Customer Reviews

The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America

5 star:		(44)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book is fascinating, but it's also frustrating in many ways. Micklethwaite and Wooldridge are two Oxford-educated Brits who have done a lot of traveling and work (they are writers for The Economist) in the States. The book bills itself as a primer for explaining the conservative movement and its ascendancy to a European audience, so the criticisms from some reviews here that the book doesn't seem to know what it wants to be or that it will seem simplistic to Americans are off-base: the book is not structured as an in-depth scholarly treatment of the history of US conservative politics.

The main political and historical points that the authors make, including a concise and informative summary of the movement's history and several well-considered theories about why conservatism has become the winning argument in the US, are strong, although they tend toward an overreliance on already-established work done by the likes of Seymour Martin Lipset. On the other hand, culturally, the authors tend to be somewhat typically British in their condescension. They profess to love the friendliness and bonhomie of the fly-over states, but they never hesitate to poke fun at the "fact" that there are so many fat people living in them (and so many thin ones in the blue states). The final section of the book starts out with a grandiose contrast between "Hastertland" -- the Speaker of the House's Congressional district in northern Illinois -- and "Pelosiland" -- basically all of San Francisco -- that is so stereotypical and inaccurate that it borders on the asinine. All told, the book is well worth reading, because it has a lot of value to say about why conservatism, contrary to the views of numerous mainstream poitical pundits, is not a passing fad, but it's also got some significant flaws.

I walked through the current-events section of a brick-and-mortar bookstore recently and was amazed by the mass of anti-Bush books on the shelves. They're everywhere. A cottage industry. If the Clinton-haters dialed into talk radio, the Bush-haters are all hunched over their keyboards, pouring their spleen onto the page.

It's a little discouraging, then, that this great book -- "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" -- should come out in the midst of all this noise. My fear is that people will see it as just one more "exposé" of the evil right-wingers and their malevolent influence on the country.

If that's what you're looking for, you're bound to be disappointed. This is, in fact, a thoroughly researched and marvelously fair look at the rise of conservatism as a political force in America. More than that, it's a fascinating look at why America is a fundamentally conservative place, and why even liberal Democrats -- on the far Left by U.S. standards -- would be centrists, or even conservatives themselves, in Europe. While this last may be an unpleasant idea for the American Left to have to entertain, even readers on that side of the political spectrum will find a lot in here to recommend it.

Especially useful, I thought, was the authors' discussion of the true role and influence of the much-maligned neo-conservatives. Far from their alleged role as the dark masterminds behind unilateralism, preemption, and other Bad Things in American foreign policy, Micklethwait and Wooldridge argue that (a) the neo-cons are less influential than popularly imagined, and (b) that Bush's decisions and policies are consistent with the broad range of conservative opinion, not the product of an obscure Straussian corner of it. With all the hysterical attention given to the neo-cons these days, this part of M&W's discussion struck me as refreshingly calm and reasonable.

With the analytical distance that comes from not being Americans themselves, Micklethwait and Wooldridge have keen insights into the successes and failures, the good and the bad, of American conservatism. And while their work is insightful and thorough, it's also well written, engrossing, and even, from time to time, flat-out funny. Its polished prose makes it easy to read, and the balance of personalities and issues keeps it from getting mired down in obscure policy debates or analysis of election returns. I was fortunate to be able to dive into its pages for hours at a time, and seldom found myself bored or skimming.

From the vast sea of ink spilled on the Iraq War, the American Empire, Halliburton, Karl Rove, the neo-cons, Texas, and other evils -- plus George W. Bush's apparent ability to be simultaneously bottomlessly stupid and an evil genius -- every so often, a real gem floats to the surface. "The Right Nation" is one of those gems. Scoop it up and enjoy it.

An avid reader and student of American politics, particularly the conservative movement, I was excited to see this book and hesitate to give it a negative review, since it is so very fair to its subject. But I found it limited and superficial.

First, some good points. The book treats conservatism and conservatives very objectively--without any kind of arrogance or condescension or venom. They approach conservatism seriously and treat it as a legitimate political philosophy held by intelligent people. Neither are they uncritical. Flaws and errors are outlined, and the authors are particularly harsh on John Ashcroft. The book's main arguments are especially interesting: that conservatism is what makes American unique; that the process works the other way and American exceptionalism gives American conservatism its distinctive character (and sharply distinguishes it from European conservatism); that conservatism triumphed mainly through demography (specifically the shift west and south), intellectuals/think tanks, and foot soldiers/grassroots; and that the US is and will remain an essentially conservative nation, no matter who is elected in 2004.

Ultimately, though, the book is superficial. The best part of the book is its first section that chronicles the roots of the conservative movement in the 1950s. Not only highly readable, it gives a very nice summary of that period, touching on the key names (like Kirk, Hayek, Rand, and Buckley) and providing some colorful anecdotes (like Albert Jay Nock's penchant for capes). Still, those versed in the movement's history--particularly those who have read Nash's superb Conservative Intellectual Movement in America--will find nothing new here and will most likely be frustrated by how much the authors gloss over, such as the fusion of traditionalism and libertarianism (which they attribute to William F. Buckley without mentioning Frank Meyer) or how conservatives shunned the Birchers.

After the history lesson, the book discusses the conservative present and future, loses much of its focus, and starts to digress and repeat points that were previously reviewed (including an almost verbatim repetition of a six-point summary of Burke's philosophy). It is at this point that the authors move from ideas to politics, which is logical since the book is about "conservative power" and conservatives gain power through politics. But too frequently, the authors seem implicitly to conflate conservatism with the Republican Party. Certainly, the GOP is home to most conservatives, and we surely have some form of *Republican* power today, holding all three branches of government and evidenced by the red-blue map, but it is debatable whether Republican governance, and the Bush administration specifically, represents *conservative* power. This should have been discussed.

The book was clearly written for those unfamiliar with the conservative movement and American politics, if the basic descriptions of American government are any indication (did you know each state has two senators and that this gives small, rural states as much or more power than larger states?). As an introduction, then, to American conservatism and political beliefs, this book is excellent. And because it is so fair, it is a much-need corrective for those inclined toward simplistic and stereotypical views of conservatism. But those well-versed in the history and ways of the American Right might want to look elsewhere.

This is a very interesting, very well written, and researched book. It investigates why the Right and extreme Right political movement in America has a disproportionate influence on the Nation's politics.

The authors make a strong case that this movement's success is in part due to its focus on simple values that are easy to understand and sell. How can one debate the benefits of free capitalism? If you don't accept them move to Russia don't you. How can one debate family values? That is like attacking Santa Claus. You just can't do that.

However, the unquestioned acceptance of such basic principles get extrapolated into often unreasonable ideological extremes. The free capitalism bit quickly turns out into a libertarian anti-government and anti-tax movement no matter what the circumstances. Similarly, the family value ethos sounds fine by itself, but it often turns into a religious anti abortion crusade unique within the Western World. Thus, the Right becomes pretty quickly the extreme Right whenever it's resulting beliefs are extrapolated to the max, and are compared not only to Democrats but to any other Western country.

The authors make the surprising finding that the most reliable indicator of one's party affiliation is not income, but instead church attendance. You thought that Islam was a religious culture and America a secular one. It is not so simple. The Democrats only represent the secular component of our culture; the Republicans are very religious.

The authors further state that the Right is very well organized, well funded, and brain-powered. Indeed, the authors mention several prominent economic think tanks who have direct access to our conservative White House and make a relentless case for continuing tax cuts. These cuts could eventually cause the demise of Medicare and Social Security that are so unfunded it is scary.

The authors suggest that the Liberals have not focused on certain issues as effectively as the Right. Even though they may dominate the media [Liberals] they have not mounted effective rebuttals to some of the Right's arguments.

The author also make a funny case that as more people live in planned communities they become anti-government oriented. This is because they pay for many local services out of homeowners dues. Even though they may have a case, my firsthand experience having lived in a condominium association for nearly 20 years is that such shared living arrangements are hotbeds of socialism thinking. Yes, they maybe anti-government to some degree, but the condominium association has become a de facto substitute for a paternalistic and socialist government Scandinavian style. In such living arrangement, homeowners do not want to assume the economic risk and responsibility of homeownership anymore. They expect to transfer all related costs onto the condominium association whether this makes any sense or not. So, are these planned communities hotbed of conservatism. It really depends how you look at it. For my part, I really don't think so. Besides this one rebuttal, I agree with most other more important themes conveyed within this book.

To complement this book, I also recommend Stanley Greenberg's excellent book: "The Two Americas, Our Current Political Deadlock and How To Break It." Also, a few recent articles fit right in with this intellectual investigation of our electorate. One of them is "In Search of the Elusive Swing Voter" by Joshua Green in the January/February issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The other one is "Eatanswill revisited" a special report in The Economist of January 31st, 2004. Informed with this new information, you will find the Presidential Election the most fascinating media event for the remainder of the Year.

A truly innovative read, and I wanted to give this book a 4.5 star rating, but that's not possible. The half star deduction was for what I consider some minor points in a subjective work. The authors present a lucid and interesting series of observations on just what makes the US different in it's domestic politics from other western countries, as well as the rest of the world.

While most of the observations are accurate in my experience, the authors (who are british) due tend to get a little preachy about things they don't agree with in the US, but it's pretty subtly done as well. Particuarly, some of their views on American capitalism is a bit uninformed in my opinion, or maybe they have their own British prejudices towards "economic justice", although I consider that unlikely.

Regardless, the scope of the book ranges from history of the foundation of the American political system, the present administration, American culture and attitudes, economic and sociological trends, as well as the theoretical underpinnings of the US constitution and the reasons such agressive capitalism isn't just tolerated, but encouraged so much in the US when it is more constrained in other developed countries.

Some of the insights and theories are presented clearly and thoroughly, as well as comparisons with other states and observations by indivudals associated with a related cause or ideology. In fact, the best part of the book, was the detailed analysis and breakdown of America's particular brand of conservatism (as a hybrid of classical conservatism and classical liberalism), which was very much on the money as far as I am concerned. The section on future trends was quite revealing as well, and one can only hope, we (as a country) avoid the potholes in the road of progress that the authors have noted to lie before us.

In summation, an excellent and informative book which should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand the US conservative phenomena in more detail.

I wonder if previous reviewer WA Franklin read the same book as I did. The authors neither demonize nor sanitize the conservative movement in America. From their lucid, interesting, and fairminded treatment comes a portrait of America as culturally and psychologically different from other countries. Especially interesting is the authors' backward glances at Edmund Burke and their explanations of what Americans took from Burkean conservatism (suspicion of the state, liberty over equality, patriotism) and what they have abandoned (established hierarchies, elitism, and skepticism toward the idea of progress). Nowhere do the authors suggest that the "I've got mine, Jack" attitude is the defining feature of American conservatism.

The most revealing aspect of the reviews here is that the negative ones are from people who object to the trends this book recounts, rather than to the analysis per se. But whatever your politics, this is an outstanding dissection of the political right in America -- of its components today, how they developed and coalesced, and their context in the world and US history.

_The Right Nation_ situates the development of the right in the generally conservative tendency of American political history: our government has always been smaller with less intervention in business and social institutions, and less redistribution, than that of peer nations. Even our New Deal and Great Society, the height of the American left, were small and conservative in international terms. But after several decades of Democratic dominance, the left cashed in a little too hard on the dismal Republican failures that led to Democratic realignment in 1932. This is best exemplified by the nomination of George McGovern for president in 1972, though the weight of this burden on the Democratic party was obscured for a short time by another Republican disaster in Watergate.

The constituent parts of contemporary conservatism -- social and economic -- took note. For very different reasons, the social conservatives, especially religious and Southern voters, anti-tax, pro-business interests, and a growing intellectual wing of the conservative movement (nurtured by a few extremely wealthy "eccentrics" unhappy with the Democratic party and the formerly dominant "country club" Republicans), began coalescing against the agenda of the Democratic party. Barry Goldwater has gone from a political pariah demolished in the 1964 presidential election to a symbol for a movement, a man ahead of his time.

More fundamental than the overreach of the Democrats in causing this, however, is simple demography in the US -- the population continues to shift south and west, to areas populated with highly religious, socially conservative voters with a strong taste for liberal gun ownership laws and little reason to look for coalitions, let alone social cues, across the Atlantic. It is this continuing shift that has made a conservative nation even more exceptional, and that controls political positioning whether Republicans continue to win elections or not.

Whether you cheer for these developments or not, the authors of _The Right Nation_ are the messengers. Perhaps it says something about their effectiveness in crystallizing these trends that opponents of them transfer their anger to the book itself.

This review is late in the season as far as the 2004 campaign goes, but it is an important read for anyone interested in our political landscape. As with de Tocqueville, it takes someone with "another perspective" to appreciate what we have. This book explains very well -- and not in an adversial or promotional way - where our politics have arrived. And why Democrats are so intent on defeated "W." And why our so-called "allies" in Europe are so lukewarm. I recommend this book highly, although some convservatives may not care for some of its observations.

This survey of the American political battleground and its soldiers is wonderfully insightful, amusing, and (for all Democrats) scary indeed. I have followed national politics for many years but got so many new insights into the conservative movement and its impact on the political events of our time. The validation of their assessments is that the book was written earlier this year (2004) but all the post-election analyses turn out to just affirm what these guys said earlier. They have the objectivity of a deToqueville but with a good splash of humor. I was originally struck by a review of this book in which they claimed that a Kerry win would just be a temporary delay in the national move to the right. They believe that the Democratic party today can best be characterized as that of the philosophy of "Eisenhower Republicans". I think they are right. Progressive Democrats, we have a truly uphill fight ahead of us! Read this book!

The central premise of The Right Nation is that the current Republican ascendence is no accident of electoral politics but part of a larger historical trend. The authors foresee an America that will continue to be more culturally conservative than its European allies and ever more unilateral in its dealings with the rest of the world.

The two British authors report on the US scene for the Economist magazine and they come across as cleared-eyed, disinterested observers of American culture. If they don't worship America, they seem at least bemused by it, and willing to grant us our good points. They back up their opinions with lots of facts and a solid understanding of American history. The book is easy to read, written in the same breezy and knowledgeable style you'll find in the Economist.

Seen from the European perspective, Americans appear both more religious and more heartless than other nations. Many more Americans than Europeans go to church on a regular basis. But Americans are far more willing to let the poor and ill fend for themselves, and our rabid support of the death penalty seems barbaric to almost every other Christian nation. Since America now spends far more on military technology than the rest of the world, we should only get more tone deaf regarding multilateral foreign policy initiatives: with God on our side and more guns than anyone else, will we really care what the French think?

Like diligent anthropologists, the authors track down the tribal structures of American conservatism. From think tanks and foundations that formulate new policy initiatives, to the media outlets that publicize them, down to the foot soldiers out in the sun-kissed suburban precincts, conservative Republicans have assembled a disciplined, well-run political organization. Even though this book was written before the 2004 election, its insights about the Republican machine were amply borne out by the way Republican partisans out-thought, out-worked, and out-organized their Democratic opponents.

Part of the Republican rise can be attributed to demographic trends. The South defected to the Republicans after Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act in the sixties. The new exurban communities of the West have always been more receptive to the Republican message. Blue collar workers in the Midwest defected to the Republicans over cultural issues, even to the point of voting against their economic self interests. This grouping of Americans, combined with the rural Midwest and West, has enough mass under the American electoral system to outweigh the votes of urban liberals on both coasts.

As the authors repeatedly point out, liberals no longer set the intellectual agenda in America. Instead they react to conservative ideas on the economy, the military, the role of religion in American life and how big the federal government should be. But if Republicans are now the party of new ideas, many of these ideas are contradictory. This is a political party that talks about getting government off the backs of the people while racking up record deficits, assaulting basic civil rights and force feeding right wing religious values into the political sphere. The authors wonder whether the Republican Party might split along the fault lines of its competing interest groups: it takes a mighty big tent to encompass grizzled libertarians in the Idaho hills, Arnold Schwarzenegger and right wing evangelicals of the John Ashcroft ilk.

One of the book's more striking insights comes near the end, when the authors compare Democrat Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district with Republican Dennis Hastert's Illinois district. Pelosi's domain comes across as more class-conscious, politically gridlocked and disorderly than Hastert's. Despite the many charms of San Francisco, "Hastertland" - egalitarian, pro-growth, religious and orderly - seems to be where most Americans would choose to live. Republicans are more successful than Democrats because their message better resonates with the cultural aspirations of the American people - we seem to want a government that allows us to get ahead, and then protects us from people who resemble us before we got respectable.

If you're a conservative Republican, you already know what's in this book - and you'll feel proud of what you've managed to accomplish since the Goldwater debacle of 1964. If you're on the other side, the authors have given you a wake up call - you're beginning to look a lot like those 1960s Republicans: outflanked, outmoded and out of touch.