of these, he resoundly said no

· New Sunbelt cities defined by defense and military spending were often described as “cities without downtowns”, sprawling cities that would soon define much of the North as well; “Atlanta described as “the apotheosis of suburban malldom” ;

Houston’s real center was a shopping mall; ; symbolized by rise of football (southern game) over baseball (rooted in North’s history)