Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Democracy and Elections

How Did Conservatives Convince the Public to Think Differently About Government?

By Sara Robinson, Blog for Our Future. Posted March 15, 2008.


Part III of a series exploring how conservatives took their worldview to the streets, undermining long-held views about government and society.
Advertisement

This is part III of a three-part series. Click here to read part I, "What We Can Learn from Conservatives About Winning in Politics," and part II, "Learning from How Conservatives Push Their Cultural Worldview."

The conservative worldview has succeeded so wildly -- and is still holding such tenacious sway over the ways Americans approach their current stack of problems -- because the conservatives started out 30 years ago with a focused plan that put promoting their model of reality at the center of every other action. Over the past two posts, I've been mining the specific strategies that early planners like Paul Weyrich used to advance the conservative worldview, in the hope that we might gain some insight that will help us engage them directly on this deepest, most important territory.

Progressives will not be able to implement their vision of the future until we're able to supplant the conservative worldview with our own. We won't win until we take control of the discourse, offer Americans new ways to make meaning and evaluate and prioritize events, and get them to abandon conservative assumptions about how reality works.

I'd like to thank Bruce Wilson at Talk2Action again for turning me onto Eric Huebeck's 2001 document that summarized, updated, and refocused the original Weyrich strategies. In this final piece, we'll look some of the specific ways the conservatives structured their campaign to take their worldview to the streets, and ultimately replaced long-held democratic assumptions about government, economics, and society with the deadly and wrong-headed assumptions that now drive the thinking of the entire nation.

Capture Cultural Institutions
Thanks to David Brock, Joe Conason, Chris Mooney, Michelle Goldberg, and many others, more and more of us are becoming aware of the ways that conservatives have quietly moved in to take over almost every public and private institution in America. From churches to university faculties to public broadcasting to the Boy Scouts, the vast network of institutions that once taught people how to live in a liberal democracy and reinforced those values across society has been shredded to the point where it no longer functions. In its place is a new network of institutions -- some of them operating within the co-opted shells of the old ones, others brand new -- that reinforce the conservative worldview at every turn.

This takeover of the very insitutional fabric of the nation was a central part of the conservative plan from the very beginning. Weyrich understood that to change the discourse, you had to capture and control the institutions that were most directly responsible for promoting and sustaining it. And the rising conservatives pursued that goal with a vengeance.

The basic strategy was to build parallel organizations that shadowed the official ones until they could legitimately assume power within their domains. In some cases these were national institutes, professional organizations, formal committees and expert policy groups; in others, they were simply ad hoc groups of conservative citizens who showed up at all the meetings, studied the domain, wrote letters, and eventually became expert in all the same topics and issues the official authorities dealt with. Either way, over the course of a decade or two, there was hardly an influential institution in America that wasn't operating without a gaggle of conservatives standing by to criticize every decision and thwart every attempt at action.

In some cases, such as government agencies, these self-appointed shadow officials hung around long enough, and demonstrated enough interest and expertise, that they eventually eased themselves into official positions from which they began to enact the conservative agenda. They joined public boards, got themselves appointed to commissions, and inflitrated local offices. In cases where they couldn't directly take over, they set themselves up as the determined and loyal opposition, acting as political leg weights that hobbled and slowed down every aspect of goverment business for decades on end as they looked for opportunities to press their issues and impose their will. The official policymakers still held sway, but the constant resistance made them far less effective. In time, people would get frustrated with the inaction, and look for other leaders to get the job done. Too often, the people who'd created the resistance in the first place were the first ones tapped to take over.

Massive funding put up by conservative foundations also gave the movement clout over the country's great non-profits, from which they insinuated themselves into research, health care, social services, education, and the arts. Pressure from investors, advertisers, and avid letter-writers narrowed the range of acceptable narratives in every kind of media. Shadow "professional" groups were established to challenge the basic Enlightenment-era premises of law, medicine, banking, teaching, pharmacy, and other essential professions.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: conservatism, progressives, activism

Sara Robinson is a twenty-year veteran of Silicon Valley, and is launching a second career as a strategic foresight analyst. When she's not studying change theories and reactionary movements, you can find her singing the alto part over at Orcinus. She lives in Vancouver, BC with her husband and two teenagers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Political dominance and long term power is always corrupting
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Mar 15, 2008 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this article with extreme interest. I also firmly believe that the US needs to get back to the Founding Fathers Enlightened vision of America. Based on division of power, regular changes in power, the important part of small business and entrepreneurs as the basis for wealth and prosperity for all. The fight against Trust, monopolies. Meritocracy before plutocracy aristocracy. The restriction of Big Government and the protection of the individuals privacy and constitutional rights.

George W Bush as well as the Religious social conservatives have destroyed what was once the vision of the United States of America.

It is time for change!

For me it was extra interesting because we have had the similar problems. One party being in power 70 of last 80 years.

As the writer said and it is exactly as it is in Sweden:



more and more of us are becoming aware of the ways that [Socialdemocrats]have quietly moved in to take over almost every public and private institution in [sweden]. From churches to university faculties to public broadcasting to the Boy Scouts, the vast network of institutions that once taught people how to live in a liberal democracy and reinforced those values across society has been shredded to the point where it no longer functions. In its place is a new network of institutions -- some of them operating within the co-opted shells of the old ones, others brand new -- that reinforce the [Socialdemocratic] worldview at every turn.

The writer is absolutely correct, change is necessary both in Sweden and the US more liberalism is needed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come to think of it,
Posted by: talkville on Mar 15, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today is celebrated as the Ides of March. What might Shakespeare, Brutus and Caesar think of these times of ours, I wonder?

It's that constant refrain: "Rome wasn't built in a day..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

caronome
Posted by: Bayardtom on Mar 15, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this article. This answers my often asked question - how do they get the people to vote against their own interests? It is a form of brain washing, isn't it? But still I ask - don't people catch on after a while? The plan by conservatives to take over the major functions od the society is so insane that it has worked. Even though we have had warnings along the way, people have become so complacent about our "Democratic" way of life that it is shocking that so much has been destroyed in my lifetime.I am 73 years old and all of this has happened in my lifetime.

And yes, people are catching on, thanks to so many working minds in our society. You have named several of them - David Brock, Joe Conason,etc. I also thank Thom Hartman, Rachel Maddow and the other brave members of Air America.

What has been frustrating for me is the successful defeat of Dennis Kucinich for president. He is the sole member of Congress who is aware of what is happening in this country and has tried for his whole career to stem the flow of blood from the liberal movement here.The MSM and big money people have almost silenced his voice. I say almost because nobody will ever completely silence Dennis. My wish is that those of us who know about this movement will start to elect the right people, not the clones like Clinton and Obama.

We all must know that nothing will change after this next election. There will still be the war;there will not be a not for profit health care plan; there will not be an impeachment investigation; NAFTA and the WTO will still be in effect and the insurance companies will still be stealing from us with impunity.

So what we all must do is act. So many of my friends say that they can't get involved in the campaigns and what is going on in politics. Even my husband tells me not to upset myself by acting on the issues I read about online because my health is not good. But my health depends on being able to change the cancer that is happening in this country. Every time I forward an important piece of information to all on my list, I feel that I'm making a difference and this is something that we all must do. If you have knowledge and don't act on it, you're part of the problem. So, my friends, do your part and act on the knowledge you have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

obsever
Posted by: davy on Mar 15, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They certainly needed fertile ground. Thinking has become a thing of the past. It better come back around soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course "conservatives" love Big Government. But where are the libertarians ?
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 15, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We tried Ron Paul but unfortunately, he got nowhere. The Libertarians ought to be calling for a abolition of the CIA, FBI, FCC, Federal Reserve, DEA, FDA (hint: stevia vs aspartame for starters), NSA, Corporate Welfare, and obscene amounts of subsidies and bailouts to Big Business and Wall Street.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Mar 15, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question of how "they" get people to vote against their own best interests is easily answered. They have inflamed average wage workers with rampant, mindless keep up with the Joneses consumerism - without anything to back it up - that is, stagnant wages, weakened unions and workplace rights - and so on. Also they were successfully able to plant the idea that they were the moral avatars of society. Finally, the disenfranchisement of wage workers, dumbing down of society in general, and the planting by the right of distrust in government - all of these are factors.

We need a better educational system that concentrates more on civics, how good government can be effective, and how media works in promoting sophistry (such as we have had from the mortgage industry) than we do a system that teaches rote mathematics. We need a system that brings the disenfranchised and mostly poor into the fray to fight for fairness again. If you need any proof this system is broken, you need only to look at how the high priced call girl from NY didn't even know Spitzer was the governor....we only need to see that Kucinich was marginalized due to faulty belief in telegenics and glamour that has been promoted by the media.

We need to stop the downward spiral of the American mind (and we need to stop empowering corporatization with corporate welfare) and teach in schools what ideologies promote and how their legacies are established - so that people can make informed decisions. And we need activism again - not consumerism. Only then will we escape from this calculated domination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CommonDreamer Posted by: magne
Conservatives and Capitalist Authoritarianism
Posted by: jearls on Mar 15, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent study by Sara Robinson on the origins and development of this now hegemonic ideology, and what has to be done to restore some sanity to the system.
While getting dressed this morning I heard the term "authoritarian capitalism" used in a BBC programme on the state of the world - Decline of the West. I immediately thought that this seemed a more general way of referring to the hegemony of neoliberalism and neoconservatism (neolibconism) in today's world system; the term nicely characterises the current phase of the globalization. But from Google I find that the term is used exclusively to define the Russian and Chinese forms of capitalism while that of the US, EU, Japanese are classed as "democratic capitalism"! In the US at least there is full control of electoral processes by the official press which only allows coverage of the candidates offering differing nuances of authoritarian capitalism. Then there is the big money factor, etc.
But I could never understand the nearly unquestioned ideological hegemony of this way of thinking. Sara Robinson makes it clear that there was a double thrust: the right-wing religious conservative take-over of the system at every level went in parallel to the growth of neoliberalism. And for many years the Republicans saw themselves as the voice of both which consolidated into authoritarian capitalism. However with this synergy coming unstuck faster now because of the economic crisis and the conservative disillusion, what Robinson sets out is becoming more practical and necessary. But you can bet that as "our" capitalism weakens "our" authoritarianism grows ever heavier and more repressive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"To Serve The People..!"
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 15, 2008 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of Government is to Serve the People, the so called conservatives have perverted this concept our Founding Fathers originated and codified..

To accomplish this among other things they under mined and destroyed the teaching of Civics and Citizenship..that was a big part..of it..!

We now have government that serves th corporations and more and more government is privatizing which is in reality Fascism..putting the people under the corporations and soon even perhaps foreign nations as well with things that directly attack American sovereignty such as the SPP..but also NAFTA and CAFTA, and the WTO..

The teaching of the Constitution and even yes Philosophy in not just college but High School and even earlier should be restored as Professor Matthew Lipman did with some success and is also taught in Canada in places..

What is the purpose of government..?

If you were to ask that in many College classes you'd get a slew of answers if any but only the rare students or at the best most elite would you get the immediate correct response:

"To Serve The People..!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "To Serve The People..!" Posted by: TheNamelessCity
F*ck The Government
Posted by: left_libertarian on Mar 15, 2008 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing it gives me is a pain in the a$$.

I have to be careful about growing my marijuana otherwise some snoop is going to report me.

I'd like to see less government and more liberty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civics courses are not enough
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 16, 2008 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Civics, social studies and history courses are not adequate to
restore democracy. Students must learn to NOT believe Any
authority. Teach them that the source of knowledge is George W.
Bush, and George W. Bush rules the world. To prevent George
W. Bush from taking over, students must learn to Think for
themselves. The place to learn thinking is in science class.
Why?
Nature isn't just the final authority on truth, Nature is the Only
authority. There are zero human authorities. Scientists do not
vote on what is the truth. There is only one vote and Nature owns
it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public
and replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments are the only source of truth. [To be public, it has to
be visible to other people in the room. What goes on inside one
person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on an X-ray or
another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a simple
absolute lack of faith in everything else. Science is a Process,
Not a religion. Religions are static and based on authority.
Science is not based on any authority except experiments which
all people are expected to perform for themselves. Science is the
ultimate Protestant Reformation in which Religion is reformed out
of existence.

In the book: "Revolutionary Wealth" by Alvin & Heidi Toffler
2006 Chapter 19, FILTERING TRUTH, page 123 lists six
commonly used filters people use to find the "truth". They are:
1. Consensus
2. Consistency
3. Authority
4. Mystical revelation or religion [another name for several forms
of mental illness]
5. Durability
6. Science

7. I would add a seventh that our legal system uses: Combat. A
trial is nothing more than a ceremonial name-calling contest.
8. I would add an eighth that we call Democracy: Voting. Voting
is applicable when Science is not yet ready to make a
determination, as in politics.

9. I would add a ninth. Human/Ape Instinct. We all behave as
dictated by instincts and drives that were created over the 400
Million years of chordate evolution that preceded the invention
of Science.

As the Tofflers say: "Science is different from all the other truth-
test criteria. It is the only one that itself depends on rigorous
testing." They go on to say: "In the time of Galileo . . . the most
effective method of discovery was itself discovered." [Namely
Science.] The Tofflers also say that: "The invention of scientific
method was the gift to humanity of a new truth filter or test, a
powerful meta-tool for probing the unknown and—it turned out—
for spurring technological change and economic progress."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But you are propagating the same
Posted by: Quannah on Mar 16, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wrong-thinking as the conservative Republicans when you call for the abolition of the Federal Government, one department at a time.

It was Reagan who first introduced, as a US president, the idea that "the federal government is bad." Now, twenty-eight years later, we have the FEMA debacle in the wake of hurricane Katrina and the bridge falling down in Minneapolis due to lack of infrastructure maintainence. Government isn't the problem... INEFFECTIVE government is the problem. We need a federal system to run this huge country of ours. And it needs reform, I agree wholeheartedly. But what they have done, effectively, is dismantle our federal government structure from the inside out, leaving us with huge bureaucracies that are ineffective and non-functional. And it's by design.

"Government" isn't the problem here. It's this government, with it's very structure teetering on collapse due to neglect and sabotage by our leaders - this administration - that is causing the demise of our great nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Surf... Posted by: Quannah
First we take back the media.
Posted by: surfreality on Mar 16, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Huebeck's definition of political action is pointed and narrow. Action is "1) the subversion of leftist-controlled institutions, or 2) the creation of our own institutions of civil society, whose sole purpose is outreach to, and the conversion of, non-traditionalists." All action needs to have direct results, and should also deepen the skills of the members who engage in it."
We need to assume re-control of the information streams that govern the American discourse on culture and politics. Corporate media was/is a huge cheerleader for both the war and Bush's economic policies.
Groups like "Billionaires For Bush" monkey wrench the corporate media by being so incredibly telegenic that they get coverage even though it's against corporate media's interests to do so. Humor is the hook that holds their message.
Lately progressives have been showing up on Fox to flummox their hosts with unexpected and often "off point" criticisms of Fox.
Hopefully someday, we will have a progressive version of an all news cable network. Alternet TV anybody?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The semantic environment is imortant to thought and action
Posted by: nightgaunt on Mar 16, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What these three parts have been talking about is the Theocon actions to state their case,in their words and dominate the media through corporate control(CMSM) monopolies. They have suceeded. The next phase could come before November. It won't be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Us versus Them
Posted by: pdxstudent on Mar 16, 2008 10:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...can never win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Mar 17, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still don't understand why the movement is called "conservative." It's much more accurately called "regressivism" or "extremism."

I'd also like to see a rundown of the regressive, extremist agendas. It seems, from what I've read, that there are essentially three different agendas, - the social one, the economic one, and the military one. These do not necessarily coincide, which is apparently one of the factors dividing the religious right from the Republican party.

One would think that "conservative," which has to do with being cautious, conventional, and inflexible, would mean clinging to traditional American principles and values. But those traditional values are often quite "liberal." They involve liberty, individual rights as well as community service, belief in the collective good, personal sacrifice, and the importance of human beings over institutions.

It's a paradox that progressives are often the true supporters of traditional values at the same time that they want these values to evolve with the changing needs of humanity and the world.

In many ways, the different factions of the regressive movements are at odds with each other. Social/cultural/religious extremists want to control people's sex lives, moral conduct (however private) and social interactions. They often believe in "America first" without a real concept of what that means in the 21st century. Economic regressives and extremists want the government to stay out of the business of businesses and corporations. Since corporations are mostly international, "America first" doesn't really enter into the equation except as empty rhetoric. They mostly don't care about social, religious, or cultural mores unless it has to do with using those issues to get what they want economically. The military extremists take what they need from both of the other factions to promote their imperialistic dreams.

Or so it seems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Urgent action: Protect Obama now
Posted by: urban legend on Mar 17, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really, this should be any progressive, even if Hillary is your preference. The Wright thing is pure right wing assault on the expected winner. Fight back against the big media who channel it, every time you see it. Obama supporters should equally do the same against Russert and company when they do their attacks on Clinton -- or give a total pass to McCain. I would love to see loud protesters blocking Russert from getting into the building (for awhile, anyway). He, and Matthews, and Brian Willams, and David Gregory -- they of the Nantucket Barons Company -- are not journalists,and the public should be made to realize it if they can't be reformed th relentless, obnoxious pressure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Power of a Long-term Vision Statement
Posted by: kpaxson on Mar 18, 2008 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How did conservatives successfully define good government as limited government, fiscal responsibility as less government, and the common good as the private sector? The answer lies in the conservative movement’s ability to communicate their values and vision.

Communicating basic values and how they connect to each other and the larger vision is not rocket science, yet progressives have not clearly articulate an alternative to the conservative vision of "good government", "good society", "good economy" in a consistent manner.

If progressives do not define progressive values, then conservatives will...and have.

Take the spaces out of the link below, and take a look at the brief report posted on Commonweal Institute's web site.

http://www.commonwealinstitute.org /reports/ Vision_Report_Paxson_ 219008.pdf

The report offers a progressive vision and compares it to the best know conservative vision. It also demonstrates the importance of a vision statement in how conservatives and progressives communicate with each other and the American public at large.

I agree with the article, but have to stress that without a clear articulation of values and vision, progressives will have a difficult time expanding the conversation beyond themselves.

Finally, Obama is an exceptional candidate, but progressives cannot afford to hang their hopes and aspirations on a single person. Progressives must define the movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]