Divisions in the Conservative Movement: Liberals' Mistake in Reifying the Republican Party

The modern Right, especially in the United States, is a coalition of divergent interests. Various concerns strive for multiple, sometimes-contradictory ends, backed up by ideologies ranging from faith in God to faith in the free market. These parts are held together not only by similar economic beliefs, but also by a mutual aversion to the alternative, be it those who would interfere with the free market, those who would forsake moral values, or the communists. In order properly to deconstruct the relationships between the interests that make up the modern Right, however, it is necessary to define the interests themselves.

Behind almost all modern conservative thought lie the teachings of one Austrian economist. Published in 1944, The Road to Serfdom updated Adam Smith's theories on capitalism for a world heading slowly towards socialism, weary of the claims of an "invisible hand" (Adams 205). Hayek's Austrian school of economics dismissed such transcendental notions, favoring a more psychological analysis. Supplanting the invisible hand was the "spontaneous order" provided by the actions of the entrepreneur in the free market (205). His ultimate conclusion was that "freedom can be preserved only if it is treated as a supreme principal which must not be sacrificed" (O'Driscoll 1). As a neo-liberal, the most important freedom was, by default, freedom of property. This freedom was extended to the freedom from government control on any economic aspect of life, a "limitless faith in the power and benevolence of the free market," which was "the engine of progress and civilization" (Adams 205, 210). Still, his work was widely dismissed. Called "a magnificent dinosaur" by Oxford philosopher Anthony Quinton, Hayek received little respect for his modern adaptation of laissez-faire at first. His theories would gain greater following in the decades to come.

Around the same time Hayek was publishing The Road to Serfdom, yet another precursor to the modern Right was taking shape. Vehemently opposed to the 'intellectuals' and 'bureaucrats' who supported détente, the neoconservatives espoused a much more hard-line view of dealing with the communists. As far as they were concerned, containment or all-out war were the only two options. "The assertive use of American power... in defense of a liberal and liberalizing 'free world,'" became a major component of neoconservatism (Lindberg 7). Supporting this claim was Leo Strauss, a German who taught at the University of Chicago from the '50s to the '70s. He believed that "Nature willed... the superiority of the capitalist West over all the rest of the world," in addition to visions of an esoteric elite where Plato's noble lie is once again justified (Shorris 8).

Finally, the most eccentric portion of the modern Right, the religious right, needs to be discussed. Proposing to "[end] sexual education in schools, and against homosexual rights and pornography," the religious right is a "reaction to the age of permissiveness and the general rejection of traditional values by American youth of the 1960s" (Adams 271). With thirty million followers, fully one-third of American churchgoers belong to this set, placed alongside Islamic fundamentalism in Adams' Political Ideology Today (270). The most divergent from the core beliefs of the Right, the religious right proposes a much more authoritarian position than the Libertarian wing of the modern Right would prefer to be associated with. This cleavage is the major dividing factor in the modern Right. Without them, the Right would have little popular support and even less moral outrage.

How, then, are such divergent groups reconciled and united? The long and short answer is Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States of America. Beginning in the 1970s, the Hayekians, the neoconservatives, and the religious right began to join ranks. With the "Republican party demoralized and in disarray" due to the Nixon Watergate scandal of 1976, "New Right thinking became dominant" (203). After the mediocre Carter presidency, the Right was ready to take back the White House, but for want of a figurehead. This man was found in Ronald Reagan, a former actor who had stumped in 1968 for Barry Goldwater. Combining the Hayekian notions of free market and limited government, the neoconservative anti-communism, and the "traditional social and moral attitudes of the... religious right," Reagan was the uniting factor that ossified the loose coalition of divergent interests into the new Republican party in the 1980s.

This is not to say that Reagan was the only commonality. Between the 1970s and 80s, strong ties were formed within the coalition. The Religious Right shared the neoconservatives' hatred of communism, "an What's more, Jerry Falwell, the pariah of the Moral Majority, wrote that "[t]he free enterprise system is clearly outlined... in the Bible... Competition in business is biblical" (272). The neoconservatives share the Hayekian view of minimal government and free market. Finally, Hayek provides the economic base on which neoconservatism is built and Pat Robertson justifies his "vast business empire worth $200 million" (273).

Furthermore, the modern Right is also united in its aversion to the alternative. With its Hayekian loathing of social liberalism and Keynesian economics and its moral outrage at abortion and gay rights, the New Right has found a perfect enemy in the American Liberal, base of the Democratic Party. By lumping "social liberalism, fascism... and socialism" into one category, the Right is able "to promote the totally false suggestion that the only real alternative to the neo-liberal society is totalitarianism" (221). As such, the Liberal is portrayed as an abortion-loving, tax-and-spend, big-government communist, at once raising the ire of the entire Republican base. As such, not only do theoretical commonalties bind the modern Right together, but also the existence of a common enemy.

With such a broad and diverse base, it is surprising how much the New Right has in common. Its Hayekian economics are almost unanimously agreed upon, as is its anti-Communist stance. With the addition of its vilification of the Democratic Party and the liberals, the modern Right cements itself as a force to be reckoned with. By the end of George W. Bush's last term, the New Right will have elected two two-term presidents, owing no small thanks to its unity and organization incubated in the '40s, raised in the '60s, and matured in the '80s.

Sources Cited

Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester. Pelgrave. 2001

Bronner, Stephen Eric. Ideas in Action. Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham. 1999

Lindberg, Tod. Neoconservatism's Liberal Legacy. Policy Review,

Oct/Nov2004 Issue 127, p3

Marx, Karl and Engles, Friedrich The Communist Manifesto. Ed. Francis Randall Washington Square Press. 1964

O'Driscoll Jr., Gerald P. The Puzzle of Hayek. Independent Review, Fall2004,

Vol. 9 Issue 2, p271

Shorris, Earl. Ignoble Liars. Harper's Magazine, Jun2004, Vol. 398 Issue 1849, p65