Rude Awakening
The Aggressive Wing of the Conservative Party
By the late twentieth century, traditional Republicans had leaders who agreed with some lasting changes and opposed others. Their primary focus was articulated through defined goals such as limited government, international engagement supported by strong military preparedness, and fiscal responsibility.
Americans were about to receive a rude awakening.
When running for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush famously described Reaganomics as “voodoo economics.” By the time he became Reagan’s successor in 1988, he had found it necessary to adapt Reagan’s economic philosophy to accommodate the increasingly aggressive conservative movement that was well on its way to defining the Republican Party, including the religious coalition that supported Reagan.
Like most other “traditional Republicans,” Bush appears to have assumed that these new political players could be handled. Instead, during the 1988 Republican National Convention and presidential campaign, Bush and other traditional Republicans came to realize their dependence on these new party members for electoral success. The first President Bush would become the last Republican president directly connected to the earlier era in which he had come of age, a wayward son of the party’s old Northeastern aristocratic wing.
After Bush lost in 1992, the far more aggressive wing of the conservative movement gained control of the party just two years later. It began viewing itself as a movement rather than a conventional political party, with goals that were more radical and long-term in scope. In fact, several of its leaders openly stated the movement’s ultimate goal: to defeat the Democratic Party decisively enough to bury it and establish conservatism, as they understood it, without meaningful competition. Once and for all, a one-party system.
Led by figures such as Newt Gingrich, Ed Rollins, and Roger Ailes, this more ideological, aggressive, and confrontational wing of the conservative movement began playing political hardball. For their goal of absolute dominance, they were geared for the long haul and inherently more patient, focusing not only on national offices but also on gaining influence in local government and the judiciary. The movement was especially intent on placing amenable judges on state supreme courts as well as the United States Supreme Court. Its leaders recognized that the path to uncontested political dominance required establishing a deeper, broader, and more durable foundation upon which to build an ideology with lasting power.
A broadly shared commitment to a radical brand of economic neoliberalism was at the heart of their strategy, accompanied by a more understated prejudice against people of color and resistance to diversity. While these more radical conservatives were willing to be patient, they were also considerably more aggressive, demanding, and willing to take chances. One of their boldest moves came in 1995 when they shut down the federal government by refusing to pass funding legislation to pay the nation’s bills. Ultimately, however, they incurred the public’s blame and gave in.
The conservative movement identified its enemies: the media, institutions of higher learning, liberal think tanks, the liberal wings of Protestant churches, and Hollywood. These became the focus of the movement’s emerging leadership. They began to denounce the mainstream media as a liberal tool prejudiced against conservatives. Increasingly discredited among conservatives, the mainstream media became the “lamestream” media. Hollywood, the theater, and the popular arts, especially those supported by government funding and liberal foundations, were attacked as being overrun with sex, drugs, and greed, corrupting the naïve, spreading immorality, and promoting liberal political views and prejudices.
Liberal think tanks were denounced as biased and lacking objectivity, and their published conclusions were dismissed out of hand. Conservative think tanks emerged in response, while new fundamentalist educational institutions appeared, particularly to challenge higher education and mainstream scientific thought. An anti-intellectualism campaign reduced the standing of higher education by portraying colleges and universities as pretentious, snobbish, and elitist institutions that offered little more than liberal indoctrination, bereft of common sense and disconnected from practical concerns.
Conservatives advanced alternative arguments to counter scientific conclusions emerging from academic institutions, which they viewed as threats to business interests such as the tobacco and fossil fuels industries. To support these arguments, corporations negatively affected by such research were often willing to pay substantial sums to scholars prepared to offer opinions conducive to their cause.
Led by Rush Limbaugh, conservative political talk radio expanded far beyond expectations, often exhibiting a remarkable degree of coordination in its themes and messaging. Its impact was enormous, formative of opinions widely held across the nation, particularly within conservative regions and communities. Most importantly, through the efforts of Rupert Murdoch, the renowned conservative Australian media mogul, the long-held ambition of building a national conservative television network came to fruition.
Fox News was not interested in appealing to all potential viewers, that is, to the public as a whole. Instead, it was willing to target a narrower niche and still reap a handsome profit. Its strategy served two purposes: to maximize revenue and to strengthen the conservative movement by offering conservatives the perspectives they wanted to hear. In turn, this approach helped shape audience beliefs, making viewers reliant on Fox News as a primary source of information. Its broadcasts opened with a slogan that narrowed its appeal to those who believed the canard of liberal news bias. Before long, Fox News had become the ratings leader among cable news networks, setting the pace for confused and breathless networks. Murdoch also purchased the Wall Street Journal and exercised close oversight over its Editorial Board, though considerably less so of its newsroom reporters.
At the same time that these new media outlets were reinforcing conservative political identity, similar struggles were unfolding within religious denominations. The belief that Christianity is inherently conservative, as defined by fundamentalist churches, spread successfully. Wealthy conservative donors directed financial support toward conservative factions within mainstream Protestant denominations, fueling conflict over significant reforms such as racial reconciliation, the leadership of women, the ordination of LGBTQ people, and liturgical renewal. In some cases, these divisions proved profound. For example, conflicts within the Presbyterian Church and the United Methodist Church led to schisms of a scale not seen since the Civil War era. Episcopalians by and large held their own, although five dioceses left the Church, while conflict drove others into debilitating internal strife.
The steady and aggressive pressure from the more radical wing of the Republican Party set the stage for the 2000 election. The Republican campaign offered a face of “compassionate conservatism,” but beneath the surface it portended increased conflict.
Ideas like these are best explored together. Share your thoughts. I read and respond to every comment.
So good Joe.
Tying together events from which I was aware, but not aware, but not intesely involved. Ten too much involved with technology development.
Keep up the good work.
Can we learn from the past?
A random thought --- what oul h founding documents say if written today by the Federalist Society ?
So true Joe. Excellent summary. To establish and run Fox “News” Murdock hired former Republican political Consultant Roger Ailes who ran the network like the publicity arm of the party, as it remains today.