The Triumph of Conservatism

Kevin Drum makes quick work of the latest nonsense from David Brooks by, gasp, actually using research and data:
I don't want to wade into this argument right now except to make one point: any essay about the triumph of conservatism is bankrupt unless it takes into account the two charts above. What they show is simple:
  • Conservatives have outnumbered liberals for a long time, and that hasn't changed much in the past three decades. In 1976, they were ahead 31% to 18%. Today they're ahead 33% to 18%.

  • At the same time, Southern conservatives have left the Democratic party in droves. In 1976 Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 23 points. Today they lead by only 5 points.
For now, that's the only point I want to make: the past three decades haven't seen a conservative triumph. They've seen a Republican triumph. Anyone who tries to make a point about the health and vitality of conservatism without taking into account both Southern abandonment of the Democratic party and the astonishing stability of liberal-conservative self-identification over the past half century is talking through their hat.
Of course, Drum is absolutely right. The number of conservatives in the country has not changed. Harris actually provides a decade-by-decade table of ideological self-identification to demonstrate this:
	   Con	    Mod      Lib
1970's	    32	     40       18
1980's	    36	     40       18
1990's	    38	     41       18
2000's	    35	     40       18
If there is any change at all, conservatism has actually declined slightly from its peak in the mid-1990's. Basically, however, there has been no change whatsoever in ideological self-identification over the past twenty-five years.

However, this is not to belittle how the American government has become, in many ways, far more conservative than it was thirty years ago. In this way, conservatives have indeed triumphed. The cause of this has been our slow drift toward two ideological coalitions, as more and more liberals vote for Democrats and more and more conservatives vote for Republicans. Just take a look at the share of the two-party vote among liberals and conservatives in Presidential Elections since 1976:

Liberal Two-Party Vote
     '76  '80	'84  '88  '92  '96  '00    '04
Dem   74   68	71   82   83   87   86	 85
Rep   26   32	29   18   17   14   14	 13

Conservative Two-Party Vote
     '76  '80	'84  '88  '92  '96  '00    '04
Dem   30   24	18   19   22   22   17	 16
Rep   70   76	82   81   78   78   82	 84
Democrats have lost half of their support among conservatives, while Republicans have lost half of their support among liberals. Because of the size gap between liberals and conservatives, this means that Democrats have lost around 5.0% of the population, while gaining 2.5%. By contrast, Republicans have lost around 2.5% of the population, while gaining 5.0%, for an overall swing of 2.5%. What was the margin between Bush and Kerry again?

In short, Brooks could not possibly be more wrong. The reason conservatives have triumphed is not because they argue with one another, but because they have united their vote like never before.



Display:


Ezra Klein says some good words on this today (none / 0)

under "Sez Sage Brooks" and "One More Time, With Feeling":

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/

"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:58:58 PM EST

2.5% (none / 0)

WOW! Right down to the tenth of a percent! Enlightening, as always, Chris.
by raginillinoian on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:31:52 PM EST

Huh? (none / 0)

Chris,

What "conservatives?"  The term is being mis-applied consistently by the MSM media, and by smart lefty bloggers who should know better.  Real conservatives are an endangered species, and are statistically insignificant.  Continuing to call partisan rightwing yahoos "conservatives" only serves to confer a sense of legitimacy to their movement.  Conservatism is a respectable, traditional, political philosophy; what we are witnessing these days has no relationship to genuine conservatism.  With all the talk of George Lakoff and the framing of issues, I can't believe that our side hasn't seen the light on this one yet.

by global yokel on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:48:07 PM EST

Conservatives Supported Musolini & Hitler (none / 0)

There has always been an extreme hard-right strain in conservative thought.  And there has always been an enormous diversity amongst conservatives. But critical thinking and abstract thought have never dominated in conservatie circles, so this diversity has almost never had the sort of splintering effect that it would among liberals.

Indeed, the whole "liberal elite" riff is nothing but a case of projection, usde by the hardline conservative elite to distract its more moderate base.  As per usual, most of the projection is subconscious, but there are some operatives who are very conscious of what they are doing.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Country is More Conservative than 1976 (none / 0)

I can't help reading Brooks regularly the way one can't help glancing at a train wreck, so I'm all for a good Brooks roasting.  But the purported rebuttal linked to above isn't a rebuttal at all, because the philosophies that are called "conservative" today are much more right wing than what was common in 1976 and the philosophies that are called "liberal" are much less left wing than back then.   Brooks is talking about the battle of ideas, and in terms of ideas, the country, and not just the federal govt., has moved to the right.
by LastToKnow on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:32:37 PM EST

Yes And No.... (none / 0)

You are right so far as you go. But if you look at broad measures of public opinion, such as the General Social Survey, you will find that public opinion has not shifted to the right in any significant way. If anything it's moved to the left on gender issues, with a few more minor shifts here and there.

What this means, in short, is that there is a growing disconnect between the political class--where all that you say is true--and the vast majority of Americans.  This disconnect is feed by the fact that the information content of the media has dropped precipitously, while the propoganda/spin content has skyrocketed.

This helps to explain why, for example, the GOP was so sure it had a winner on the Schiavo circus.   And why everyone in the political class was so surprised when it didn't turn out that way.

The same thing happened, if you'll recall, during the attempt to drive Clinton from office.

Again, the disconnect.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:59:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.