America's Conservative Dilemma
Can we preserve freedom and democracy 2025 and beyond?
Image by Rade Dr. from Pixabay
If you want to really understand the current miserable state of American politics - especially the continuing disgusting support for one Donald Piece-of-Shit Trump - we must take a close look at the Conservative Dilemma.
Especially the line going from Richard Nixon to Trump.
It's not what you may be thinking.
According to the following book, our current governmental problems are much broader than simply the malignant poison from the Orange Jesus. (The book doesn't use such language - that's mine.)
(NOTE: This book is copyrighted 2020, so it was probably written around 2018-2019, certainly before the 2020 election, the pandemic and January 6.)
Although it's apparently well-known in political science circles, somehow the rest of us, including the media, have been ignorant of the Conservative Dilemma.
We need to know this stuff.
I'm honestly not sure if it's hopeful or not. The problem with modern America is deeper than Trump, but, if that's true, so must be the solution.
Much as I pray Trump loses the 2024 election and goes to jail for life, that won't solve the deeper issues. It might turn down the volume of hatred - at least, after the MAGA Kool-Aid drinkers have stopped rioting - but that's not a permanent solution.
Implementing a healing solution to the current crisis won't be easy, even (or, especially) after we understand the problem.
It may be impossible. In which case, American democracy is doomed.
Yes, Trump - by himself - is not the real problem, so getting rid of him won't solve it.
(He's made it dramatically worse, but generations of neofascists (Republicans, White Supremacists and power-hungry evangelicals) have made it worse.
Of all people, Richard Nixon is the epitome of the Conservative Dilemma.
The Big Historical Picture
In general, for the sake of this book and its arguments, what we mean by "conservative" revolves around “conserving” your own property, money, wealth and political power.
From our emergence from hunting and gathering to agriculture around 10,000 years ago, almost all of our wealth has come directly or indirectly from land.
We need land to raise food crops.
Land is the basis of almost all economic, political and military power.
Until relatively recently in history (1776), that power was 100% rigid and authoritarian.
80% of humanity consisted of peasants who answered to their local lord or noble.
Who answered to higher nobles, up to the king or emperor.
When Europeans began colonizing, they behind countries where wealth was highly unequal. The aristocracy of all European countries had spent over one thousand years consolidating their land and its resulting power.
European elites controlled just about everything. Peasants? Let them eat cake!
But in the Western Hemisphere, Australia and New Zealand where they settled, they started out more or less equal.
Eventually, of course, some settlers were more successful than others at acquiring land and wealth - and, of course, slaves were at the bottom.
By the 1800s, industrialization began pushing much of the New World and Europe to change.
For the first time in human history, factories became great creators of nonland-based wealth and social change.
During the 19th century, democracy spread from the US to many other countries, especially those industrializing - threatening the traditional, land-based wealth of the aristocracies.
That's the great challenge of this historical period (which we're still in.).
Expanding democracy directly conflicts with the entrenched interests of rich conservatives.
Conservatives:
* Currently hold economic and political power - and want to keep it despite changes in technology, society and politics
* Own lots of land and/or industrial capacity
* Own most of the money and control of society - and like it that way
* Want to own even more money
* Want NO restrictions on what they do to make money
They want to pay workers as little as possible for as much work as possible. So, they hate minimum wage laws and unions.
They don't want health and safety regulations.
They don't want ecological restrictions - for the safety of their workers or the general environment.
They don't want restrictions on the product prices they set or how they conduct business.
* They want to control the government as much as possible
That means they don't want the government to help ordinary people. Once upon a time, they at least supported the military and the Post Office. Now they hate the Post Office, and don't want to use the military to project American power outside the country.
* They want social stability because violence and crime are bad for business.
Democracy
In general, ordinary working and middle class people want - and vote for:
* Higher wages
* Lower taxes for ordinary people, higher taxes for the wealthy
* Social stability
* Letting more people vote
* More environmental restrictions to protect their air, food and water
* Unions and stronger labor laws
* Restrictions on monopolies and other uncompetitive commercial business practices
In short, there are many obvious conflicts of interest between the entrenched power of the plutocracy (conservatives) and ordinary people (who are at least 90% of the voters).
(One reason I love this book is that it's the first one I've read on this subject to freely use the word 'plutocracy.')
The Conflict is Not insurmountable
On the surface, we're fighting over the same pieces of pie.
This book points out, however, that historically the most prosperous, free and powerful countries got that way by achieving a healthy balance between the needs of the wealthy elites and ordinary people.
The authors give one great example, and one example of a country that got the Conservative Dilemma disastrously wrong.
Let's remember that, according to this book - and it makes great sense - it's conservative political parties that are hit by the Conservative Dilemma.
Because they represent the wealthy, powerful elites of a country, they tend to oppose anything from the government they believes reduces their money and power.
But in a democracy, they must contend for political office by winning elections.
Winning elections requires getting a majority of votes.
There’re a lot more ordinary people than rich.
More power and money for us - the super-rich . . . that's not such a popular platform to win votes from ordinary people.
By definition, the wealthiest 1% of citizens are also just 1% of the voters.
As the authors point out, the truly powerful are the 0.01% of superrich Americans.
They support "conservatism," but can't win elections by themselves.
To win elections, conservatives must convince some nonrich people to vote for their candidates. To do that, they must give up some control, and accept some degree of compromise.
They don't like it, but it's necessary.
Best Example
England.
The Tory Conservative Party is the Conservative Dilemma’s biggest success.
During the 19th century, they gradually let their Liberals - and then Labour - win some battles.
The result? The largest empire in history, victory in two world wars, recovering from World War II to become one of the world's wealthiest countries - after letting go of their colonies.
Biggest Failure of the Conservative Dilemma
Can't you figure it out?
Germany.
That country became a democracy only after losing World War I.
The Weimar Republic was a highly unstable democracy consisting of many conservative elements who hated it, wanting to return to the good old days of the monarchy - a Kaiser.
Germany is a great example of what can go wrong when conservatives refuse to co-exist with democracy.
People are going to vote anyway.
If conservatives refuse to give them a reason to vote for the conservative party, ordinary voters will vote for another party.
This created political space for Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.
They LOVED participation of the masses (except Jews, of course).
That's why the Nazis weren't really “conservative” in the traditional sense of the word.
Hitler used wealthy people, but he hated them. He didn't want to be just another politician sucking up to the rich while ignoring the ordinary people.
He enlisted the ordinary people to put him into power, to make Germany Great Again - then screwed over just about everybody.
The wealthy German industrialists and landed aristocracy of 1933 thought they could control the former corporal.
Obviously, they were wrong.
What's Richard Nixon Got to Do With All This?
It may seem strange now, but when I was growing up, the entire South of the United States was solidly - and I do mean SOLIDLY - Democratic.
Not 'liberal,' but certainly Democratic.
Democratic politicians - of all kinds - relied on Southern votes to win national elections. For about 40 years, Eisenhower was the only Republican candidate to win the presidency. And Democrats mostly controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The states south of the Mason-Dixon Line held a grudge against Abraham Lincoln for around 100 years for not letting them secede and keep their slaves .
But in the 1960's, the Civil Rights movement influenced enough (Northern) Democrats to make Southern politicians reconsider their party allegiance.
They began looking at the calendar, realized both Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War were 100 years in the past, and the modern Republican Party was nothing like the Republican Party of 1861.
To win in 1972, President Nixon consciously pursued what’s known as the "Southern strategy."
Many Southern, Midwestern and other working class whites were attracted to voting for modern Republicans because they were racist, and (Northern) Democrats were supporting Civil Rights.
This strategy's been working ever since.
Democrat "Dixiecrats" switched parties, so Fox’s Sean (“Terrible American”) Hannity could claim the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with Republican votes.
(True, but may of those Dixiecrat politicians who voted against the Civil Rights Act soon switched parties, finding the modern Republican Party much friendlier to racism than the Democratic Party.)
What's really interesting is, Nixon realized those same white racist voters still wanted ECONOMIC liberalism.
So, he extended the modern liberal federal government by taking the responsibility for old age, blind and disability welfare assistance from the states. He passed Title 16 of the Social Security Act, creating the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
In response to growing national awareness of ecological problems, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
He also did other things Republicans of 2024 would HATE - such as declaring the War on Cancer.
Nixon resolved the Conservative Dilemma by:
1. Getting votes by appealing to the racism of many whites.
2. Buying voters by giving them SOME economic power and freedom, but not as much as Democratic "liberals" would.
Win/Win, right?
The ultrarich got a somewhat limited liberal government.
White voters got to express their tribal hatreds.
It was also Lose/Lose, right?
The ultrarich didn't get the unlimited economic and political power they wanted.
Nixon still had the nerve to tax them - and send out SSI checks to desperately poor people.
Working and middle class white people got economically shafted by the ultrarich, but didn't - and still don't - realize how much the ultrarich are playing them the fools they are.
Meanwhile, far rightwing ideological "conservatives" were on the move.
These included my old neighbor, Phyllis Schlafly, who wrote and privately published her book A CHOICE NOT AN ECHO to support Senator Barry Goldwater's presidential run.
That didn't fare well. In 1964. President Lyndon Johnson beat Senator Goldwater by a landslide.
But that didn't stop young conservative baby boomers (the New Right instead of the New Left), libertarians and Ayn Randians from organizing.
The Trend Continues
President Reagan pursued his own Southern Strategy.
Plus, he went directly after unions in ways Nixon would not have.
I can personally attest that the Social Security Commissioner Reagan appointed, Dorcus Hardy, was the most HATED - not simply disliked, but HATED - by employees SSA Commissioner during my 30 years at the agency.
Reagan said it was okay not to pay income taxes.
He declared government the problem, not the solution.
(To what? It didn't matter. To Reagan and other "conservatives" who want to destroy the public's faith in our government, government was the problem because it defended the rights of people who aren't rich.)
When Congress limited aid to anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua, Reagan used Colonel Oliver North to raise money for them in secret - in an unconstitutional abuse of power.
President George H. W. Bush raised some taxes on the superrich in 1990, and that's the last time a Republican president has dared to do so.
His tax raises were only for the ultrawealthy, but the news would have you believe he stole food from your children's mouths. So he went down to defeat in 1992.
Other Republican presidents learned the lesson, including his son George W.
Contract on America
When Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, he began practicing the politics of vengeance.
He never got along with President Clinton as President Reagan got along with Tip O'Neil. Every Democrat and every Republican who didn't toe the line - HIS line - got treated as an enemy.
Rightwing Media
In the late 80's, Rush Limbaugh started the conservative radio business. Later, Rupert Murdoch started Fox News.
This kicked off the conservative media environment. Millions of Americans now watch and listen to them every day.
It's not just how much they lie - it's how they encourage hatred against everybody they identify as a liberal or Democrat.
Or as a Republican-in-Name-Only.
These "commentators" attacked everybody who didn't toe the party line.
NOT the Republican Party line - the conservative media circus party line.
Trump and his MAGA goons did NOT start the practice of far rightwing neofascist Republicans stabbing halfway responsible Republicans in the back for any display of human decency or common sense or - especially - interest in the welfare of Americans as a whole.
That started with Rush and Fox.
In 2016, my favorite conservative radio host, Michael Medved, broke with the pack, refusing to support Trump for president.
As a result, he got the boot.
He’s now the only one I retain any respect for.
By the Time We Reach 2016
Republican voters have been primed by the extremist media they listen to and watch to hate everybody who's in favor of real democracy.
That is, the "traditional, county-club" Republicans who believed in fiscal responsibility, law and order and our current government under the Constitution.
Republican voters hate the "fake" mainstream media they've been brainwashed into believing is controlled by liberals.
They hate anyone who stands up for minority rights: African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, immigrants, LGBTQ and others.
So, it's "okay" with them for Florida Governor DeSanctimonious to replace serious textbooks on American history with ones that say slavery was beneficial to the slaves because some slaves learned blacksmithing.
We don't want "Critical Race Theory," now, do we? Heavens to Betsy, no, that's for them Democrat liberals.
(What is CRT? I haven't had time to learn. I just know that if Republicans hate it, I'm for it. Besides, I bet 98% of the anti-CRT crowd don’t know what it is either. They just know they’ve been told it’s liberal.)
Also, Republicans think DeSanctimonious is great for hating the LGBTQ community. He passed a law against saying "gay," and laws persecuting trans children for being who they are.
Trump voters have been convinced everything they hate about the economy is the fault of "liberals."
Ordinary People are Getting Royally Screwed Over - and Love It
The proportion of the nation's wealth held by the top 1% has RISEN from around 11% in 1980 to 20% in 2016.
The proportion of the nation's wealth held by the bottom 50% has FALLEN from around 21% in 1980 to 13% in 2016.
In America today, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is extremely wide - looking more like Ruzzia than the world's greatest democracy should.
Yet, despite all this, his white racist base still wants Trump back in office.
When he announced recently he'd be a dictator "for a day," the audience cheered.
WTF?
If you want to live under a dictator, go to Ruzzia.
Trying to Sum Up
Just to be clear:
The "conservative" ultrarich want all the material and economic goodies for themselves.
NOT for you and I, ordinary people.
But ordinary people FAR outnumber the ultrarich. Therefore, we have many more votes.
Therefore, to get what they want in a democracy, they need to convince ordinary people to vote AGAINST their own economic self-interest.
In America, they have succeeded to an incredible extent.
Probably far more than they hoped back when advising President Nixon to pursue that Southern strategy.
They have demonized "government" so much that Republican protestors carry signs reading: "Keep the government's hands off Medicare."
They're so brainwashed they don't even realize Medicare comes from the government.
In fact, from those very liberals they've been trained to hate so much.
Just wait until their Republican political buddies start cutting Social Security and Medicare because the rich people whose asses they kiss hate it (and, yes, radical rightwingers DO want to get rid of both programs).
But they won't be able to do anything about it, because if the Republicans get their way, we'll no longer have meaningful elections.
Looking at 2024
Barring some major surprise, Donald Trump is once again going to be the Republican Party candidate for President.
His voters don't get that, if returned to power, Trump will screw them over massively.
They don't care.
Many Americans hate welfare benefits, associating them with poor black "freeloaders."
But they accept tax deductions for vacation homes for the rich, although most of us can't afford vacation homes.
According to polls, Southern voters are actually more economically liberal than Northern voters.
But, given a choice between racist poverty and nonracist prosperity, they choose the racism over their own bank accounts.
According to this book's authors, in the 2016 election Trump performed best in geographic areas with high unemployment, slow job growth, low incomes and poor overall health.
In fact, the greatest predictor of Trump's electoral success in any given county was its rate of premature death among middle-aged whites. This includes suicide plus alcoholism and substance abuse.
Many of Trump's diehard supporters are profoundly unhappy people searching for a champion to save them from the consequences of an economy with high and growing higher inequality.
Trump promised a lot to these people, but delivered very little in the way of material help, yet they still blame the libs, just as Fox News, Breitbart, OAN and other rightwing media tell them to.
These people are justified in feeling economically insecure, but the Republicans tell them to blame "liberals" and immigration, so they vote for Republicans.
Let the rich eat your breakfast, lunch and dinner - then blame the liberals because you’re hungry.
Limbaugh, Fox News and the rest of rightwing media have convinced them that when Trump takes over again, they'll once again be in charge - as they were in the 1950's, before liberals "imposed" the Civil Rights Act on the country.
As Single "Issues," Republican/Plutocrat Priorities are HIGHLY Unpopular With Ordinary People
Look at abortion. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, large majorities of voters in such deep red states as Kansas have, when asked, voted FOR a woman's right to choose.
Other examples include overturning the Affordable Care Act (which would have been a disaster to impoverished whites in many red states and counties), raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting taxes on the rich, busting unions, de-regulating industries, allowing more pollution - all issues the plutocrats love and support, but ordinary Americans hate.
Yet, when faced with voting for a politician who advocates all of the above, they pull the trigger for that politician who loves what they hate.
The real danger of American government is that so many politicians represent the superwealthy donor class, not ordinary Americans - and ordinary Americans let them get away with it.
If January 6 Didn't Wake You Up, You Should Move to Ruzzia
So it doesn't even matter to them that Trump tried to overthrow our democratic government.
The polls say senior Americans are most "conservative."
I don't get that. I'm a baby boomer, and I was absolutely taught to believe in America, its ideals of freedom and equality, and to support the Constitution.
It's why our parents fought World War II.
If they'd wanted a racist dictatorship, they could have joined Nazi Germany.
The Big Fear of the 1950's and '60's was the communists using violence to take over the United States government.
I truly don't understand why or how anybody who considers themselves an American patriot can support the man who DID try to violently overthrow the government.
The attempted coup d'etat of January 6 convinced me Trump was a wannabe dictator, not anybody I could support for President.
And I haven't even mentioned Trump's many legal trials.
Yet his supporters - who claim to be patriots - ignore how he stole thousands of government documents, including some highly classified.
Oh, we're "patriotic," but it's okay for the Orange Neofascist to steal important, highly classified secrets.
That's "fake news."
That's how American plutocrats are looking to resolve the Conservative Dilemma - by destroying democracy.
Then they'll be able to do what they want - like Nazis during the Third Reich.
They don't even have to "win" the election.
They don't care about the votes of the rest of us - ordinary people who respect the government and value our freedom.
I have no doubt that if Trump loses - as I absolutely pray he does - there'll be violence.
His fanatical supporters are already preparing another, more wide-spread and organized January 6 insurrection to make Trump dictator for life.
I simply hope it'll be short-lived and contained, not too many people will die, and as a country we'll get through this.
The Republican Party's Response to the Conservative Dilemma is Simple
1. Convince white voters to hate people of color more than they want to not lose economic power.
2. Once the rich are completely in charge, screw over everybody else.
Voting will be one more right Americans now take for granted, but which Trump and his superrich allies will steal from us.
Republicans Kissing Wealthy Ass Didn't Start With Trump, and Won't Stop Even If He's Defeated
The takeaway:
Any and every vote for a Republican is a vote for bigotry, white supremacy and the wealthy who want to enslave the rest of America.
That's true no matter how "nice" or "moderate" you want to think they are.
Just today, they ALL voted to investigate a Biden impeachment even though they have ZERO evidence Biden committed any impeachable offense.
It's just a waste-of-time, Big Lie political stunt - and they know it.
Trump was impeached twice, and Republicans don't care about that, so their hypocrisy stinks.
Will Demographics Save Us?
In the book's conclusion, the authors discuss the history of Republicans in California.
It's hard to remember now, but, just as the South used to be entirely Democratic, California used to be a Republican stronghold. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon both started there.
But its population is changing:
* More Hispanics and Asians
* More young people
* More college-educated people
* More people living in cities
* More LGBTQ people
* More anti-religious or belong to a NON-Evangelical Christian denomination
Most such people hate the Republican, Trumpist agenda.
The Republicans and Trump are relying on rural, older, white, straight-identified, evangelicals who didn't graduate from college and who don’t belong to a union.
Guess what? They're dying off. Usually, dead people don't vote. (Although in 2024 some probably will.)
Although California is ahead of the rest of the country, the same demographic trends are underway everywhere.
Sadly, the author say it won't be that simple - and analyze how the Constitution is now badly tilted to favor the party capturing the rural vote.
Their Proposed Solution
Defeat Trumpism electorally so badly that the wealthy elites are forced to recognize the legitimate needs of all Americans - and respond to them.
Of course, Trump lost in 2020, but what's going to happen in 2024?
Plus, I'd guess, they mean defeating Trumpism also means defeating his MAGA supporters such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan and the whole ugly, evil crew of crazies who love to lick Trump's dirty filthy asshole.
Then we need to enact needed political reforms to protect democracy.
And also address the economic inequality that is ripping America to shreds.
America or Trump
Here's a terrific short video from the Lincoln Project that sums up how I view next year's presidential election.
P.S - Before you accuse me of being a "liberal" or other inaccurate political label, I just say:
In 2020, I voted for all the R's on the ballot, including the Orange Neofascist.
It's the stupidest thing I've done in my life - and that's saying a lot.
I won't make the same mistake twice.
I'm on the side of America, equal rights for all and democracy.
Trump hates all three.
My widowed mother's investments enabled her to live a comfortable lifestyle for over 50 years, beating the pants off the Wall Street gurus even though she couldn't have read a balance sheet to save her life.
Find out how.
Check out my Income Investing Secrets book right now
Email marketer & copywriter now available to help great businesses grow 2X or more - despite the coming deluge of AI-generated crud - by treating prospects and customers as real people