American History, 1877 to present
NiKey_96
the_conservative_turn_1972-2000___.pdf
The Conservative Turn, 1972-2000 Introduction The conservative turn in American politics was one of the most important developments of the postwar period. As a generation of scholars has recounted, American politics shifted to the right following the turmoil of the 1960s. While the forces of conservatism emerge out of nowhere in the 1970s, the organizational infrastructure of the movement and its influence in the Republican Party gained substantial strength in these decades. The impact of conservatism on national political debate, moreover, intensified. Yet the history of conservatism in these years was one of twists and turns rather than a straight story of success. Nor was it a triumphal story. Conservatism had to contend with powerful institutional, ideological, and partisan forces that strongly opposed its objectives. Prominent Republican and Conservative Leaders, 1970-2000
The conservative turn in American politics was built on top of the foundations that had been created by liberalism throughout the 20th century. As was evident in the evolution of the movement in these critical decades, proponents of conservatism had to learn how to adjust
to these limitations in the process of governance. Conservatives gradually recalibrated their strategy. They focused less on the broad transformative ambitions of Republican presidents who had inhabited the White House. Instead, they developed a more confrontational and aggressive legislative style of combat that has defined the movement since the early 1990s.
Conservatives lost faith in the ability, or willingness, of Republican presidents to hold true to the values of conservatism. They increasingly embraced a strategy of obstructionism and procedural warfare in politics in Congress. Their goals were to prevent the creation of new programs, to weaken the institutional and budgetary foundation of existing policies, and to create a process that continually undermined American faith in government. This essay examines 3 crucial moments that capture the transformation of conservatism. In 1974, the important conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, was established. In 1984, the conservative champion, President Ronald Reagan, moderated his positions as he sought reelection. In 1990, Republican President George H. W. Bush broke his campaign oath not to raise taxes, both infuriating and galvanizing congressional conservatives Section 1: The Heritage Foundation, 1974 • Section Question: Why does Zelizer regard the founding of the Heritage
Foundation a critical development in the rise of the conservative movement?
• Question: What type of people created the Heritage Foundation? What was its purpose? Was it successful? Terms:
• The marketplace of ideas • Heritage Foundation • Brookings Institution • Paul Weyrich • Ed Feulner When conservatism was young in the 1970s, the movement had grand visions of what it could accomplish. Many of the activists who were involved in building the movement had aspirations that they could fundamentally transform public opinion and shift national debate toward the right. This was the reason that proponents of conservatism in the 1970s devoted an inordinate amount of energy to the politics of ideas. They hoped that they could combat the intellectual firepower of liberalism in the universities, media, and think tanks (organizations of experts on social policy). Within the Nixon administration, speechwriter Patrick Buchanan had been urging fellow Republicans to take these steps, if they wanted to really change Washington. The attention paid in these years toward the marketplace of ideas captured a moment when most conservatives felt that they were outside the political establishment. Once they entered into the halls of power, they retained grandiose visions of what they could accomplish. Founding of Conservative Journals
Their goal was to transform the way that Americans thought about politics. During the 1970s, there was a massive proliferation of philanthropists and business leaders who funded the creation of new think tanks and the reorganization of existing institutions. The most important was the Heritage Foundation. In 1973, a group of conservative entrepreneurs teamed up to establish the organization. It was aimed to match the liberal Brookings Institution, the prestigious think tank in Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., which had been influencing politics since the Progressive Era. They dreamed of having a direct impact on congressional debate and to put forward ideas that a Republican president could carry with him into the White House. Edwin Feulner had been an aide to Congressmen Melvin Laird and Phil Crane as
well as an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Paul Weyrich was an aide to Colorado Senator Gordon Allott and the innovator who used direct mail to reach conservative donors. Each had become greatly frustrated with Republican President Richard Nixon (1969-1974). They believed he had a constant inclination to court the center of the political spectrum. Edwin Feulner and Paul Weyrich Give a Speech for the Heritage Foundation, c. 1988
• Question: What was the set of effective strategies that the Heritage
Foundation innovated in the 1970s? Terms: • Joseph Coors • Think tank • Current and relevant data to support legislation • Heritage Foundation Resource Bank Feulner and Weyrich, both of whom were the most important conservative entrepreneurs of the period, had a number of eye-opening conversations with conservative Republican legislators. After having been defeated on a several key bills, the congressmen expressed to them their regret that they did not have the kind of well-produced information that liberal organizations regularly distributed to Democratic legislators. During committee hearings and floor debates, as well as in discussions with the media, liberal politicians could count on a wealth of data to defend their positions and their vote. Conservatives were left scrambling on their own to explain their positions. Weyrich met with James Lucier, a legislative assistant to Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, and Victor Fediay of the Library of Congress. All 3 agreed on the need for an institution that could produce and promote conservative ideas. They were not as good when it came to money. After speaking with Frederic Rench, a Wisconsin businessman who strongly supported conservative causes, they concluded that they were in need of a much better business plan. Fortunately for them, Rench helped them put a plan together. After they had their proposal in place, they approached the wealthy beer magnate Joseph Coors, whom Weyrich had known through his work for Allott. Coors was the youngest brother, one of many owners in the family's Colorado beer business. He was
searching for new conservative causes to which he could give his money Heritage Foundation Board of Trustees Members Ed Feulner, Bob Dee, Bob Krieble, Lew Lehrman, and Joseph Coors at a meeting in the 1980s
Coors had been a long-time supporter of conservative causes, including Barry Goldwater's candidacy in 1964 against Lyndon Johnson. When approached with this particular proposal, Coors was on the fence at first. He was thinking about giving much of his money to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI was an old and established think tank that had been founded in 1938 when the conservative rebellion against President Roosevelt had gotten under way. What made their effort distinct was the vision of combining first-rate intellectual firepower with practical, politically oriented publications. They were able to articulate this vision during a pivotal meeting with Coors. Lyn Nofzinger, one of the top legislative assistants for Richard Nixon, arranged the meeting. The beer magnate asked why he shouldn't support the more established American Enterprise Institute rather than give money to their untested proposal. For dramatic effect, Nofzinger made his point by pulling an old AEI report from his bookshelf. He scanned the study with a puzzled look, as if to signal that it was a relic. He then brushed off some of the dust that had collected on the cover, and said: "That's what they're good for--collecting dust . . . What we need are studies for Congress while legislation is being collected."
Persuaded by the presentation, Coors agreed to invest in the new operation. Other donors followed, including the John Olin Foundation and Richard Scaife, one of the heirs to the Mellon estate who had been one of Barry Goldwater's first supporters. • Question: How did the Heritage Foundation help the election of Ronald
Reagan in 1980 and give his candidacy an ideological edge? Terms: • CATO Institute • Ronald Reagan uses Heritage ideas in his radio talks On February 16, 1973, the Heritage Foundation was incorporated and opened a few days later. Soon after its formation, the Foundation forged connections with former California Governor Ronald Reagan in 1975 when he launched a primary challenge to Republican President Gerald Ford. Heritage also worked with Reagan on his radio shows that were broadcast to millions of listeners who religiously tuned in to hear Reagan's innovative ideas on issues like tax reform and deregulation. Ronald Reagan Radio Address, 1979
The creation of the Heritage Foundation symbolized the marriage between ideas and conservative politics that was so important in these early years. It was a moment when a large number of conservatives were not yet as focused on the nuts and bolts of holding power and the compromises and deals that required. Instead, they were more concerned with the bold messaging and rhetoric that was involved in building an opposition movement. Ed Feulner, the former head of the House Republican Study Group, became Heritage's president in 1977. He embarked on an even more aggressive strategy to promote the ideas of the foundation among politicians and journalists. For example, he created the Resource Bank, assembling a group of right-wing experts who were put on tap for conservative politicians. He raised millions of dollars from conservative foundations and big businesses, such as General Motors, vastly expanding the reach of the organization. Feulner required all his scholars to write briefer position papers that followed the "briefcase test"-- a "busy executive can throw it [the study] into his briefcase and read it in an hour or less." Older foundations, like the American Enterprise Institute, restructured their operations to model themselves after Heritage. Newer conservative foundations, like the CATO Institute, sprang up based on the Heritage model.
Founding of Conservative Think Tanks
In 1980, the Foundation published the Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Conservative Administration. The document was over 1000 pages long and covered a wide range of policies facing the nation, from health care to taxation to national security. Reagan was captivated by the report and circulated it to everyone in the cabinet. The recommendations were incorporated into many of the proposals that he then sent to Congress. President Reagan with his Cabinet, 1981, and Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Conservative Administration, 1981
Section 2: The Reelection of Ronald Reagan, 1984 • Section Question: How did Ronald Reagan’s reelection
campaign of 1984 result in his victory but in some ways the fracturing of the conservative movement?
• Question: How did Reagan both please and anger conservatives leading up to his reelection of 1984? Terms:
• Ronald Reagan • Walter Mondale • Reagan's desire to cement a broad conservative coalition • Proposal to cut Social Security • Reagan's initial tough diplomatic approach moderates • Federal deficit • Roe v. Wade • Religious leaders and social conservatives enter politics • Jerry Fallwell • Henry Hyde • Hyde Amendment • Reagan actually did not restrict abortion • Abortion as a court vs. legislative decision • Tensions with Soviet Union escalate in 1983 • Unemployment dropping in 1983 The tenor of conservatism had changed dramatically by the 1984 election, which pitted President Ronald Reagan, running for reelection, against Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale. The Democrat Mondale was a stalwart of the Great Society policies that Lyndon Johnson had promoted in the late 1960s to end poverty. Mondale unabashedly defended the liberal tradition. By the time that Reagan started his campaign, the president had significantly moderated his tone. His goal was to cement a broad conservative coalition that would outlast his presidency. To do so he needed to heed some of the tough lessons that he had learned in his first term. The 1980 election had been a dramatic victory for conservatives, the first time that one of their own had made it to the White House. Reagan followed with his greatest legislative victory, a major
income tax reduction passed in 1981. But Reagan and conservatives soon had to confront the realities of governance. Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, Second Presidential Debate, 1984
Reagan was in the difficult position of trying to translate his legislative ideas into actual policy and was forced to back down on a number of initiatives that proved unpopular. When Reagan proposed cuts to Social Security in 1981 and 1982, the backlash against his proposal was so strong that many Republicans backed down. He ignored many issues dear to the social conservatives who had backed him in 1980, such as abortion, finding little support in Congress to pass laws to make abortion illegal. The economy plunged into a recession in 1982 and Democrats made large gains in the midterm elections of November 1982. Reagan knew he would not push through Congress huge cuts to the social safety net, federal programs to support the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the indigent. More traditional fiscal conservatives, who believed in balanced budgets more than tax cuts, persuaded Reagan to accept modest tax increases in 1982 and 1983. Indeed, many were becoming concerned with the skyrocketing federal deficit, a result of Reagan's previous tax cuts and the drop in tax revenues because of the recession. Watching from the House, the ardent conservative and Georgia congressman elected in 1978, Newt Gingrich, called Senator Majority Leader Robert Dole, a Republican from Kansas, the "tax collector for the
welfare state." On foreign policy, the story was much the same. In his first 2 years as president, Reagan heated up the international environment by using extraordinarily bellicose and provocative language about the Soviet Union and vastly expanding the size of the military budget. Most famously he would call the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" to a group of evangelicals. It was hardly the rhetoric that was traditionally employed in tense diplomatic situations. He stacked his administration with neoconservatives who didn't trust the Soviets and refused to enter into any substantive negotiations of arms agreements. In 1983, there were a series of heated incidents that escalated tensions. In September, the Soviets shot down a South Korean commercial air flight, claiming that it had strayed over their airspace. Two months later, the US and its European allies conducted a series of military war games called Abel Archer 83 that were so realistic some in the Soviet Union thought that they were preparations for a nuclear first strike on their country. After the fall of 1983, many officials in the White House, including Reagan, sensed that the nation had reached a dangerous stage and needed to adopt a more conciliatory approach. Korean Airlines 007 The international nuclear freeze movement, which attracted millions of supporters, also counteracted Reagan's confrontational approach with the Soviet Union. Millions of Americans watched the television film, The Day After (1983), which showed the horrific effects of nuclear war on a small town in Kansas. The publicity surrounding the film caused high- ranking officials in the administration to understand that a growing portion of the public was concerned about the state of international relations and dangers faced around the globe.
War seemed real. Within the administration there was also a sense that the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse, with the economy falling apart and internal tensions more severe than ever. Intelligence analysts were indicating that a new generation of Soviet leaders recognized these realities and were willing to improve relations with Reagan. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev, 1984
Going into his reelection campaign, Reagan was in relatively good shape since the economy was starting to recover. Significant sectors of the economy were enjoying a strong performance, with higher rates of productivity and lower rates of unemployment (which had reached a post-WWII record high of 10 percent in 1982). The service and the technology sectors started to really take off even as the old manufacturing sectors of the economy were struggling. In the same way that Reagan was blamed by Democrats for the recession that took place in the previous years, he now was able to rebound and to take credit for the recovery. He pointed to his tax policies and the anti-inflationary positions of the Federal Reserve. His approval ratings reached well over 50 percent after
having plummeted during the 1982 economic recession. Reagan entered the 1984 campaign standing strong.
• Question: According to Zelizer, why did Reagan’s reelection in
1984 represent a return to the center for the president? Terms:
• The non-specific campaign of 1984: “Morning in America” • Congressional election in 1982 and 1984 • Reagan appeal to white middle and working class Americans To ensure victory, however, Reagan decided to back away from many of the radical proposals that he and fellow conservatives had championed in 1980. His top advisors realized that the public did not support many of the more conservative proposals that came from the White House in the first term. One had said: "We would be relatively nonspecific programmatically, be more abstract." Reagan would still support lower taxes;; he would just not call for the abolition of the progressive income tax system. Throughout the campaign, Reagan continued to build on his central themes, the value of the free market and the notion that anyone could make it in the United States. His basic claim was that his economic policies had worked. By opening up free markets within the United States and pushing to do so in areas of the world that had been dominated by communism, the United
States was reemerging as a leading international force. "America is back and standing tall," he said at the outset of his campaign.
Reagan Presidential Campaign Commercial, Statue of Liberty
Although Reagan had received criticism from conservatives for doing too little on social policy in his first few years, most were willing to fall behind his candidacy. They understood that his reelection would constitute a huge victory for conservatism and believed that it would solidify the coalition that had brought him into office. In the campaign, Reagan also softened his rhetoric about national security. He sensed that the public had not received well his bellicose rhetoric on the Soviets. So, he continued to promise that the US would stand firm against communism and not enter into dangerous negotiations with the Soviets but also spoke of the need to find ways to open up negotiations with the communist leadership. Rather than the one-sided approach he had stressed through much of his career, and in the first few years of his presidency, now Reagan spoke with strong threats but continually reaching out to any Soviet leaders who were serious to negotiate. Reagan told the United Nations in a widely publicized speech, "We must and will engage the Soviets in a dialog as serious and constructive as possible--a dialog that will serve to promote peace in the troubled regions of the world, reduce the level of arms, and build a constructive working relationship." He further noted, "Neither we nor the Soviet Union can wish away the differences between our two societies and our philosophies, but we should always remember that we do have common interests and the foremost among them is to avoid war and reduce the level of arms." These words, and the rest of the speech, with its conciliatory tone, were shocking to many Americans who had heard Reagan since the 1970s railing against détente.
• Question: Why were the Democrats unsuccessful in the election of 1984? Terms:
• Democrats stress theme of "fairness" in 1984 • Electoral college result in 1984 • Reagan's reelection important to conservatives and they
reserved their criticism of his moderate turn The Democrats ran a very different kind of campaign, one that aimed to win back the traditional Democratic coalition that seemed to have been broken in the past few years. Democrats were hoping that they could attract the support of working class Democrats who had become disaffected from the party, the elderly, and minorities, as well as women. They picked up on the theme that Democrats had used well in 1982 to expand their majority in the House. Their theme was "Fairness" in the economy and they pointed to the many ways in which the recovery was unequal--the upper classes bouncing back, the poor lagging behind. In other words, they were hoping for the vote of their traditional coalition, including some of those who had been tempted by the GOP in 1980. Their candidate, Minnesota Democrat Walter Mondale, chose as his vice presidential candidate Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. But their campaign languished. Although Mondale did fairly well with these groups, Reagan, particularly with the economy rebounding, proved to be a formidable candidate even without a failed Democratic incumbent (like Jimmy Carter) to beat up on. The president emphasized the strength of the economic recovery, telling voters that it was "Morning in America" again. He promised voters that he would keep the US strong against the Soviet Union, even while searching for new ways to improve relations with them. Reagan characterized Mondale as an ally of the international nuclear freeze movement who would embark on disastrous policies that made the nation unsafe. Mondale was not a very good campaigner. Reagan, on the other hand, put together a masterful campaign that papered over some of the tensions that had been exposed and highlighted the
attributes of his administration. Reagan presented conservatism as a governing philosophy for average middle and working class Americans. He successfully counteracted Democratic claims that conservative Republican ideas were for the wealthy. Reagan won 54.5 million popular votes, compared to Mondale who took in 37.6 million. Mondale, in a humiliating outcome, only won in Minnesota, his home state, and the District of Columbia. Mondale did worse among every classification of voter other than Jewish and African American. The election constituted an important turning point for conservatism. The reelection of Reagan by sound margins confirmed that 1980 had not just been a fluke, nor had it just been about a rejection of a failed incumbent, Jimmy Carter. Instead, 1984 seemed to provide evidence that conservative Republicans held considerable electoral appeal. Presidential Election Results, 1984
Yet by 1984 if was also clear that conservatism would confront limitations in the post-1960s period. The triumph of conservatism
took place in a period when liberal policies, ideas, and organizations--including congressional Democrats--still remained strong. The Reagan who ran in 1984 had backed away from many of his most dramatic ideas--dismantling the welfare state and open military confrontation with the Soviet Union. He had softened his tone and focused much more in the election on economic recovery and the possibility of long-term peace. Even as Reagan was reelected, Democrats retained control of the House, and the party came closer to retaking control of the Senate in 1984 (which they would do 2 years later). At the same time that the 1984 election cemented the conservative coalition in the electoral arena, it also exposed the limitations that would shape conservatism throughout these decades. Many American voters liked Republican presidents, but they were not all on board with a radical transformation of government as some on the right had originally imagined. Senate and House of Representatives Election Seat Gains and Losses, 1984
Section 3: New Taxes, 1990 • Section Question: How did the position on taxes become a
central and non-negotiable tenant of the modern Republican party?
• Question: Why did George Bush's raising taxes in 1990 infuriate Republicans and partly lead to his loss in the presidential election of 1992? Terms:
• Conservative v. moderate Republicans • Dealing with the fiscal deficit in the 1980s • Federal deficit as a percent of GDP • "Read my lips! No new taxes!" • Bush reversal on taxes • Vote for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 The brewing tensions between conservative legislators and activists and Republican presidents who needed to build broad national coalitions and accept some liberal policies in the post- 1960s period came to a head with a budget debate in 1990. The presidency of George H.W. Bush, who succeeded Reagan, had been much more contentious than that of Reagan's. Many conservative activists never trusted Bush, who had been vice president from 1981 to 1989. He was seen as a product of Washington and a politician more prone to compromise than fulfilling the goals of the right. During his first 4 years in office, Bush had agreed to a number of compromises on domestic policy that angered the base of his party, such as legislation expanding the role of the government to enforce civil rights and the environment. His time in office had scared many conservative Republicans who feared that Reagan had been more of an aberration than they thought. They believed that the party would shift back to the center, as it had been under Nixon, if Congressional Republicans did not act.
In 1990, the federal deficit had become a major issue of debate. The deficit had been increasing throughout the 1980s, in large part as a result of Reagan's fiscal policies. Tax cuts, increased military spending, and sustained domestic spending came together in a dangerous brew that left the budget imbalanced. Fiscal conservatives in both parties argued that rising deficits would crowd out private investment and lead to high interest rates, all of which would cripple economic growth again. To deal with the deficit, fiscal conservatives in Congress had attempted to find ways to balance the budget for much of the decade. Following tax hikes in 1982 and 1983, a bipartisan coalition had passed a series of budgetary reforms in the mid- 1980s. They required Congress to raise taxes or cut spending each time that it enacted a new program. But Congress had found ways to get around the new rules each time. The pressure mounted in 1990 as Democrats pushed in Congress for some kind of deal that included both tax increases and spending cuts.
President Bush was in a bind in 1990. In his 1988 campaign against the Democratic presidential candidate Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis, he had wanted to reassure conservatives that he would not betray them. In his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, Bush energized the right by promising: "Read my Lips! No New Taxes!" But now, two years later, Bush was pressured by moderate Democrats and Republicans to tame the deficit by agreeing to a budget deal that would cut spending and raise taxes. He knew such a deal would have terrible political ramifications in his own party. In the midst of negotiations, Democrats hesitated, fearing that they would agree to spending cuts but the president would not give them tax increases;; they required a public assurance. On June 26, 1990, Bush took an enormous political risk by stating publicly: "It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform;; tax revenue increases;; growth incentives;; discretionary spending reductions;; orderly reductions in defense expenditures;; and budget process reform…." President Bush Presidential Campaign Statement, 1998, and Newspaper Headlines after Bush Raises Taxes
Bush then entered into an agreement with congressional Democrats that cut $324 billion in spending and raised $159 billion in taxes. When the president told Republican members of Congress what he had agreed to, Newt Gingrich of the Republican House leadership was so furious that he bolted out of the room. Gingrich called the tax hike the "fiscal equivalent of Yalta," comparing Bush to FDR, whom conservatives at the time had accused of acquiescing to Russian demands at a diplomatic conference at the end of WWII. Gingrich said that Bush's Budget Director Richard Darman was a "technocrat" who resembled the Democratic candidate Dukakis. "Ideological battles matter," he asserted. "If they didn't, we'd have President Dukakis. Bush was so furious with these and other remarks from the congressman that he would not even shake his hand during a White House ceremony. A few Republicans were not happy with Gingrich, feeling that he was embarrassing the president. New York Republican Norman Lent captured many moderate Republicans' frustrations with conservatives when he said, "He's exalting ideology at the expense of running a government."
• Question: How and why did the Republicans succeed in taking the House of Representatives in the Congressional election of 1994? Terms:
• Newt Gingrich • Opposition using ethic rules But many congressional conservatives came down on Gingrich's side and would never forgive Bush for what he had done. "George Bush," said former Nixon speechwriter and conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan, "if you'll pardon the expression . . . has come out of the closet as an Eastern Establishment liberal."
Gingrich saw this as a betrayal of the right and vowed that they would never allow this to happen again. He had often been frustrated with President Reagan and saw this as yet another example of how Republican presidents could not be trusted. He decided that he would pursue conservative goals, particularly tax cuts, which he felt were sacrosanct to the party, through other means. Gingrich was a powerful force in Washington. Since being elected in 1978, he had perfected the legislative tools of the opposition, using ethics rules to undermine his opponents and television and other forms of communication to attack Democrats as well as compromising Republicans. He practiced a tough style of politics where he used legislative tools to destroy or threaten to destroy the reputations of his opponents in order
to shape legislation and make it adhere to the conservative line. In 1988 and 1989 he headed a crusade against Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, focusing on allegations of ethics violations that culminated in the speaker's resignation. The 1990 Bush budget deal left him with a bitter taste in his mouth. Now he focused on winning control of Congress and using Capitol Hill as the base of operations for the right. In 1992 Bush ran for reelection against the Democratic presidential candidate, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Gingrich and many other conservatives were lukewarm in their support for Bush. Clinton won--a great disappointment to the right who had to watch a Democrat win the highest office at a time they believed should be the triumph of conservatism. Many attributed the loss to Bush's turn around on taxes. GOPAC Memo
The 1992 election set many in the party, particularly congressional Republicans, on a path of no more compromises with Democrats, especially on core issues like taxes. They would use rough political tactics to achieve victories in the Congress, regardless of which party controlled the White House. Better to say no and face the charge of obstructionism than enter into more deals with their opponents and leave New Deal and Great
Society programs intact. In 1994, when Republicans gained the majority and control of the House of Representatives for the first time in nearly 50 years, they elected Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House and leader of their majority. It was widely accepted that his legislative, confrontational style of congressional conservatism--a far cry from the intellectual outlook that resulted in the creation of Heritage--was triumphant. • Question: What were some of the communication strategies of
Newt Gingrich and Republican strategists to defeat Democrats at the polls? Terms:
• Opposition using communication tools • Opposition using cable news networks • Bill Clinton and the election of 1992 • FCC "fairness doctrine" • Cable news strategy of Congressional conservatives In that 1994 election, Gingrich and his allies also had developed an effective media strategy that capitalized on the new 24-hour cable-based news media that formed after the creation of the cable station CNN in 1980. CNN had pioneered the constant 24- hour news presentation and ongoing news cycle. Prior to CNN, broadcast news had presented the news once in the evening, having all day to gather the news, check the facts, and edit the reports for best news quality. CNN, however, reported the news as it happened. Its producers were more willing to broadcast information quickly without tight editorial control. Thus, when congressmen or politicians gave interviews to CNN, they were assured that whatever they said would appear instantaneously. They would have editorial control, rather than the news organizations. Gingrich became especially adept at releasing information about congressional negotiations and scandalous accusations that entered into the media before opponents had a time to respond. Congressional Republicans also took advantage of another development. Since 1949, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had a regulation, called the "Fairness
Doctrine," that required television stations to present both sides in a political debate. In 1987, the FCC abandoned the regulation, allowing openly partisan programming on cable stations. Congressional Republicans coordinated messages with hosts on partisan forums, talk radio, and the new cable channel Fox News, created in 1996. Though they did not have the bully pulpit of the White House, Republicans could shape the agenda in Washington by coordinating the flow of information through these new media outlets. Newt Gingrich on Political Communication
The transformation of conservatism between the 1970s and 1990s was as important as the triumph of right-wing politics. Though many historians have traced the Age of Reagan and the shift of national politics in a rightward direction, what was equally important were the changes that occurred within the conservative movement during these years. As conservatives shifted from the politics of opposition to the politics of governance, they were forced to confront the persistence of liberal institutions, policies, and ideas, as well as the difficulty of
maintaining a broad governing coalition that was capable of winning presidential elections. Over time, much of the enthusiasm and energy that shaped conservatism dampened as presidents like Reagan confronted the obstacles of power. By the early 1990s, many conservatives shifted their energy away from the executive branch and toward legislative politics. In Congress, they were determined to use a more confrontational and partisan style of governance that would make compromise with Democrats more difficult and keep Republicans more aligned with the principles of the right. Prominent Conservative Leaders in the 2000s
Virginia Foxx
Wally Herger
Duncan Lee Hunter
Jon Kyl
Donald Young
Trent Lott
Rand Paul
John Boehner
Bobby Jindal
Michele Bachmann
Essay: The Conservative Turn, 1972-2000 Introduction
Transition from broad presidential goals to political ideas and ideology Strategies of obstructionism, procedural warfare, and communication Three critical moments: Heritage Foundation (1974); Reagan's
Reelection (1984); and Bush's broken promise not to raise taxes (1990)
Section 1: The Heritage Foundation, 1974
The marketplace of ideas Heritage Foundation Brookings Institution Paul Weyrich Ed Feulner Joseph Coors Think tank Current and relevant data to support legislation Heritage Foundation Resource Bank CATO Institute Ronald Reagan uses Heritage ideas in his radio talks
Section 2: The Reelection of Ronald Reagan, 1984
Ronald Reagan Walter Mondale Reagan's desire to cement a broad conservative coalition Proposal to cut Social Security Reagan's initial tough diplomatic approach moderates Federal deficit Roe v. Wade Religious leaders and social conservatives enter politics Jerry Falwell Henry Hyde Hyde Amendment Reagan actually did not restrict abortion Abortion as a court vs. legislative decision Tensions with Soviet Union escalate in 1983
Unemployment dropping in 1983 The non-specific campaign of 1984: "Morning in America" Congressional election in 1982 and 1984 Reagan appeal to white middle and working class Americans Democrats stress theme of "fairness" in 1984 Electoral college result in 1984 Reagan's reelection important to conservatives and they reserved their
criticism of his moderate turn Section 3: New Taxes, 1990
Conservative vs. moderate Republicans Dealing with the fiscal deficit in the 1980s Federal deficit as a percent of GDP "Read my lips! No new taxes!" Bush reversal on taxes Vote for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 Newt Gingrich Opposition using ethic rules Opposition using communication tools Opposition using cable news networks Bill Clinton and the election of 1992 FCC "fairness doctrine" Cable news strategy of Congressional conservatives
Lecture/Slides/Problems Lecture: Conservatism and the Politics of Foreign Policy, 1972-1980
Berlin Wall Détente Neo-conservatives Henry "Scoop" Jackson Legacy of Vietnam Soviet Jewry Jackson-Vanik Amendment "Most Favored Nation Status" The setback to détente in the Jackson-Vanik Amendment Human rights William Buckley Fall of Vietnam to communism (1975)
Alexander Solzhenitsyn Reagan foreign policy campaign issues Carter emphasizes human rights Zbigniew Brzezinski Human rights and left- and right-wing regimes Panama Canal and the end of the treaty Conservative organizations' opposition to Panama Canal Newt Gingrich SALT II Treaty Carter defeat and Democratic defeat in Congress Reagan takes up détente Reagan hawkish in first term Reagan-era defense budget buildup Mikhail Gorbachev responds to détente The reduction of nuclear stockpiles Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty 1987 (INF) Success of détente under an anti-détente Reagan
Problem: The Second Gilded Age
Second Gilded Age Top 1 percent of Americans Increasing inequality since 1975 The 1980s as a turning point
• Workers have to take different working circumstances (Work moves offshore to China)
• Unionization declines • Government policies become more regressive (Taxes on wealthy
drop in 1981)
Problem: The Rise in Incarceration
Expansion of prison population since 1970s Incarceration of African American men Law and order movement More money for police--not rehabilitation Drug laws in New York Privatization of prisons Communities where private prisons are located depend on them Percentage of federal prison population charged with drug offenses
