September 19, 2004
"RIGHT"EOUSNESS:
Evangelism on the march: a review of THE RIGHT NATION: WHY AMERICA IS DIFFERENT By John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (Graham Stewart, The Spectator)
The chasm between a militarily powerful America, with its churchgoing population and sense of righteousness, and a secular, nuanced, semi-pacifist Europe appears to be widening. In his masterful monograph, Paradise and Power, Robert Kagan outlined the nature of this division and its implications for foreign policy. Micklethwait and Wooldridge, two British journalists at the Economist, have pulled off a remarkable achievement, a study of how the United States became a conservative nation. In marked contrast to the unhinged rants of Michael Moore and the blatant prejudice of his imitators, The Right Nation is authoritative, entertaining and astonishing in its breadth and objectivity. It can perhaps make claim to an extraordinary boast as the best book on modern America in print.In 1950, the Republicans had no Southern senators and only two out of 105 congressmen. Lionel Trilling wrote that ‘liberalism is not only the dominant, but even the sole, intellectual tradition’ in the United States. Eisenhower’s victory in the presidential election two years later was the first by a Republican since 1928. Yet his policies in office merely outlined the extent to which liberalism had become bipartisan. This could not have been said at the time of the 1984 election landslide when Ronald Reagan won a majority in every region in the country, in every age group and in every occupational category except the unemployed. What had happened in the meantime was that the liberal certainties — Keynesian economics, the belief in federal government as a help rather than a hindrance, social permissiveness — had in so many American eyes been discredited by recession, low expectations, crime and social breakdown. The Republicans had fashioned a unifying vision while the Democrats had become the party of interest groups, many of them particularly objectionable to the white, patriotic, states’ rights believers of the South. ‘You haven’t left the Democratic party,’ Reagan told them, ‘the Democratic party left you.’
This was an astonishing transformation in America’s politics. The conservative crusade of the Republicans’ 1964 presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, had been a disaster. Intent on offering a choice, not an echo, Goldwater was not afraid to divide opinion, even among his supporters. When on the campaign trail an enthusiast concocted a soft drink called ‘Gold Water — the Right Drink for the Conservative Taste’, Gold- water spat it out, complaining, ‘This tastes like piss. I wouldn’t drink it with gin.’ Yet, however much the refreshingly honest candidate tried to sink the floating vote, an intellectual revolution was beginning that brought conservatives and libertarians together. After 1980 it began to roll back American liberalism. So successful was it that it even helped to undermine the senior Bush when he committed apostasy by raising taxes. It ensured that the great achievements of the Clinton years — a balanced budget, a reduced state, Nafta — were Republican ones.
Republicanism has been spread by air-conditioning and evangelism. The former facilitated population growth in terrain that proved conducive to the party’s message — the moralistic South and individualistic West. Democrats have derided such ‘flyover states’ at their peril. That a third of American voters belong to Evangelical churches has huge political significance. They are the Republican party at prayer. Indeed, religious observance is a better guide to voting intentions than bank balances. In 2000, almost 80 per cent of whites who went to church more than once a week voted for Bush (compared to only a third of voters who were non-churchgoers). He only scraped a majority of those Americans who earned over $100,000 a year.
Would a wholly Blue America be distinguishable from Europe? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 19, 2004 8:35 PM
OJ, will the brothers be reviewing this book?
Posted by: Jorge Curioso at September 19, 2004 10:15 PMIf someone will be sending us a copy...
I'll contact the publisher.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2004 11:00 PMWould a wholly Blue America be distinguishable from Europe?
I'd like to think so. I still think there are distinct differences to the American character, regardless of political leanings.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 19, 2004 11:08 PMAn English gov't poll done since Blair was PM shows that in the UK, an "entrepreneur" is largely synonymous with "sharpie, exploiter, raider, freebooter..."
Only 9% of those polled thought that being an entrepreneur was completely positive.
Few American Democrats would go that far. Most who would are already Greens, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, and other fringe groups and rabble.
That's one way in which Blue Americans are different from Europeans.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 20, 2004 2:54 AMMichael:
That is interesting. I've beem told that in German and the Nordic languages the word "pragmatic" has a negative flavour and connotes sacrificing principle for selfish reasons.
Posted by: Peter B at September 20, 2004 5:24 AMLet's remember that Bush I said "read my lips, no new taxes", before wimping out and raising them.
W I M P.
Kerry said he spent Christmas in Cambodia. Liar.
Bush-hate has blinded the PC press to the total weakness of Kerry.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 20, 2004 12:30 PM>Would a wholly Blue America be distinguishable
>from Europe?
Not by much, and would probably suffer the same fate -- Islamic Republic of Ameristan/Eurostan.
i.e.
female circumcision,
the burqa and the harem,
slavery commanded by God,
blood feud and honor killing and
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
ALLAH-U AKBAR!
forever...
Keeping in mind that Lance Armstrong was so...ugh...ambitious....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 20, 2004 1:02 PMBarry:
What ?
Ya lost me. Explain, please ?
