The GOP's McCarthy gene

[bemildred]

Ever since the election, partisans within the Republican Party and observers outside it have been speculating wildly about what direction the GOP will take to revive itself from its disaster. Or, more specifically, which wing of the party will prevail in setting the new Republican course -- whether it will be what conservative writer Kathleen Parker has called the "evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy" branch or the more pragmatic, intellectual, centrist branch. To determine the answer, it helps to understand exactly how Republicans arrived at this spot in the first place.

The creation myth of modern conservatism usually begins with Barry Goldwater, the Arizona senator who was the party's presidential standard-bearer in 1964 and who, even though he lost in one of the biggest landslides in American electoral history, nevertheless wrested the party from its Eastern establishment wing. Then, Richard Nixon co-opted conservatism, talking like a conservative while governing like a moderate, and drawing the opprobrium of true believers. But Ronald Reagan embraced it wholeheartedly, becoming the patron saint of conservatism and making it the dominant ideology in the country. George W. Bush picked up Reagan's fallen standard and "conservatized" government even more thoroughly than Reagan had, cheering conservatives until his presidency came crashing down around him. That's how the story goes.

But there is another rendition of the story of modern conservatism, one that doesn't begin with Goldwater and doesn't celebrate his libertarian orientation. It is a less heroic story, and one that may go a much longer way toward really explaining the Republican Party's past electoral fortunes and its future. In this tale, the real father of modern Republicanism is Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the line doesn't run from Goldwater to Reagan to George W. Bush; it runs from McCarthy to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. It centralizes what one might call the McCarthy gene, something deep in the DNA of the Republican Party that determines how Republicans run for office, and because it is genetic, it isn't likely to be expunged any time soon.

The basic problem with the Goldwater tale is that it focuses on ideology and movement building, which few voters have ever really cared about, while the McCarthy tale focuses on electoral strategy, which is where Republicans have excelled.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gabler30-2008nov30,0,635817.story

[AlinPA]

1. Let's hear it for the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the republican party!

Let them take over: Hagee, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, even the Westboro Baptist wing.

[pacalo]

2. The vileness of the McCarthy hearings put a cork on the fear-mongering bottle

because it was televised for all to see. Like the article noted, those senators who rose up most indignantly against McCarthy were from his own party. That McCarthy took on the U.S. Army while Eisenhower was president was just insane & self-destructive, but fortunate for those who were appalled by the vicious hatred.

This article made me think back to the Kennedy/Nixon debate shown on tv. I was just 8 years old & I put my mother on a pedestal. I adored her & thought she was the wisest person on earth. I was sitting on the couch with my mother as she & my dad watched the debate, & I listened as she & my dad gave their thoughts.

My mother said she was going to vote for Nixon & my dad was for Kennedy. As young as I was, I thought Kennedy sounded more intelligent & reasonable than Nixon. As much as I loved my mother, I wasn't swayed to her way of thinking. I guess it must be in my genes to make up my own mind. :evilgrin:

But I also believe it's true that kids & animals, particularly dogs, have an inner sense about people. JFK turned out to be the president I've admired in modern history the most.

This was a great article, bemildred. I hope more DUers read it.

[Captain Hilts]

3. That's why it's significant that RFK worked for him and JFK would not denounce him. nt

[yurbud]

4. and Dems responded by trying to one up them in rhetoric and military spending