Nelson '64

Matt Yglesias says:

In ‘64, the GOP establishment felt that Goldwater was too radical. They said that nominating a hard-rightist like Goldwater would be counterproductive. But conservative activists worked hard, and they did it. Goldwater got the nod. And, just as the establishment predicted, Goldwater got crushed. And just as the established predicted, it proved to be counterproductive. The 1964 landslide led directly to Medicare, Medicaid, Title I education spending, and the “war on poverty.” In the 45 years since that fateful campaign, the conservative movement managed to gain total control over the Republican Party and to sporadically govern the country. But it’s only very partially rolled back one aspect of the Johnson administration’s domestic policy.

Which is just to say that the conservative movement from 1964-2009 was a giant failure. By nominating Goldwater, it invited a massive progressive win that all the subsequent conservative wins were unable to undue. But the orthodox conservative tradition of ‘64 is that it was a great success that laid the groundwork for the triumphs to come.

The basis of the conservative movement has always been to keep the power-centers of society in the same place. Those who have power today should keep it--sometimes add to it, but never lose it. Wall Street traders, titans of industry, heirs to fortunes, and media moguls should never be set back by societal demands that they pay more in taxes. They should never be burdened by more government regulations that make it more difficult for them to make and keep their money.

It's no surprise that these folks are, generally speaking, the monied base of the Republican party. Whoever benefits most from the status quo has a vested interest in not changing anything. When wages stagnate, social programs are cut, and profit margins increase, the monied conservatives in this country win. It's no surprise that they largely consider the past 30 years of free trade, welfare reform, and deregulation to be one big, fat "W".

The biggest problem with this governing coalition is that while it has the money, it lacks the numbers. While money can have a very large effect on elections, a majority of people in this country side against the wealthy conservative interests in this country. When the majority of people are able to vote in a progressive government, we get new programs and better wealth distribution that are ridiculously difficult to repeal.

Yglesias is right that the conservative movement can be seen as a failure as it has never even come close to repealing the biggest progressive reforms and programs put into place by LBJ. However, if the wealthy conservatives in this country are a minority, it's inevitable that progress will be made towards a more equitable society. The conservative movement isn't a failure because 2010 doesn't look like 1963. It's a success because progress has been slower than it otherwise would have been if the Republican party leadership had remained in the hands of the liberal/moderate faction.

If Nelson Rockefeller were seen as the Godfather of the modern Republican party, we would have seen political power in Washington flipping between the moderate Republican party and the liberal Democratic party. That would have been objectively worse for conservatives than the current right-wing/centrist two-party system we have today.

Nelson '64