How to use this Page

Many people fear that Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader will throw Labour into a policy war so long drawn out that it will end up in the zombie world of the undead and unelectable (like the Liberal Democrats). Corbyn has already been subjected to unfavourable comparisons with previous Labour leaders but in truth he is incomparable.

The post Keep the bike but look under the helmet: when Orwell met Corbyn on Upper Street appeared first on OUPblog.

In 1970, archconservative journalist John Steinbacher seethed at what he considered the worst casualty of the Sixties, a decade defined by two Democratic presidencies, expanded federal intervention in what felt like every dimension of daily life and defiant young activists sporting shaggy beards and miniskirts rejecting authority of all kinds. Unable to withstand these seismic shifts, he despaired, the American family was in grave peril.

The post The Democratic Party and the (not-so?) new family values appeared first on OUPblog.

As the UK General Election draws near, the economy has again been the over-riding feature of the campaign. Yet the debate itself has been pretty narrow, being principally framed around ‘austerity’ and the reduction of the size of the government’s budget deficit. The major political parties are all committed to eradicating this deficit, with the main question being the time-frame in achieving this goal.

The post Putting industrial policy back on the agenda appeared first on OUPblog.

If you want to win votes and get elected in Britain, at least in general elections, then you had better get a party. The occasional and isolated exceptions only prove the rule. Before the 2010 general election, in the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal, there was speculation that independent candidates might do unusually well, but in the event this did not happen. Elected politicians have a wonderful capacity for persuading themselves that their electoral success is to be explained by their obvious personal qualities, but the evidence is all against them.

The post How to win the 2015 General Election appeared first on OUPblog.

By Simon Usherwood

Tuesday’s Cabinet reshuffle by David Cameron has been trailed for some time now, but until the last moment it was not expected to be of the scale it has assumed. As a result, it sets up the government to present a rather different complexion in the run-up to the general election.

The key factor in the scope of the reshuffle looks to have been William Hague’s decision to step down as Foreign Secretary. For some, this was the result of he’s being broken/bored by the work, but to have seen him last week pushing hard on ending sexual violence in conflict should give the lie to that. The reasons remain rather unclear for now, but the consequence is that the Foreign Office is losing one of its staunchest defenders of recent decades: Philip Hammond might be an operator, but he doesn’t have the same personal attachment to diplomacy that Hague has shown over the past four years.

If Hague walked, then Michael Gove certainly didn’t. His removal from Education to become Chief Whip isn’t a vote of confidence in either the man or his project for school reform: very little is coming through the legislative process in the next nine months that will require much arm-twisting. Cameron’s decision is very odd, given the extent to which he has backed Gove until now, when he could have cut his losses much earlier. Here the judgement might have been that things have moved far enough down the line that they can’t be reversed and that Gove is better moved out now to start building a profile in another area while Nicky Morgan picks up the metaphorical pieces.

Alongside these two big changes, a third individual was also pushed into the limelight: Lord Hill of Oareford. Jonathan Hill’s name is one which has been on the lips of almost no-one until today, when he was nominated as the British member of the European Commission. A Tory party insider, Hill has been Leader of the Lords since last year, providing with the skills of political management and coalition-building that Cameron argues will be essential in Brussels. His nomination also has the propitious consequence that there will be no need for the by-election that use of an MP would have entailed.

Beyond these three big changes, the rest of the reshuffle is mainly one of filling in the gaps created and rewarding allies (see the Institute of Government’s very useful blog for more). Thus several of the 2010 intake get into the Cabinet, such as Liz Truss, Stephen Crabb, and Priti Patel.

But what is the intent behind all of this?

There are two possible readings of this, one more optimistic than the other.

The positive interpretation is that this is part two of Cameron’s strategy, building on the radical phase needed to pull the UK up from the depths of the recession and forming a new team to create a positive shine to that work in anticipation for the general election. This is certainly Cameron’s own spin, trying to create a narrative that the worst is behind us and the strength of the economic recovery means we can afford not to think too hard about the difficulty that has passed.

Part of that strategy is to make a Cabinet that is more resistant to Labour attacks. One of the more-remarked-upon aspects has been the promotion/retention of women, an obvious rejoinder to the recent months of criticism from the Opposition. Likewise, Gove’s removal has at least some aspect of depriving Labour of one of their favourite whipping boys.

However, if we are feeling less generous, then we might look at things rather differently. Hague’s departure might seem less surprising if we consider that he might expect to be out of the Foreign Office next May in any case, on the back of a Tory defeat.

This is really the unspoken sub-text: that we give party loyalists some time in the political sun because it’s unlikely to last very long. Despite the tightening of the opinion polls in recent months (see the excellent Polling Observatory posts), the Conservatives still look like being out of power in May, even as a coalition partner. That puts a big disincentive on laying long-term plans and refocuses attention on making the most of the remainder of this Parliament.

It’s easy to forget in all of this that the Tories are still in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and that whatever electoral nemesis they face next year, that still lies in the future. Hence Cameron still has to temper the desires and pressures of his party to fit the coalition agreement, not least in his allocation of government posts.

All of this has echoes of 1992, when John Major looked set to lose, only to scrap through for another five years. Back then, there was a distinct sense that the foot had come off the gas and that the long period of Tory government was coming to an end. It was to be the questions over the electability of Labour that finally proved more consequential in the vote.

Cameron might not have had the long period in power that Major did, but he does have an Opposition that has struggled to impress. Even with the more fractured arithmetic of a party political system with UKIP, Tory victory is not impossible. That raises the potential danger that Cameron might pull it all off next year and then have to follow through.

If that did happen, then Europe is going to be the big fight, which will take up almost all his energies until 2017. Whether Hammond in the Foreign Commonwealth Office and Hill in Brussels will still look like good choices then remains to be seen.

Simon Usherwood is Senior Lecturer in the School of Politics at the University of Surrey. He tweets from @Usherwood.

The Very Short Introductions (VSI) series combines a small format with authoritative analysis and big ideas for hundreds of topic areas. Written by our expert authors, these books can change the way you think about the things that interest you and are the perfect introduction to subjects you previously knew nothing about. Grow your knowledge with OUPblog and the VSI series every Friday, subscribe to Very Short Introductions articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS, and like Very Short Introductions on Facebook.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS
Subscribe to only politics articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: Prime Minister visits Russia, by Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Flickr). Open Government License v1.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The post Cameron’s reshuffle appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• What has changed in geopolitics?
• Practical wisdom and why we need to value it
• Killing me softly: rethinking lethal injection

 

By Jad Adams

I support democracy. I like to think I do so to the extent of willingness to fight and perhaps die for it. This is not so extravagant a claim, within living memory the men in my family were called upon to do exactly that.

Universal suffrage is consequently my birth-right, but what is it that I am being permitted to do with my vote, when the political parties have so adjusted the system to suit themselves?

In the coming elections for local councils and the European Parliament, two relatively recent changes have stripped away most of the choices voters had and given them to the political parties. The Local Government Act 2000 and the party list system, introduced for European elections in 1999, are both triumphs of management over content. Both shuffled power from an aggregate of the electors to a small number of people running the party machines.

When I first saw local government in action, as a junior reporter on a local paper, I felt admiration for the range of abilities and oratorical skill that leading councillors brought to their posts. They were people who not only worked unpaid, but often made real financial sacrifices in order to work for their locality. When I occasionally attend council meetings today I am struck by the poor quality of the debates, the inability to see the implications of policy beyond party advantage, the lack of intellectual rigour, the sheer irrelevance of most of this political process to the business of local government, which is now carried on by senior officers.

What happened in the interim? The Local Government Act 2000 did away with the old committee system that had run councils since 1835, through more than a century and a half of municipal progress. The government imposed a ‘leader and cabinet’ system. Active local democracy was ‘modernised’ into non-existence; only cabinet members now have any authority and even their role is merely advisory to the leader.

The leader appoints the cabinet; the rest of the councillors are supporters or impotent opponents. There is no political brake on the leader’s authority, but decisions can be criticised in retrospect by a ‘scrutiny committee.’ This is not local democracy but local autocracy.

Is it any wonder that people of quality are reluctant to come forward to be councillors when they have no influence except that can be garnered by toadying to the leader, who might then appoint them to the cabinet and put some money in their pockets? People of quality wanting to act in public affairs realise they could have more influence in pressure groups. Of course, there are still some meritorious councillors, just as under the old system there were some fools. My observation is that the balance has shifted and there are now fewer people of quality prepared to go through the system.

Voters were in fact given something of a choice over the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000: they could choose whether to have the directly elected mayor and cabinet system, or the leader and cabinet system. There was no option of retaining the tried and tested system of committees where every councillor had a voice. So it was a charade of a ballot where only votes in favour were requested and counted. This used to be called ‘guided democracy’ in east European countries.

As with every centralisation, those who already possessed power welcomed the developments of the Act with hands outstretched. It put more money into the system, gave senior officers more power (which, since it had to come from somewhere, meant commensurately less for elected representatives), paid councillors, and gave ever-increasing sums to cabinet members for special responsibilities.

In a few places the gimmick of directly elected leaders (confusingly referred to as mayors) was tried. The public were indifferent everywhere except London where candidates from both major parties have excelled as mayors, but London is more like a city state with a president than a municipal corporation. Elected mayors in four of thirty-two London boroughs have added to the cost of the process but contributed nothing to efficiency. Outside of London there are eleven directly elected mayors, with two other towns having tried but abandoned the system as an expensive flop. This local lack of democracy is one of the ways in which the system has become fragmented, the responsiveness of the elected moving further and further away from those they are supposed to represent and towards their party loyalty.

On a larger scale, there is the other election we face this month, for Members of the European Parliament, which has been entirely taken over by political parties. A system in which electors voted for a local MEP was replaced in 1999 by the European Party Elections Act with a party list system with the additionally unfriendly title of ‘closed list.’ That means voters can vote only for a party, and the first candidates on the list chosen by the party will get in — even if that person is heartily despised by their own supporters, so long as they are favoured by the party bosses.

This is not an arcane argument about supposed representation with no relevance to individuals. I have a property in Greece. I had a problem with the planning authorities there where I felt I was being discriminated against as a non-Greek. Contact my Member of the European Parliament, I thought. So who is that?

I found Greek MEPs with parties like the Popular Orthodox Rally or members of groupings such as the Nordic Green Left Confederation, but no member for the Dodecanese islands. After one and a half days of trying to make contact with people via the Internet, Brussels and party offices, I finally called a London MEP who had a Greek name so I supposed she might know something. She was in fact very helpful, but is this any way to run a representative democracy? I did not vote for this MEP, at best I might have voted for a party list on which she appeared somewhere.

In the UK we now have this party list system; single transferable votes (for directly elected mayors); the mixed member system for the Welsh assembly (don’t ask); regional proportional representation for the Scottish parliament and first past the post for general elections.

I still think I would still fight for democracy, but which democracy is that?

Jad Adams is an independent historian specializing in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He is a Research Fellow at the Institute of English, School of Advanced Study, University of London, and a Fellow of the Institute of Historical Research. His forthcoming book,

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only politics articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: Westminster Bridge, Parliament House. Photo by Jiong Sheng, 25 September 2005. CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The post My democracy, which democracy? appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Ukraine and the fall of the UN system
• Do immigrant immigration researchers know more?
• Prime Minister’s Questions

 

By Mikko Salmela and Christian von Scheve

Nationalist, conservative, and anti-immigration parties as well as political movements have risen or become stronger all over Europe in the aftermath of EU’s financial crisis and its alleged solution, the politics of austerity. This development has been similar in countries like Greece, Portugal, and Spain where radical cuts to public services such as social security and health care have been implemented as a precondition for the bail out loans arranged by the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, and in countries such as Finland, France, and the Netherlands that have contributed to the bailout while struggling with the crisis themselves. Together, the downturn that was initiated by the crisis and its management with austerity politics have created an enormous potential of discontent, despair, and anger among Europeans. These collective emotions have fueled protests against governments held responsible for unpopular decisions.

Protests in Greece after austerity cuts in 2008

However, the financial crisis alone cannot fully explain these developments, since they have also gained momentum in countries like Britain, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden that do not belong to the Eurozone and have not directly participated in the bailout programs. Another unresolved question is why protests channel (once again) through the political right, rather than the left that has benefited from dissatisfaction for the last decades? And how is it that political debate across Europe makes increasing use of stereotypes and populist arguments, fueling nationalist resentments?

A protester with Occupy Wall Street

One way to look at these issues is through the complex affective processes intertwining with personal and collective identities as well as with fundamental social change. A particularly obvious building block consists of fear and insecurity regarding environmental, economic, cultural, or social changes. At the collective level, both are constructed and shaped in discourse with political parties and various interest groups strategically stirring the emotions of millions of citizens. At the individual level, insecurities manifest themselves as fear of not being able to live up to salient social identities and their inherent values, many of which originate from more secure and affluent times, and as shame about this anticipated or actual inability, especially in competitive market societies where responsibility for success and failure is attributed primarily to the individual. Under these conditions, many tend to emotionally distance themselves from the social identities that inflict shame and other negative feelings, instead seeking meaning and self-esteem from those aspects of identity perceived to be stable and immune to transformation, such as nationality, ethnicity, religion, language, and traditional gender roles – many of which are emphasized by populist and nationalist parties.

The urgent need to better understand the various kinds of collective emotions and their psychological and social repercussions is not only evident by looking at the European crisis and the re-emergence of nationalist movements throughout Europe. Across the globe, collective emotions have been at the center of major social movements and political transformations, Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring just being two further vivid examples. Unfortunately, our knowledge of the collective emotional processes underlying these developments is yet sparse. This is in part so because the social and behavioral sciences have only recently begun to systematically address collective emotions in both individual and social terms. The relevance of collective emotions in recent political developments both in Europe and around the globe suggests that it is time to expand the “emotional turn” of sciences to these affective phenomena as well.

Christian von Scheve is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Freie Universität Berlin, where he heads the Research Area Sociology of Emotion at the Institute of Sociology. Mikko Salmela is an Academy Research Fellow at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies and a member of Finnish Center of Excellence in the Philosophy of Social Sciences. Together they are the authors of Collective Emotions published by Oxford University Press.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only psychology articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credits: (1) Protests in Greece after austerity cuts in 2008. Photo by Joanna. CC-BY-2.0 via Wikimedia Commons. (2) A protester with Occupy Wall Street. Photo by David Shankbone. CC-BY-3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

The post Collective emotions and the European crisis appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• A crisis of European democracy?
• Terror
• Something to like about bitcoin

 

By Corey Robin Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, and Dan Savage, the liberal sex columnist, recently had a Bloggingheads conversation about sex, lies, and videotape. It’s a fascinating discussion, mostly because of what it reveals about the conservative mind and its attitude toward sex.

Tweet

By Dan P. McAdams

In the spring of 2003, President George W. Bush launched an American military invasion of Iraq.  From a psychological standpoint, why did he do it? Bush’s momentous decision resulted from a perfect psychological storm, wherein world events came to activate a set of dispositional traits and family goals that had long occupied key positions in Bush’s personality. At the center of the storm was a singularly redemptive story that, around the age of 40, George W. Bush began to construct to make sense of his life.  After years of drinking and waywardness, Bush fashioned a story in his mind about how, though self-discipline and God’s guidance, he had triumphed over chaos, enabling him to recover the freedom, control, and goodness of his youth.  In the days after 9/11, President Bush projected this very same narrative of redemption onto America and the world.  Just as he had, with God’s help, overcome the internal demons that once threatened to destroy his own life, so too would America, God’s chosen nation, overcome the chaos and evil of Saddam and thereby restore freedom and the good life to the Iraqis.  Because the redemptive story had played so well in his own life, the president knew in his heart that the mission would be accomplished and that there ultimately had to be a happy ending.

I have been thinking a lot about George W. Bush’s redemptive story these days as I follow the U. S. midterm elections.  The big political story for the past few months, of course, has been the Republican surge and the rise of the Tea Party.  One of the strategies of embattled Democratic candidates has been to frame the election as a contest between them and Bush.  After all, the Democrats decisively beat the Bush legacy in 2008, and they would love to fight that fight again.  But I wonder if they have picked the right enemy.

Like such Tea Party darlings as Sarah Palin and Rand Paul, George W. Bush was a died-in-the-wool conservative.  Throughout his political career, he pushed for lower taxes, less government regulation, strong defense, and other favorites of the political right.  Like Glenn Beck and many other social conservatives, furthermore, he was emotionally in tune with an evangelical Christian perspective on human life and social relationships.  At a Tea Party rally in Anchorage, Alaska, Mr. Beck recently confessed:  “If it weren’t for my wife and my faith, I don’t know if I would be alive today.”  As governor and president, George W. Bush often expressed the very same sentiment.

But Bush was really different, too.  In tone and sentiment, George W. Bush was less like the angry Republicans who are fighting to take over the House and Senate on November 2 and more like, well, President Obama.  Both Bush and Obama embrace an unabashedly redemptive narrative about life and about America.  Bush’s life story channels the well-known American story of second chances and personal recovery.  Obama tells the quintessentially American tale of upward mobility and liberation, the black boy who grew up to defy all the odds and become president.  In both narratives, the protagonist overcomes early suffering to reach the Promised Land in the end.  Both men project the theme of redemption onto America, though in different ways.  Bush wanted to restore small-town American goodness and spread democracy to the Iraqis.  Obama wants to catalyze human potential and improve Americans’ lives through progressive government.  Both appeal to the discourse of hope.

And what about the Tea Party?  It is difficult to generalize, but most conservative candidates who have won the backing of Tea Party activists in this election season do not seem to be telling a redemptive narrative about American life.  Their political rhetoric instead has a harder edge.  Let’s take the country back from the evil forces who ar

John Welshman is Senior Lecturer in the Department of History at Lancaster University. His book, Churchill’s Children: The Evacuee Experience in Wartime Britain, tells the moving real-life stories of British schoolchildren evacuated out of major cities during the Second World War. In the below post, he gives us a bird’s-eye view from the fringes of the first day of the new UK coalition government while in London for a radio interview. You can read his previous OUPblog posts here.

It’s the morning of Wednesday 12 May, and I’m in London to be interviewed by Laurie Taylor on the Radio 4 programme ‘Thinking Allowed’.  Selina Todd, from Manchester University, has been asked to contribute her assessment of my book, and so will also be on the show.  I know of her work, but haven’t met her previously.  The researchers have assured me that Selina likes the book, but she has a formidable reputation, and I worry what she might say.

I’m not due at Broadcasting House until 4pm, so head for WH Smith, and after a quick glance through Time Out, decide to go to the Henry Moore exhibition at Tate Britain.  The exhibition has been critically received, but Moore’s work is interesting, especially the early wood and stone carvings of the 1920s and 1930s, and the wartime underground shelter drawings.  He made a point of using native materials, such as elm and Hornton stone; elm has a very big and broad grain which makes it suitable for large sculptures.  But the later work is less interesting, reclining forms being repeated endlessly, familiar from every New Town park or university campus.

By 1pm, I have had enough, and walk up Millbank towards the London Eye.  Maybe the media will still be camped outside the Labour Party headquarters?  There is a van with a satellite dish on top, but not a single journalist.  Better luck as I round the corner into Parliament Square.  Simon Hughes is high up on a gantry being interviewed, and next minute Malcolm Rifkind is walking straight towards me.  The mood is infectious; perhaps if I hang around long enough someone will interview me?  But perhaps what I could offer is not quite what they’re looking for.  I double back and spot a large crowd, so large that I can’t see who’s being interviewed.  Soon the reason for the crowd is clear: it’s Ken Clarke.  They seem to have a special aura around them, these people familiar from television.

Further up Whitehall there is a large crowd outside Downing Street, spilling over the pavements on to the road itself – policemen, tourists, protesters, schoolchildren, bystanders.  Most people’s attention is focused on the main gates, which the police open from time to time to let cars through.  But most have no passengers, or the windows are blacked out.  The pedestrian entrance to the left seems more promising, and I am rewarded – a constant stream of politicians, photographers, politicians, advisors.  If you are quick enough, you can spot them as they go in.  BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson arrives, and jokes with a crowd of schoolchildren.  ‘Who am I?’  ‘You’re Nick’.  Then, ‘are you Nick Clegg’?

I spot the MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood, Eric Ollerenshaw – what can he be doing here?  He’s newly elected, so perhaps he’s simply enjoying

Julio Torres, Intern

Red Families v. Blue Families by  Naomi Cahn and June Carbone examines the differences between the value systems of conservative and liberal families.  The book compares, contrasts and connects the differences to explain how these  shape contemporary American culture, economy and  law.

The following excerpt explores how red (conservative) families struggle to successfully impart traditional norms of sexual behavior to a generation that no longer lives in the world of unanimous values of the nineteenth century. Today, conservative teenagers subscribe to the irreconcilable values of purity imparted in the home and the individualistic, liberal way of thinking they find outside. The wide gap between “belief and behavior” stems from the disconnect between competing value systems, a challenge that Sociologist Mark Regnerus words as “serving two masters.” Cahn and Carbone lay out the consequences of this dichotomy in red families.

Moral Backlash

This new middle-class ethic, unlike its nineteenth century counterpart, is a direct affront to those who do not accept its premises. The nineteenth-century emphasis on purity, with its condemnation of those who could not live up to its principles, may have been hypocritical (and often racist), but it reaffirmed consensus-based standards of morality. The new version, in contrast, is disdainful of traditional moral restraints, insistent on the rights of women and same-sex couples, and skeptical of once-venerated institutions such as marriage.

Traditionalists have responded to the changes in family form, the negative consequences for children, and the class-based nature of the transformation with a sense of crisis. If advocates of the new order are right that a promising future is the best contraceptive, this disturbing news for poorer men and women who face less-hopeful prospects.  Moreover, if investment in women opens new opportunities to prosper in a post-industrial world, it does little for the poorly educated men who have less to offer in a society in which the factories that once employed them have moved overseas and the farms of their youth have given way to mechanized agribusiness conglomerates. The advice to defer childbearing until financial independence just does not resonate for those who may never achieve it.

At the same time, the growing gap between the beginning of sexual activity and marriage creates much more dissonance for evangelicals and their parents than it does for those with more tolerant attitudes towards sexuality. In today’s society, Protestant evangelical teens experience the biggest gap between belief and behavior. Both the teens and their parents hold more-conservative sexual attitudes than many others, but evangelically affiliated adolescents, for a variety of reasons that include class differences, lose their virginity at younger ages than the average for many other religious groups, and they are almost likely to do so with someone other than the partner they will mary. Sociologist Mark Regnerus reports:

“[Evangelical adolescents]…are urged to drink deeply from the waters of American individualism and its self-focused pleasure ethic, yet they are asked to value time-honored religious traditions like family and chastity. They attempt to do both (while other religious groups don’t attempt this), and serving two masters is difficult. What results is a unique dialectic of sexual-conservatism-with-sexual –activity; a combination that breeds in

Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-intellectual Presidency, which draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents’ ability to communicate with the public. He also blogs at www.elvinlim.com. In the article below he looks at the Republican Party. See his previous OUPblogs here.

A political movement is not the same as the party that claims to represent it.  And the disconnect between the Republican party and the conservative movement is sharper today than it has ever been since the heyday of the Reagan revolution. Consider the rising star of Glenn Bleck – as if one Rush Limbaugh isn’t enough – and the marginalization of Michael Steele, who wasn’t even invited to speak at last weekend’s march in Washington and who was denied the opportunity to speak at a Chicago Tea party in April. The angry voices in town-halls and the national mall are not evidence that the Republican party has found its voice, but that it hasn’t. When citizens feel that elected officials don’t speak for us, we take up arms ourselves (sometimes, literally).

The Reagan coalition is fraying, because the libertarian faction of the conservative movement has had enough of sitting at the back of the movement’s bus. For too long, they bought Ronald Reagan’s and George Bush’s argument that expensive and deficit-increasing wars are a necessary evil to combat a greater evil, but the bailout of the big banks last Fall was the last straw for them. If Irving Kristol once said that neoconservatives are converted liberals (like Ronald Reagan himself) who had been “mugged by reality,” Tea Partiers are conservatives who have woken up to the fact that neoconseratives are no different from pre-Vietnam-era liberals chasing after utopian
dreams.

The reason why Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the heroes of the movement, and Michael Steele is persona non grata, is because fiscal conservatives no longer trust the Republican party who for too long has placed their agenda on the backburner. This, in turn, has been brought on by the fact that neoconservatives have lost their privileged status within the movement because of the delegitimation of the adventure in Iraq and the onset of the economic recession. While the end of the Cold War vindicated neoconservatism, the events of September 11 gave it a new lease of life. Together, these two contingent facts of history contributed considerably to the longevity of the Reagan revolution, even as the botched and expensive adventure in Iraq put a screeching halt on the neoconservative ascendancy.

Americans today face a crisis in their pocketbooks and not with foreign nations. Tax-and-spend liberals are a worthy enemy, but they are nowhere as scary or as unifying as the “Evil Empire” or the “Axis of Evil.”

This is why Republican public officials are doing a lot of soul searching these days as they try to make sense of the disconnect between their ideology and party that has been brought on by neoconservatism’s decline. The lack of coordination and indeed the widening chasm between the party and the movement can be evidenced in Arlen Specter’s cross-over to the Democratic aisle, Senator George Voinovich’s complaint that his party was being “taken over by Southerners,” and in Olympia Snowe’s and Susan Collins’ overtures to Barack Obama.

Most people will agree that we know exactly what Barack Obama is up to, politically. The right-wing talk-show hosts will be the first to tell us. But we really do not know what the Republican party stands for or who could possibly lead it in 2012. This is because the party has lost its synthesizing logic and lacks a unifying hero. This weekend, a straw poll conducted at the Values Voters Summit put Mike Huckabee on top, with 28 percent of the vote, because the straw pollers are Values Voters, who constitute yet another faction within the conservative movement. But what was more telling is that even though Sarah Palin did not even turn up for the event, she nevertheless garnered the same endorsement as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Mike Pence, at 12% each. This is conservatism in
search of a leader.

Because it is parties that win elections and not movements, Republican members of congress should not be taking any comfort from the passionate protests of the Tea Partiers. Instead, they should be embarrassed about the fact that they have been trying to play catch up with a movement that has lost hope in its elected officials. More importantly, the Republican party must find a new way to unite the neoconservative, libertarian, and traditionalist factions of the movement to have any chance of standing up against a president and party, who in 2010, could well be riding the wave of an economic recovery to electoral success.

Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-intellectual Presidency, which draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents’ ability to communicate with the public. He also blogs at www.elvinlim.com. In the article below he looks at the health-care debate. See his previous OUPblogs here.

As America goes into intensive partisan-battling mode this summer over health-care reform, it may be helpful for President Barack Obama and his advisers to sit back and understand the basis of the rage against their plan. An understanding of the resurrected ghosts of Anti-Federalism in today’s conservative movement may offer him some strategies for bringing the Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats back to the discussion table.

The rage that is out there among conservatives may seem excessive and irrational to liberals, but it is based on an ancient American quarrel. The differences between the “Birthers” and angry town-hallers and Obama precede the Democratic and Republican parties; they precede the Progressive, the Whig, and the Jeffersonian-Republican Party. They were there from the beginning. For the biggest fault-line in American politics was also the first political debate Americans ever had between themselves. It was the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists about the need for a consolidated federal government with expanded responsibilities.

In 1787 and 1788, Anti-Federalists hurled charges of despotism and tyranny against those who proposed the need for a stronger federal government with expanded responsibilities than was envisioned in the Articles of Confederation. Today, the analogous charges against the neo-Federalist Obama are of fascism and socialism. As Federalists reviled the Anti-federalists for their shameless populism, Obama has likened the angry protests staged by his health-care opponents as mob-like thuggery. Conservatives, in turn, have recoiled at liberal condescension; just as Anti-Federalists fulminated against the Federalist aristocracy.

The Anti-Federalists envisioned a small republic because they could not conceive of their representatives - sent far away into a distant capital and surrounded by the temptations of a metropole - would ably be able to represent their communities. The fear of the beltway and of faceless, remorseless bureaucrats directing the lives and livelihood of honest workers and farmers struck fear into the heart of every true republican (lowercase is advised), as it does the modern conservative. Death-panels weren’t the first Anti-Federalist conspiracy theory.

Today’s “birthers” and “enemies list” conspiracy theories are not new stories in themselves other than the fact that they reveal the visceral distrust conservatives have of Barack Obama, just as many Anti-Federalists turned (Jeffersonian) Republicans accused Alexander Hamilton of illicit connections with the mother country, England. Today’s “Tea Parties” are but the modern conservative articulation that they are, like the Anti-Federalists were, the true bearers of the “spirit of ‘76.’”

As Cecilia Kenyon observed decades ago, the Anti-Federalists were “men of little faith.” This characterization is both accurate and one-sided at the same time, so it is no surprise that contemporary Democrats have taken the same line of attack, calling Republicans the “party of ‘No.’” The Anti-Federalists, like today’s conservatives, cannot bring themselves to trust the federal government or Barack Obama. Conservatives are using “scare tactics” because they are scared.

But their fears are not entirely unfounded and certainly not illegitimate, because a measure of distrust of government is the first defense against tyranny and the first implement of liberty. Liberals who have been so quick to trust the federal government should not only have a look at Medicare and Social Security, but acknowledge the mere fact that with one half of the country unconvinced (legitimately or not), the country’s faith in its government has been and will almost always be a house divided. This is a given fact of a federal republic; it is the blessed curse that is America. That is why in all areas in which there is concurrent federal and state responsibility - such as in education and immigration policy - lines of authority and execution are invariably confused and American lags behind almost every other industrialized country. In areas in which federal prerogative is clear and settled - that is to say in areas in which the federal government acts like any other non-federal, centralized government in the world - such as in foreign policy, the president can typically act very quickly (if not too quickly).

The conservative grassroots movement (staged or not) is a real threat to Obama’s health-care plan. But if the movement doth protest too much, it should ironically also be a source of comfort to the president. That there is so much anxiety and push back suggests that conservatives feel genuinely threatened. With Democratic control of all branches of government (and the open possibility of passing the health-care bill via the reconciliation process which will only need a simple majority in the Senate), conservatives believe that the liberals can transform their America into something their parents and grandparents would no longer recognize.

Here then, is the lesson to be learned. If the president wants to get anything done - he must strike at the heart of the problem: it is one of a fundamental, thorough-going(dis)trust. Barack Obama must convince Republican and Blue-Dog dissenters that he is one of them. Bowing before foreign Sultans and mouthing off about racial profiling did not endear him to conservatives, who only want to feel assured that the president is for them, not against them. These are minor gestures, which is why it won’t be tremendously costly for the president to present them as a peace offering. And calling protesters to his health-care plan a “mob” is definitely not a peace offering. It invokes the very perception of condescension the Anti-Federalists felt in 1787, reinforcing the ancient and original “us” versus “them.” To unite the county, he must transcend not only party, but ideology, and history itself. Barack Obama must break the legacy and transcend the language of our 222-year-old, bimodal politics. Quite simply, he must convince conservatives that he too can feel, and talk, and protest, and hurt, and fear, and agitate like a latter-day Anti-Federalist; and he is no less intelligent, no less rational, no less compassionate, no less constructive,  and certainly no less American for trying to do so.

Benjamin L. Carp is Assistant Professor of History at Tufts University.  In his book, Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution, he shows how these various urban meeting places provided the tinder and spark for the American Revolution, focusing on colonial America’s five most populous cities.  Carp has also been paying attention to recent urban protests like the tea parties across America.  Check out his thoughts below and in this Washington Post article.

On April 15, I attended one of the conservative “tea parties” being held across the country to protest government spending (and a variety of other grievances). This particular protest was held along the Broadway side of Manhattan’s City Hall Park. In the eighteenth century, this area was known as “the Commons.” In 1766, New Yorkers erected a Liberty Pole in the Commons to celebrate the repeal of the Stamp Act, which would have taxed a variety of legal forms, newspapers, and other documents in the colonies. Over the next few years, the Liberty Pole became a battleground in the fight between British soldiers and New York City’s civilians. The troops would frequently try to cut down the pole, and New Yorkers fought like devils to keep their symbol standing tall. Indeed, on April 23, 1774, the day after New Yorkers held their own “tea party” and dumped tea from an English ship into the river, they celebrated by raising a flag atop the Liberty Pole.

At the modern tea party I deliberately interviewed a handful of different people who appeared to be thinking about the American Revolution—either because they were waving Christopher Gadsden’s rattlesnake flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”), were wearing tri-corn hats, Revolutionary reenactment dress, or Indian costumes, or because their signs reflected eighteenth-century rhetoric. In thinking about how political mobilization in 2009 echoed political mobilization in the 1760s and 1770s, I came to two additional conclusions.

First, the tea parties, even as they invoked the history of the American Revolution, missed an opportunity to fully engage the history. After all, the protesters were rallying next to City Hall Park, but I’ll bet that few of them knew of “the Commons” as a site of revolutionary protest. This isn’t the protesters’ fault, of course: New York City is one of the worst places to get a sense of the 1770s (compared to say, Charleston or Boston or Philadelphia), because almost all of the structures and landscapes have been destroyed or obscured. But a sense of our past can help guide us to better future. When the opportunity presents itself, Americans should do what they can to evoke the real history of the American Revolution.

Second, it’s true that many (though not all) of the conservative protesters were invoking the “tea party” mostly as empty symbolism and not as an explicit historical parallel. But such unthinking (not to say cheap) symbolism can be potentially dangerous. After all, the actual perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party destroyed over £9000 worth of goods (the equivalent of between $1 and $2 million dollars in today’s money), and this was after weeks of threatening the British tea agents at their homes and places of business. Perhaps we might agree today that the colonists were forced to resort to violence and destruction because they suffered under a “tyrannical” empire that ignored their arguments—but in a representative government, we have other alternatives. Despite the signs calling for “tarring and feathering,” in New York City, the strong police presence probably discouraged any real thoughts of violence. But will those protesters who were calling for “rebellion” be content with civil disobedience in the future?

After all, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a warning to local law enforcement officials about evidence of potential violence associated with a rise in right-wing extremism. Certainly the tea party protests weren’t primarily populated by hate groups or domestic terrorists—but we still might want to be wary of “heritage” groups who take their revolutionary rhetoric too far. There were plenty of angry left-wing groups when the left was out of power, and now there are plenty of angry right-wing groups now that the right finds itself out in the cold. The vast majority of this anger will never be channeled into violence; but when protesters begin using “tea party” talk, we have to hope they’re not taking the analogy to an extreme.

Ronnee Schreiber, author of Righting Feminism: Conservative Women & American Politics, points out in her CNN op-ed, that we should not underestimate Sarah Palin’s appeal to women. In the excerpt below from Schreiber’s book, we learn about one of the most powerful women’s organizations in America, the conservative Concerned Women for America. Schreiber shows us how CWA has the organizing power to rally behind Palin and other politicians.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) was founded in San Diego in 1979 by Beverly LaHaye, a mother of four who used to organize marriage seminars with her husband. Along with its 500,000 members, the organization employs approximately thirty national staff and boasts an $8 million annual budget. It has a diverse funding base…which has been considered a contributing factor to its longevity. Its founding was initially spurred by LaHaye’s desire to oppose the ERA and to contest feminist claims of representing women. Indeed, its strong objection to feminist activism on behalf of women is clearly articulated in the information it sends to its new and potential members: LaHaye watched a television interview with Betty Friedan, founder of the National Organization for Women. Realizing that Betty claimed to speak for the women of America, Mrs. LaHaye was stirred to action. She knew the feminists’ anti-God, anti-family rhetoric did not represent her beliefs, or those of the vast majority of women.

The organization’s launch and subsequent growth coincided with the politicization of the Christian Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At that time, social conservatives were avidly mobilizing to oppose legalized abortion, homosexuality, and communism and to promote school prayer. Leaders like Jerry Falwell ably convinced conservative evangelicals to politicize their religious commitments. As Robert Wuthnow argues, the time was right for such mobilization to occur. In the mid- to late 1970s, criticism of the Vietnam War, legislative responses to Watergate, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on issues like abortion meant that “morality came to be viewed as a public issue rather than in strictly private terms.” The election of an evangelical—Jimmy Carter—to the White House also gave prominence and visibility to those who identified with this religious tradition. Wuthnow argues that, for conservative evangelicals during this time, it felt “sensible” to become politically engaged and to promote their views on morality.

As the symbolic line between morality and politics blurred, conservative evangelicals “were no longer speaking as a sectarian group, but as representative[s] of values that were in the interest of all.” Under the leadership of activists like Richard Viguerie, religious right groups became familiar with, and adept at using, the latest communication, fundraising, and organizing techniques to rally constituents. Direct mail appeals containing “alarmist” messages about the evil effects of legal abortion and homosexuality startled and ultimately activated people. These religiously committed individuals had solid, close-knit social and church-based networks that also enabled effective mobilization, especially when local pastors used the pulpit to give political direction to their members. Constituents were encouraged to boycott media outlets that offended their moral sensibilities, and fundamentalist ministers were recruited into politics by leaders like Ed McAteer.

As we moved into the 1980s, acceptance from public figures like Ronald Reagan also helped to solidify the evangelicals’ base. With a tight and effective infrastructure, large mass mailing databases, and major media outlets like the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), they became a formidable political movement of which CWA was and is a major player. As a religiously based organization that opposes abortion and homosexuality, CWA is a social conservative interest group. Today, CWA has a professionally staffed office in Washington, DC, claims members in all fifty states, and professes to be the largest women’s organization in the United States. Although this book emphasizes how CWA frames its issue debates, the organization employs a host of tactics to effect political change. …

Building on the successful techniques used by Viguerie and others to mobilize conservative evangelicals in the 1970s, CWA continuously adapts new technology to get its message out and to attract new members. It broadcasts audio and visual materials over the Internet, offers podcasts and e-alerts, and frequently updates its polished and professional-looking Web site… Because of CWA’s large membership, its strength lies in part in its grassroots. The ability to communicate with and mobilize these adherents is essential for effective lobbying and public education campaigns. Through e-mail, periodicals like Family Voice, and its online broadcasts and Web site, its national staff work closely with the grassroots members to update them on legislative affairs and educate them to be activists…

…Its national office coordinates volunteers for its Project 535—a group of Washington, DC, area women who meet monthly to canvass lawmakers on issues of concern to the organization (the number 535 refers to the total members of the U.S. Congress). In 2007, for example, women urged legislators to oppose the use of federal funds for stem cell research. Through Project 535, women are trained to lobby, and new members are paired with seasoned activists as they walk the halls of Congress.

In addition to its lobbying and grassroots efforts, CWA houses the Beverly LaHaye Institute (BLI), a think tank devoted to publishing reports and assessing data on topics like abortion and motherhood. Janice Shaw Crouse, a former public relations professional and speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush, heads up the institute. To publicize its views, BLI produces “data digests,” semiannual briefs that evaluate research findings to promote its views. For example, in “Abortion: America’s Staggering Hidden Loss,” Crouse uses figures and charts from the Centers for Disease Control to highlight cases in which abortions are increasing and/or decreasing… In a similar vein, CWA works through its Culture and Family Issues unit to produce papers and reports that warn against homosexuality. Both are public education venues, established to offer alternatives to liberal and feminist think tanks like the prochoice Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). Unlike BLI, however, AGI conducts primary research on its topics of concern.

Another way for interest groups to have an impact is to form political action committees and raise money for those running for elected office. Because of its nonprofit status, CWA itself cannot directly endorse candidates, but under the name of Beverly LaHaye, it established the Concerned Women Political Action Committee (CWPAC) to allow CWA supporters a more direct voice in electoral outcomes. CWPAC distributed $127,000 in 2005 to candidates that support “conservative principles, values and integrity.” It is important to note the central Role that religion plays in this organization; conservative evangelical religious beliefs clearly unite and mobilize many of the organization’s members and leaders. Its stated mission, to “protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens—first through prayer, then education and finally by influencing our society—thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation,” exemplifies its theological convictions…

ShareThis

Today we are proud to bring you E.J. Dionne, Jr. (who just published Souled Out) in conversation with Mickey Edwards(frequent OUPblog contributor and author of Reclaiming Conservatism). This is the third and final part of this series.

E.J. Dionne, Jr. is a syndicated columnist with The Washington Post, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at Georgetown University. He is the author of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right, which was published in January by Princeton University Press.

Mickey Edwards is a former Republican Congressman, founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation, and national chairman of the American Conservative Union. He is the author of Reclaiming Conservatism: How A Great American Political Movement Got Lost- and How It Can Find It Way Back

Email Three

Dear Mickey,

Once again, many thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do think you provide a model for other conservatives to emulate: You take seriously both the need for markets and the need for rules to govern those market; you take seriously social needs as well as individual needs; and you take seriously the fact that markets all by themselves will not always provide the goods we need (for example, health insurance for the elderly and the chronically sick). Your reply suggests that in the next era – whether we call it liberal or not — our country will have a rendezvous with problem solving, not problem avoidance.

Now I don’t want you to shudder and think, “My gosh, the last thing I need is for liberals to accord me that ‘strange new respect’ they always offer apostate conservatives.” So I want to close this exchange by taking your conservatism seriously, which everybody should.

Let me begin with progressive taxation. The case for higher taxes on the wealthy is straightforward: The wealthy have enjoyed the vast majority of the gains in wealth and income over the last seven years – and inequality has been growing for three decades. We have not had this level of inequality since 1929, a rather ominous fact when you think about it.

Permit me to cite some findings from my friends at the Economic Policy Institute. They noted recently that “median family income — income earned by families in the middle of the income distribution, with half of all families poorer and half richer — in the latest recovery has failed to recover the losses of the previous recession. This marks the first time this has happened since World War II in a business cycle lasting anywhere near as long as the most recent cycle.”

Another finding: “While productivity is up nearly 20% since 2000, the real median hourly wage is up 3% overall and 1% for men, with none of this growth occurring over the three-and-a-half years since 2003. At the top of the wage scale — at the 95th percentile — real wages are up 9%.” Finally, this: “After rising quickly in the second half of the 1990s, most workers real wages have been stagnant in the 2000s, especially since 2003. This result holds for a wide variety of wage and compensation measurements, including those that add the value of fringe benefits.”

The Bush Administration’s tax cuts have showered benefits on the wealthiest Americans at the very moment when their share of the economy is already going up. We need to offset inequalities with different tax policies and different social policies (notably universal health care) not just because that is just, but also because rising purchasing power across the economy is an essential component of growth and prosperity. A rising tide that actually does lift all boats tends to lift everybody’s boat faster and higher – including, by the way, the boats of the wealthy.

That’s also why I mention unionization. It’s clear that unions played an essential role in creating a broad middle class in our country by increasing the bargaining power of average workers. Our current low rates of private sector unionization are one reason for rising inequality.

Of course I agree with you that it’s a mistake to hold people harmless for foolish investments. But it’s striking that the Fed bailed our Bear Stearns even as we have done little to help homeowners caught in a mortgage mess that was in part created by deceptive practices on the part of lenders. I do not fault Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke for preventing a market meltdown. He did what was necessary. Still, it’s odd how even bailouts these days are unfair. And it’s also striking how many wealthy friends of the market and supporters of deregulation welcomed big government in this case. I quoted John Kenneth Galbraith on this phenomenon in a recent column. As the economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted of the era leading up to the Depression, “The threat to men of great dignity, privilege and pretense is not from the radicals they revile; it is from accepting their own myth. Exposure to reality remains the nemesis of the great — a little understood thing.”

I still miss Galbraith. But, for that matter, I also miss his friend Bill Buckley. Buckley provided conservatism with inspiration at a moment when liberals were still on the rise. You have taken on an even more difficult task: to inspire conservatives as a moment of decline. I hope you enjoy success – though, honestly, not too much success. There is a good deal of common sense in what you have to say, a lot of practical wisdom, and a refreshing willingness to think outside the narrow range within which Washington-based conservatism is currently trapped. We need more Edmund Burke and Robert Nisbet, and less of an ideology that has all the thoughtfulness of a direct mail piece. Godspeed in your effort to provide us with a considered, practical contemporary conservatism worthy of a great tradition.

Thanks, E.J

Mickey

ShareThis

BROADWAY STAGE HANDS GO ON STRIKE.

Seems that strikes are definitely in the air and the newest group to join is the stagehands union. Terrible timing with the holiday season here.

"After a morning of confusion and anxiety during which members of Local One, the stagehands union, met and the producers waited to see what would happen, the stagehands strike has officially begun. Union members are holding picket signs in front of theaters and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the parent union of Local One, issued a statement confirming the walkout.

The stagehands took their picket signs to the wet sidewalks around 10 a.m. today, after a meeting of Local One, their union, at the Westin New York on West 43rd Street.

The Saturday matinee traffic of tourists and theatergoers was thrown into chaos, with busloads of students sitting unhappily outside of “The Color Purple,” and nervous restaurant workers contemplating a Saturday night with no dinner rush..."


Read the full story and background info. about the strike here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=av0pFpnkOdrA&refer=muse
(Update 3)

www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/theater/10cnd-theater.html?_r=38&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=11947253

Mind you if you're looking for a new contract, this would be the perfect time to negociate one. Still too bad for everyone concerned. Let's hope that it doesn't drag on and that a fair and equitable settlement is reached.