I agree with your overall point that the cultural revolution began well before the 1960s. I'd trace its roots back to at least the 1920s with the rise of consumer culture, the loosening of sexual mores, and nascent feminist and civil rights movements. The Depression and WWII put a damper on these developments but they were bound to return and, by now, they're pretty deeply rooted in Western culture. Good luck imposing 19th century norms in the 20th century.
Then again, I don't think that much of the "burn it all down" wing of conservatism is particularly serious about the culture war stuff except in using it as a means of gaining power to enforce a rightwing economic agenda on us. Look at JD Vance, for example, who's using culture wars and Trumpian populism to fuel his candidacy, yet derives much of his funding from the bizarre Peter Thiel, hardly a champion of good old fashioned religion and morality. Look at the money behind the rightwing morality police. That provides a better signal are what their actual intentions are.
One thing that strikes me is that the MAGA movement has international counterparts. But unlike the 60's, it is being directed by political parties, not by the people. I think the political parties, the Republicans in the US, don't really care about the cultural stuff. They want power in order to economically help the wealthy. Their use of cultural flashpoints is totally cynical. I just hope that a mojority of voters see through this and vote accordingly.
I've heard many people advance "What's the Matter with Kansas" style arguments saying that the cultural stuff is a diversion to get people to vote against their economic interests and I think that is true to a degree but man is not homo economicus; people vote for all kinds of reasons, not just narrow economic self-interest. In addition, if liberals are serious that social conservatism is a diversion set up by plutocrats, why not cave, or at least compromise on those issues to refocus the debate around economics? For example, by world standards, the Democratic position on abortion is quite strident and radical. They could easily adopt a Western Europe style first trimester-easy later-hard framework on abortion that would capture the broad middle and isolate consistent pro-lifers but they dont? Why not?
The voters are not voting on economic issues. They're voting on emotion. "Democrats kill babies! They want to turn your child gay, or worse transgender! Marriage is between a man and a woman!", etc. It's the pols who get voters hyped up to gain power, and the voters vote on emotions.
"He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence. The genius or demon of politics lives in an inner tension with the god of love, as well as with the Christian God as expressed by the church. " Max Weber
I'm still fixated on the underlying premise Davidson uses--that technology killed conservatism-to launch into his rightwing fantasies. Certainly the Pill drove the world wide "sexual self-expression" of the 1960s. By the late 60's, world was a Global Village in which the rights of youthful passage and protest against a war by the baby boom generation was shared into millions of households. AS you point out, the "traditional" conservatives are wrong to blame the political left for undermining traditions. Conservatives ignore the impact of the markets, technology and non-political institutions that are leading society away from "traditions". (The Right also ignores the many negative aspects of "traditions" like racism or authoritarianism, but I digress.) I recently came to a similar conclusion that classic conservatism trying to defend the status quo traditions as we transition from the Industrial Age into the Digital Age is impossible. The question is, what fills the vacuum? Davidson and the Post Liberal conservatives have filled it with dark reactionary notions. Are there other versions of a new conservative future out there? One that acknowledges the reality of great social and cultural change that is being driven by technology and will only accelerate? The political left had nothing to do with why we are Bowling Alone. The cultural breakdown of 19th and 20th century norms and civic institutions were replaced with cable TV, video games, streaming and all those other time sucking 21st century toys we've developed. What is the role of "preserving traditions and order" in this transitionary economic period? Right now I see only one political faction offering up a world view to address the turbulent times we are in and it is a political faction led by the likes of Steve Bannon and John Daniel Davidson.
Part of the issue is the 'Chicken Little' nature of conservatism. The fact is that most people speak of decline in society, but would not give up the internet or their smartphone.
As to cultural revolution: It is aided and abetted by liberals in charge of every single institution in this country since at least the 1930s and probably going back to the 1910s. Permissiveness without consequences is the most telling detail of the modern state. Which is why conservatives should withdraw any support of institutions as they are currently constructed. To wit: If the state going to have legalized drug use, then taxpayers should not have to support people who fall into addiction. Choices that one makes should affect the consequences one faces. The only welfare should be through private charity.
I have been curious for a while now about which religious (moral) paradigmatic structure all these people want to harken back to.
Three of the biggest religious traditions in this country; Catholic, SBC, and United Methodist have had the horror of childhood sexual abuse exposed, not to mention the ongoing misogynistic nature of most religions.
Powerful people are loathe to relinquish power and for millennia the power has been in the hands of a very few (mostly men) that would like to keep the status quo.
A part of the country lacks the identity and youth to bulwark against what they believe to be a counter culture. Religion and politics are being used as a staging ground for some cultural counter offensive. Right from the start, however, it lacks the foresight and understanding to do any more then contest drag queen story hour and history books that speak truths on Cristopher Columbus. When they pass the keys to their fancy homes to children. The legacy of their hypocrisy will stain the door handle and if they persist. Threaten the very frame their life’s work stands upon. And all because they didn’t want transgenders to cross over in sports.
I agree with your overall point that the cultural revolution began well before the 1960s. I'd trace its roots back to at least the 1920s with the rise of consumer culture, the loosening of sexual mores, and nascent feminist and civil rights movements. The Depression and WWII put a damper on these developments but they were bound to return and, by now, they're pretty deeply rooted in Western culture. Good luck imposing 19th century norms in the 20th century.
Then again, I don't think that much of the "burn it all down" wing of conservatism is particularly serious about the culture war stuff except in using it as a means of gaining power to enforce a rightwing economic agenda on us. Look at JD Vance, for example, who's using culture wars and Trumpian populism to fuel his candidacy, yet derives much of his funding from the bizarre Peter Thiel, hardly a champion of good old fashioned religion and morality. Look at the money behind the rightwing morality police. That provides a better signal are what their actual intentions are.
One thing that strikes me is that the MAGA movement has international counterparts. But unlike the 60's, it is being directed by political parties, not by the people. I think the political parties, the Republicans in the US, don't really care about the cultural stuff. They want power in order to economically help the wealthy. Their use of cultural flashpoints is totally cynical. I just hope that a mojority of voters see through this and vote accordingly.
I've heard many people advance "What's the Matter with Kansas" style arguments saying that the cultural stuff is a diversion to get people to vote against their economic interests and I think that is true to a degree but man is not homo economicus; people vote for all kinds of reasons, not just narrow economic self-interest. In addition, if liberals are serious that social conservatism is a diversion set up by plutocrats, why not cave, or at least compromise on those issues to refocus the debate around economics? For example, by world standards, the Democratic position on abortion is quite strident and radical. They could easily adopt a Western Europe style first trimester-easy later-hard framework on abortion that would capture the broad middle and isolate consistent pro-lifers but they dont? Why not?
The voters are not voting on economic issues. They're voting on emotion. "Democrats kill babies! They want to turn your child gay, or worse transgender! Marriage is between a man and a woman!", etc. It's the pols who get voters hyped up to gain power, and the voters vote on emotions.
"He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence. The genius or demon of politics lives in an inner tension with the god of love, as well as with the Christian God as expressed by the church. " Max Weber
I'm still fixated on the underlying premise Davidson uses--that technology killed conservatism-to launch into his rightwing fantasies. Certainly the Pill drove the world wide "sexual self-expression" of the 1960s. By the late 60's, world was a Global Village in which the rights of youthful passage and protest against a war by the baby boom generation was shared into millions of households. AS you point out, the "traditional" conservatives are wrong to blame the political left for undermining traditions. Conservatives ignore the impact of the markets, technology and non-political institutions that are leading society away from "traditions". (The Right also ignores the many negative aspects of "traditions" like racism or authoritarianism, but I digress.) I recently came to a similar conclusion that classic conservatism trying to defend the status quo traditions as we transition from the Industrial Age into the Digital Age is impossible. The question is, what fills the vacuum? Davidson and the Post Liberal conservatives have filled it with dark reactionary notions. Are there other versions of a new conservative future out there? One that acknowledges the reality of great social and cultural change that is being driven by technology and will only accelerate? The political left had nothing to do with why we are Bowling Alone. The cultural breakdown of 19th and 20th century norms and civic institutions were replaced with cable TV, video games, streaming and all those other time sucking 21st century toys we've developed. What is the role of "preserving traditions and order" in this transitionary economic period? Right now I see only one political faction offering up a world view to address the turbulent times we are in and it is a political faction led by the likes of Steve Bannon and John Daniel Davidson.
Part of the issue is the 'Chicken Little' nature of conservatism. The fact is that most people speak of decline in society, but would not give up the internet or their smartphone.
As to cultural revolution: It is aided and abetted by liberals in charge of every single institution in this country since at least the 1930s and probably going back to the 1910s. Permissiveness without consequences is the most telling detail of the modern state. Which is why conservatives should withdraw any support of institutions as they are currently constructed. To wit: If the state going to have legalized drug use, then taxpayers should not have to support people who fall into addiction. Choices that one makes should affect the consequences one faces. The only welfare should be through private charity.
I have been curious for a while now about which religious (moral) paradigmatic structure all these people want to harken back to.
Three of the biggest religious traditions in this country; Catholic, SBC, and United Methodist have had the horror of childhood sexual abuse exposed, not to mention the ongoing misogynistic nature of most religions.
Powerful people are loathe to relinquish power and for millennia the power has been in the hands of a very few (mostly men) that would like to keep the status quo.
Very well thought out.
A part of the country lacks the identity and youth to bulwark against what they believe to be a counter culture. Religion and politics are being used as a staging ground for some cultural counter offensive. Right from the start, however, it lacks the foresight and understanding to do any more then contest drag queen story hour and history books that speak truths on Cristopher Columbus. When they pass the keys to their fancy homes to children. The legacy of their hypocrisy will stain the door handle and if they persist. Threaten the very frame their life’s work stands upon. And all because they didn’t want transgenders to cross over in sports.
Great post, and it confirms some of what I have pieced together in a concise way.
I have bought copies of both those books, and will enjoy reading them. Thanks Damon, and I hope you feel better soon!