On the Matter of Defining the American Conservative by An American Democratic Socialist

Over the last few decades, I have lost the meaning of the word conservatism in American politics.  On the political spectrum, the right wing consisted of conservatives (high level of moral code) and traditionalists (those that took the Constitution literal and were not flexible).  This definition was what was taught to me as an undergraduate student in Political Science.  Before I began to write this, I performed a quick Google search to get an idea where the current conservative movement is, the definitions that I found included “reactionaries” and “fascists”. I knew these definitions a long time ago, but after 25 years, I forgot them.  I am not going to be alarmist and cry out that we are headed toward fascism because of the current political climate. I believe that Americans are not headed toward fascism, as some leftist like to proclaim. (Though it was just as laughable that many on the right thought Obama was a communist.)  However, I would argue we are definitely in a reactionary phase in our history.  As a curious person, I want to know what the current definition of American “conservatism” is because I am not sure anymore.

Let’s consider the definition of another “right-wing” political ideology label, reactionary.  As a refresher, I Googled the “reactionary” definition, and Wikipedia (forgive me for using Wikipedia, but these search engines are not what the use to be) provided the definition:

“A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.”

After reading this definition, it would be difficult to deny that is where we are in at this time in our American history.  The Civil Right Act of 1964 has been turned back, not only are the “conservatives” wanting to turn back the clock to 1972 on abortion rights, but on birth control itself.  Even an American woman, conservative mouthpiece, Ann Coulter (the self hating blond woman from the upper income status quo), stated in an interview with the New York Observer in  October 2007:

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.” (https://thinkprogress.org/ann-coulters-disastrous-political-strategy-take-away-women-s-right-to-vote-29dfdc6775c1)

She doubled down on the this reactionary view in July 2015, in a radio interview.  (I have to say that I would tear into her in another post, just on this sentiment alone, married woman to married woman).  The point is that I have run across this same sentiment posted on social media.  So now we have “conservatives” trying to turn the clock back on voting rights for women? Really?  I have asked myself and Joe, “I thought conservative meant to ‘conserve’ the status quo or traditions, not turn back the clock?”  Joe shrugged his shoulders, as if to say, “Well if you don’t know, I am not going to know.”  Looking at the definition again, we are in a reactionary phase in American politics.  Why?  I’ll leave that up to political and social analyst to figure that out.  My answer is more layman:  our demographics is changing and the economy is only benefiting a few of us.  As the “conservative” movement, including media and pundits, push the movement further right, while touting moral issues and silently (maybe not so silently any more) moving our economy to neoliberalism,  middle class and working class moral conservatives loyally support the reactionaries.

With the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the American “moral conservatives” have lost all ground with me.  This man, as many of you have heard, is a predator, racist, and misogynist conman. He has no loyalty to the office of the US Presidency, this country, to other human beings or anyone but himself (his children are just extensions of himself).  I am not sure what the appeal of him ever was.  I guess human beings want to be told what they want to hear, even if they know it’s not true.  So here we are, if I am right, and we are in a reactionary period in American history, then he might be the token that the conservative (reactionary) ideologues need to regress many social policies. I will put this out there that I have repeatedly said that this man has NO ideology, not conservative, not liberal, or “me”.  To paraphrase Noam Chomsky in an interview on Democracy NOW on April 24, 2017, Paul Ryan and his ilk with their ideology have the green light to regress many of the progressive policies that have been accomplished.  For me this seems to include not only any Obama era policies, like on Healthcare, LGBT rights, consumer protections (Student Loans) and climate change, but even programs that have been around since the 1930’s and 60’s, think Social Security and Medicaid.  His presidency will provide the opportunity to cut or completely eliminate these programs and corporate regulations, all because American conservatives feel that a woman’s womb is their business, but as long as American corporations have their privacy and freedoms while they exploit laborers and the environment.  

So for those American “conservatives,” how far back are we supposed to let the reactionaries go?  Where women are sexually harassed or raped with little or no consequence?   We could go back before 1935, there was no Social Security.  The crazy thing is if you are 16 years or older and working, we’ve done paid into it, why destroy it now?  Reactionaries could easily set up back prior to 1964, no Civil Right protections, though the shooting of unarmed African-American men seems to be reminiscent of those times anyway. Basic women’s rights are being regressed as we speak.  No need to ask the American moral conservative about abortion, but anti-birth control (please Google the Hobby Lobby decision)?  Also, no need to question about LGBT rights, I also know the answer to that.

This time in our history is not the first time we have been reactionary to progress.  For months now, the time in American history that keeps playing in my head is the time after Reconstruction. Winning a hotly contested Presidential race in 1876, Rutherford Hayes ended the Reconstruction phase of our history after the Civil War.  During the Reconstruction phase (a progressive human right policy), many African-American men served in state legislators in the South and even two men served in the United States Senate. (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/Photo_Exhibit_African_American_Senators.htm.)  The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.   This seemed liked if Reconstruction had remained policy in the South, civil and human rights in this nation would have been 100 years ahead from where we are at now, not only for African American men, but maybe others.  Unfortunately, the political establishment in the 1870’s thought it better to regress these rights and let the former slave owners maintain power through oppressive social and economic policies, Jim Crow laws.  The former white Northerners abandoned African American civil rights for a return to the white male status quo.

So, here, we are again almost a century and quarter later.  Every progress, no matter how little, is now being challenged, even voting rights.  The reactionary threat we face in this time in history cannot be fought by “leftist” alone, the American “conservatives”  need ask themselves, “at what point is a right or policy established that it must be conserved?”  When do the rights we grant ourselves become a “conservative” ideology?  If it’s a number of years, then Social Security should be safe after 82 years?  The right to privacy of Roe vs. Wade after 44 years? LGBT Americans just received the right to marry as equals, so no need to ask about this.  Are we going to return our society and government back to the wealthy, straight, white male?  As they did in 1877?

Granted as a socialist/progressive, I am not happy to stop with Roe v. Wade, or basic voting rights, or that LGBT Americans only just have the right to marriage. I will be one of those “leftist” that keep asking for more and more, like Healthcare for all, free Education, abortion rights (to trust women and their decisions), betting voting protections, food, housing, and other human rights. Maybe for conservatives, this can be tiring, but I find that most Americans are happy with slow progress, as I feel that most human beings are this way.  There are some of us who are not patient when it comes to human or civil rights, but we are happy for every little gain we win. (Though, as an activist, I will deny that I ever wrote this.) However, what I was not prepared for over the years, especially after Trump and the Republicans won in November, was that I would have to fight to KEEP the protections that were already there for a generation or more.

As a special note, for those Americans who consider themselves “moral” conservatives, I would say again that the hypocrisy of voting in those who hide behind religion and fear, but promote war and corporate greed, have lost their argument by just voting for the self-serving conman and the reactionaries in Congress.  Many of you will feel the effects long before I will if Social Security, SNAP or Medicaid is cut.  For myself, I worry about the Education Loan protections implemented by the Obama Administration, Education policies that could affect my sons, health care costs, and well, honestly, how Wall Street is doing.  But this fight is just not about my sons and me, it’s about the society and the world we live in.  I no longer understand the American “conservative” perspective, as I did, years ago.  I cannot see myself aligning with “conservatives” on any issue at this point in our political history.  I do not know what to say if you thought that a righteous position is telling a woman what to do with her body (including birth control) or if what bathroom a transgender American can use> I do not see how these issues were more important than health care, civil rights, education or the environment.  Isn’t moral to want clean air or water for everyone?  Isn’t moral to want children educated?  Isn’t it moral to want people to be fed?  Many of you might argue the conservative cliche, “but it’s not the government’s job.”  I would say that if our government is made up of  WE THE PEOPLE, then yeah, it’s sort of OUR job to take care of one another.  Finally, if  the reactionary politicians (who hide under the banner of “conservative”), tell you that your freedoms are at stake, please know that they are referring to corporations, not you or me*.

*And to prove my point, Trump today, April 26th, is proposing a 15% tax rate for businesses, like his.  This will reduced tax revenue for our country, most likely cause the deficit to grow. The media and some politicians will state that this will promote job growth, most likely not true, as the investors will want to increase their wealth.  So I guess this would be a good time to invest in Stocks, before a market crash in about 6 years.