The Bush Second Term Agenda: Social Regimentation
The primal motivation for many Movement Conservatives is a visceral hatred of the Sixties (e.g., 1966-1979), when their most cherished notions of social order nearly collapsed. Putting the genie of “excessive freedom” back into the bottle and reinstating some forms of social regimentation remains a key priority, even 40 years after the fact. For some, this means codifying repressive and reactionary measures into law, diminishing personal freedom in areas such as sexuality and reproductive rights and increasing the authority of socially-regimented institutions such as fundamentalist Christianity, the military, and corporate control over the economy. For others, it simply means threatening to do so, in a way that chills and discourages further dissent.
While some boomers look on the sixties with fondness and nostalgia, to Movement Conservatives, they were a terrifying period when the certainties and privileges of American economic and social elites came under intense attack. Political institutions that protected the primacy of wealthy white men crumbled and were replaced with a mass of government-mandated programs and enforcement of rights for women and minorities. Economic policies favored income distribution over accumulation of enormous wealth. Foreign policy retrenched from the aggrandizement of American power in the wake of the failure in Vietnam. But most damagingly, the social barriers that enforced distinctions between the economic classes suffered a near-fatal bout of democratization, thanks in large part to an irreverent and sexually-liberated popular culture.
The situation stabilized during the 1980s, but then threatened a flashback under the leadership of President Clinton, a kind of Boomer antichrist who was positively gleeful in his betrayal of his own Southern, white class interest and embrace of the most objectionable aspects of the sixties (e.g., feminism, in the form of Hillary). It is, I think, the incense and peppermint smell of the Clintons that triggered the peculiarly psychotic reaction by the Right to what was, in essence, a fairly moderate set of policies. Remember, the key issue for the Movement is the preservation of privilege and authority, and the Clinton persona was much more threatening to them in that dimension than his political program may have appeared on the surface.
One might imagine that the negative impact of democratization during the sixties would be of concern only to a relative few at the top, who saw their privileges and power decline. In fact, as is abundantly clear in our Red States, its most profound and disturbing impact was among the lower middle class and upwardly-aspiring suburban families. Conservative economic elites who could cry all the way to the bank about their loss of privileged social status; for wide swaths of rural and working class America, however, the vague notion of superior virtue and “values” is all that separates them from the despised, faceless ranks of the poor. These are folks who daily face the most de-humanizing forms of economic, cultural and commercial exploitation. Their communities are leached of character by cookie-cutter housing developments and chain-store shopping complexes. They are far from the cultural centers on the coasts, or from the scenes of 24-hour hedonism and excitement portrayed in the media, which raise unmeetable expectations and perhaps embarrass them in the eyes of their children. Understandably, they make a virtue of their circumstances, priding themselves on a superior sense of self-discipline, honor, duty and patriotism. These values, and the importance they attach to them, help to compensate for the lack of material, intellectual, and cultural resources of their social and physical surroundings.
Sixties ideas that challenged the worthiness of those values hit these folks where they lived. Far more than threatening their economic or political interests, liberation ideology threatened their entire sense of self. If self-discipline was merely inhibition, and duty, honor and love of country all hypocritical conceits, then what lifted them above the pathetic masses all striving for, and largely failing to achieve, material success? Rather than reconcile this contradiction through positive action, a great many folks retrenched into a deeper conservatism, substituting the facile certainties of fundamentalist religious faith (and fundamentalist politics) for the troubling realities of a complex and confusing world. This predilection for denial and self-delusion made them excellent foot-soldiers in a Movement that depended on obedience to mystical authority and ideology as its means of gaining power.
While many people derive strength and generosity of character from their faith, a significant and visible number use it to externalize their inner fears by stirring up fear and hatred against others. Religion gives their ugly ideas a patina of piety and the weight of tradition. Believers, already aggrieved by the perceived affront to their values represented by social liberalism, are thus easily roused to action behind profoundly irrational and divisive causes, from creationism to intolerance of minorities and gay sexuality. The emotional appeals of these kinds of issues conveniently drown out political interests that align more closely to their economic circumstances. This makes it possible to incorporate this large, passionate and profoundly ideological constituency into a coalition with the much smaller but self-interested core of Movement Conservatives with diametrically-opposed economic interests, each in their own way dedicated to the overthrow of the Liberal (and liberal) state.
The short version of the preceding six thick paragraphs is that Bush will owe his re-election to a bunch of frustrated, hateful crazies. This isn’t news. But it does have some obvious implications for the country as Bush will feel much obligation and little constraint to furnish these wackos with a steady stream of policy plums, from right-wing judges (and Justices) to insane and irrelevant Constitutional amendments, to executive orders that cripple the ability of government to deliver health, education and social services in a rational and responsible way.
That said, it seems to me that Bush and his inner circle have more to gain by the continual promise of reactionary social policies than by actually enacting any of them. No one with skin in the game really has any stake in making abortion illegal, or having prayer in schools, or in criminalizing (to the extent possible) homosexual lifestyles. Indeed, probably a lot of elite conservatives are “closet” social liberals who either enjoy or need the benefits of social tolerance in their own lives. It’s also clear that Movement Conservatives benefit from keeping popular anger at liberals at a constant boil. Anyone with any sense understands the kind of chaos and misery that would occur should, for example, Roe vs. Wade be overturned, and what kinds of forces might be unleashed as a result.
Furthermore, the threat of imposing a reactionary social agenda on the country may be enough to distract liberals while other, more damaging abuses are occurring behind the scenes. In other words, by poking at the outer edges of social policy, the most cynical Movement Conservatives can, in effect, herd the opposition into a defensive posture in the middle, where they pose little threat to the real power agenda.
What remains unclear is Bush’s own commitment to the far Right social agenda. His career to date and his family history indicate a willingness to play footsie with the true crazies to realize his other ambitions, but a characteristic lack of follow-through when it comes to the challenging parts. However, “9/11 changed everything,” including, most visibly, the Commander-in-Chief’s command of his own faculties. It is possible that the experience of the past three years has led him to a genuine embrace of fundamentalist habits of mind, rather than a convincing act based on a combination of political theatre and his own intellectual limitations. If that’s the case, then we have much, much greater cause for alarm.
Tomorrow: Reconstruction of the International Order.
7:42:21 AM 
|
|
