Friday I attended the 61st Annual Convention of the Texas Community College Teachers Association. As I have written in the past, I love these convocations. They are almost always moments of great fellowship among colleagues and very often remarkable for the memorable encounters with visiting scholars.
I intend to blog on several of the sessions I attended, but let us begin with a discussion of "It's the 60's Stupid," which featured Professor Steve Gillon, "resident historian for The History Channel and professor of history at the University of Oklahoma."
Adding to his many titles, Professor Gillon is the author of an upcoming study of modern political history, The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation. Based on his thinking, interviewing, and writing for The Pact, he arrived at this important conclusion:
The 1960s, or, more precisely, the battle over the meaning of the 1960s, more than any other single element, has come to define the battle lines in American politics. Gillon offers this succinct and cogent Bill Clinton quote to illustrate his point:
"If you believed the 1960s were good, you are a liberal; if you believed the 1960s were bad, you are most likely a conservative."
Gillon asserts that the 1960s produced a "culture of choice." The 1960s blurred the clear lines of morality based on tradition. We once lived in an America in which we shared a common sense of right and wrong. We live today in a society in which we can choose our own values--not that there is anything wrong with that.
The political debate today, says Gillon, revolves around proponents of this new "culture of choice" and the adherents of the traditional "culture of authority."
Why did conservatives hate Bill Clinton so much? Ostensibly, Clinton offered much for them to like: he was a Southern Baptist, "New Democrat" speaking the language of small government, individual responsibility, and law and order. Why the enormous antipathy for Bill Clinton from the very beginning of his national career?
The first "child of the sixties" to be elected president, Clinton represented the triumph of this alternative culture of choice. While there were less obvious signals from the earliest days of his public life, the Lewinsky episode placed the cultural conflict in plain view. What was the transcendent argument beneath the tawdry surface of L'affaire Lewinsky? The culture of choice created a "realm of privacy" in which consensual sex among adults must never be subject to moral authority or corporate scrutiny. As Clinton defended himself with exegeses concerning the "meaning of is," nonplussed conservatives wondered: "Where is the Outrage?"
Who is winning this war over competing cultures?
Certainly, the Republicans made great strides harnessing the conservative backlash following the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. The GOP embraced the mantle of traditional values to great success, winning the presidency seven out of ten times from 1968 to 2004, and establishing itself as the majority party from 1994 through 2006. The secret to their success? Professor Gillon offers this absolutely brilliant observation: conservatives created a language of "cultural populism."
The Democratic Party realignment achieved under Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal era (which lasted for forty years) rested upon the language of "economic populism." The Democrats became the party of the little man, beating back "economic royalists" intent on crushing powerless working people. But the turmoil of the 1960s allowed the Republican Party to craft a message that also appealed to the working man (albeit in a different key), as so many Americans saw the moral foundations of the world they understood crashing down around them.
I have previously referred to this mass appeal as a general feeling that the GOP was the "party of common sense":
The Republican Party has become the party of common sense. We have approximately 12 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants in our country. We should do something to stop that. Common Sense. Terrorists are trying to kill us. We should try to kill them first. We should treat them roughly and follow them around and listen to what they are saying on their cell phones. Common Sense. America is a good place. That is why so many people are trying to come here. Common Sense. Men should marry women. Common sense. Lower taxes and smaller government good; an intrusive and bloated federal government that sees our collective pocketbook as a blank check is bad. Common Sense. Peace through strength. Common Sense. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Common Sense. Put criminals in jail, and they will commit fewer crimes. Common Sense. And I could go on.
Sometimes the simplest answer really is the best answer.
Of course, "common sense" is not always right: the Earth really does revolve around the sun--regardless of the way things look. Sometimes the world really is "complicated" and "common sense" solutions are only manifestly obvious from a certain perspective--often the majority perspective.
An Aside: another way to articulate this divide might be "common sense" versus "complexity." Ronald Reagan saw the USSR as an "evil empire," while others in the "party of complexity" seemed paralyzed by the ambiguity in the communist experiment.
Gillon sees two fundamental challenges to continued Republican success through cultural populism (at least in the short term):
The GOP runs the risk of becoming the party of nostalgia and ridiculous hypocrisy.
The old moral values are more and more anachronistic. Most Americans do not really understand the old value system--and almost no one wants to hold themselves to those old more rigorous and confining standards. That is, even the proponents of a culture of authority for greater society seem to prefer a culture of choice for themselves. Gillon: "We have accepted the culture of choice for ourselves, even as we cling to the authority rhetoric of the past."
Example: Larry Craig. The great danger for the moral party is that they will consistently fail to live out the values they preach. As the gap between rhetoric ("moral virtue") and reality ("wide stance') becomes a chasm, the risk is great that the morality play will become farce.
My thoughts: Perhaps Professor Gillon places too much emphasis on highly charged words such as "morality" and "choice." The party of "authority" is at an increasing disadvantage in the modern world. However, if you tweak the language some, the party of "common sense" will always be viable. We are a people who believe in revival and renewal. We are a nation of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We are a species that often comes back to basics in our perpetual search for meaning. My prediction: the party of tradition will survive.
Final Thought: Professor Gillon offers a provocative framework for the present political predicament through a provocative understanding of our recent past. I look forward to reading his book.
I intend to blog on several of the sessions I attended, but let us begin with a discussion of "It's the 60's Stupid," which featured Professor Steve Gillon, "resident historian for The History Channel and professor of history at the University of Oklahoma."
Adding to his many titles, Professor Gillon is the author of an upcoming study of modern political history, The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation. Based on his thinking, interviewing, and writing for The Pact, he arrived at this important conclusion:
The 1960s, or, more precisely, the battle over the meaning of the 1960s, more than any other single element, has come to define the battle lines in American politics. Gillon offers this succinct and cogent Bill Clinton quote to illustrate his point:
"If you believed the 1960s were good, you are a liberal; if you believed the 1960s were bad, you are most likely a conservative."
Gillon asserts that the 1960s produced a "culture of choice." The 1960s blurred the clear lines of morality based on tradition. We once lived in an America in which we shared a common sense of right and wrong. We live today in a society in which we can choose our own values--not that there is anything wrong with that.
The political debate today, says Gillon, revolves around proponents of this new "culture of choice" and the adherents of the traditional "culture of authority."
Why did conservatives hate Bill Clinton so much? Ostensibly, Clinton offered much for them to like: he was a Southern Baptist, "New Democrat" speaking the language of small government, individual responsibility, and law and order. Why the enormous antipathy for Bill Clinton from the very beginning of his national career?
The first "child of the sixties" to be elected president, Clinton represented the triumph of this alternative culture of choice. While there were less obvious signals from the earliest days of his public life, the Lewinsky episode placed the cultural conflict in plain view. What was the transcendent argument beneath the tawdry surface of L'affaire Lewinsky? The culture of choice created a "realm of privacy" in which consensual sex among adults must never be subject to moral authority or corporate scrutiny. As Clinton defended himself with exegeses concerning the "meaning of is," nonplussed conservatives wondered: "Where is the Outrage?"
Who is winning this war over competing cultures?
Certainly, the Republicans made great strides harnessing the conservative backlash following the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. The GOP embraced the mantle of traditional values to great success, winning the presidency seven out of ten times from 1968 to 2004, and establishing itself as the majority party from 1994 through 2006. The secret to their success? Professor Gillon offers this absolutely brilliant observation: conservatives created a language of "cultural populism."
The Democratic Party realignment achieved under Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal era (which lasted for forty years) rested upon the language of "economic populism." The Democrats became the party of the little man, beating back "economic royalists" intent on crushing powerless working people. But the turmoil of the 1960s allowed the Republican Party to craft a message that also appealed to the working man (albeit in a different key), as so many Americans saw the moral foundations of the world they understood crashing down around them.
I have previously referred to this mass appeal as a general feeling that the GOP was the "party of common sense":
The Republican Party has become the party of common sense. We have approximately 12 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants in our country. We should do something to stop that. Common Sense. Terrorists are trying to kill us. We should try to kill them first. We should treat them roughly and follow them around and listen to what they are saying on their cell phones. Common Sense. America is a good place. That is why so many people are trying to come here. Common Sense. Men should marry women. Common sense. Lower taxes and smaller government good; an intrusive and bloated federal government that sees our collective pocketbook as a blank check is bad. Common Sense. Peace through strength. Common Sense. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Common Sense. Put criminals in jail, and they will commit fewer crimes. Common Sense. And I could go on.
Sometimes the simplest answer really is the best answer.
Of course, "common sense" is not always right: the Earth really does revolve around the sun--regardless of the way things look. Sometimes the world really is "complicated" and "common sense" solutions are only manifestly obvious from a certain perspective--often the majority perspective.
An Aside: another way to articulate this divide might be "common sense" versus "complexity." Ronald Reagan saw the USSR as an "evil empire," while others in the "party of complexity" seemed paralyzed by the ambiguity in the communist experiment.
Gillon sees two fundamental challenges to continued Republican success through cultural populism (at least in the short term):
The GOP runs the risk of becoming the party of nostalgia and ridiculous hypocrisy.
The old moral values are more and more anachronistic. Most Americans do not really understand the old value system--and almost no one wants to hold themselves to those old more rigorous and confining standards. That is, even the proponents of a culture of authority for greater society seem to prefer a culture of choice for themselves. Gillon: "We have accepted the culture of choice for ourselves, even as we cling to the authority rhetoric of the past."
Example: Larry Craig. The great danger for the moral party is that they will consistently fail to live out the values they preach. As the gap between rhetoric ("moral virtue") and reality ("wide stance') becomes a chasm, the risk is great that the morality play will become farce.
My thoughts: Perhaps Professor Gillon places too much emphasis on highly charged words such as "morality" and "choice." The party of "authority" is at an increasing disadvantage in the modern world. However, if you tweak the language some, the party of "common sense" will always be viable. We are a people who believe in revival and renewal. We are a nation of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We are a species that often comes back to basics in our perpetual search for meaning. My prediction: the party of tradition will survive.
Final Thought: Professor Gillon offers a provocative framework for the present political predicament through a provocative understanding of our recent past. I look forward to reading his book.