Three new books examine the roots of conservatism today – and its future

But as Nicole Hemmer convincingly argues in “Supporters: The conservative revolutionaries who reshaped American politics in the 1990sthe table had already been set by Pat Buchanan, whose three presidential campaigns, beginning in 1992, have tapped into a powerful strain of white grievances.

Distinguishing between the conservative movement and the GOP, Hemmer exposes the fault lines that plague right-wing politics today. The Cold War did much to unite, or at least mask, the disparate strands of conservatism. An ardent anti-Communist, Ronald Reagan took advantage of this, even as his optimistic style broadened the appeal of conservatism. He was a traditional supporter of lower taxes and non-military spending, but as Hemmer writes, he was also willing to pander to public opinion.

With the end of the Cold War in 1989, conditions changed. A New Right more centered on social issues, and often critical of Reagan, asserted itself. By the time George HW Bush became the standard bearer of the GOP, the party leadership had shifted from the Northeast to the more conservative Sun Belt. To retain his support, Bush dropped his longstanding support for abortion rights.

What Hemmer portrays as the radicalization of the right has drawn significant help from changes in the media landscape. By the fall of 1992, Rush Limbaugh was known to millions through his live radio broadcasts. Drawing inspiration from radio shock jocks, he based his trademark political entertainment more on ridicule than ideology. He was helped by the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which also contributed to the rise of cable TV pundits.

Although he became the leading voice of the right, Limbaugh was not well trained in conservative philosophy. Many of his lesser-known contemporaries were, however, and receive the thoughtful appreciation of Matthew Continetti in “The Right: The Hundred Years War for American Conservatism.” Himself a committed conservative, Continetti goes back to the administration of Warren G. Harding, and his rejection of Wilsonian progressivism, to locate the first currents of the movement.

Like Hemmer, he sees the Cold War as the glue that will later hold things together. However, once anti-communism waned as a unifying force, a protracted civil war between establishment conservatives and populists ensued, culminating in the election of Trump.

Continetti is a measured writer who apparently prefers to stick to ideas rather than meddle with the passions that drive extremists. As a result, he fires a few punches, but not all of them. He dismisses Trump as a villain and denounces the National Review for shaming the movement when he opposed civil rights.

Yet the magazine’s importance to conservatism and the dissemination of the ideas of its founder, William F. Buckley Jr., cannot be overstated. Buckley proved instrumental in gaining public acceptance of a perspective long considered outside the mainstream.

As proof, Continetti offers Bill Clinton. While Hemmer concludes that Reaganism ended with Reagan, Continetti argues that Clinton cemented the legacy of the Republican icon. “When it comes to the economy, crime, and welfare,” he writes, “the Clinton presidency has given conservatives a lot. They never forgave him. »

These two books describe the evolution of the Republican ruling class, leaving the essential mystery of the individual actors intact. Like many political journalists seeking to understand the appeal of a movement, Kyle Spencer turns to biography for clues. His “Raising Them Right: The Untold Story of America’s Ultraconservative Youth Movement – and Its Plot for Powerportrays three young leaders whose development has been guaranteed by a well-funded conservative machine.

Among them is Charlie Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA to attract students to conservative values. (A product of suburban Illinois public schools, he never cared about higher education.) Kirk seems convinced he’s here to win a religious war, a former Miss Arizona (CEO of an expensive confessional fashion line) alongside her.

Spencer notes that the decades-long effort by the right to foster a new generation of conservatives is unmatched on the left. Her “hyper-organized network” targeting young people, she fears, could mold an electorate more receptive to oligarchy and theocracy than it already is.

We will probably never be able to pinpoint exactly when the line between mainstream conservatism and a violent far-right blurred. But since Trump’s rise, partisan opportunists have discovered multiple upsides, and few downsides, to flirting with extremism. None of these books deeply examine the whys of populist rage, but all have a lot to say about the types of people who got on board.

MJ Andersen’s column appears monthly.