In the link provided by Professor Gevinson, there was a talk given on the work Invisible Hands by Kimberly Phillip-Fein read by Nancy MacLean. Phillip-Fein argues that historians preoccupation with the social causes for conservatism which suggest white working class support was achieved by deceiving the workers with social issues such as civil rights, gay rights, and religion into supporting economic policies which were detrimental to their well being, such as tax cuts, deregulation and the reduction of the welfare state. Phillip-Fein's argument is that this view has transcended the academy and is taken as a "given" by politicians and newscasters. Phillip-Fein uses candidate Obama’s quote about the “bitter” mood of workers in rust-belt towns. I heard a CNN reporter ask a participant at one of these recent “Tea Party” why they were there, didn’t they understand that the new economic policy would mean that as a worker they would get a tax break. The fact that people would support a movement that does economic harm to them individually seems to go against the idea of individualism and self-interest that the conservatives propose. McGirr demonstrates this in many cases when she states that it was a paradox that the people who most benefited from the growth of government were allied in an effort to make it smaller.
Phillip-Fein makes a case that concentrating on workers and middle-class members of the conservative movement as a reaction to the liberal movements of the 1960s, as McGirr did in her book, cannot adequately explain the conservative appeal. Not trying to debate the philosophy of conservatism or liberalism, does Phillip-Fein have a point? Does concentrating on social issues obscure the intellectal history and growth fo the conservative movement? Does McGirr make a convincing enough argument that the social issues can explain the rise of conservatism?
Note: If you want to hear someone treat conservatives with disdain and condescension listen to Rick Perlestein’s talk. He says that every year a conservative historian comes out with the same self-congratulatory book, which never has a new idea or thought. Neocons came to the movement to “Class the movement up” with some real thinkers. I think he misses his work with National Enquirer.
Comments