The next book I'll blog about is Reaganland by Rick Perlstein. Perlstein has spent the past 20 years chronicling the rise of the modern American right wing, starting with "Before the Storm", a history of Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. He then wrote "Nixonland" about the 1968 and 1972 elections. After that he wrote "The Invisible Bridge", about Reagan's attempt to secure the GOP nomination in 1976. One common theme in this chronology of the right is that Republicans don't give up like Democrats do. Look at Nixon losing in 1960. Look at the people who came out of the Goldwater campaign in "Before The Storm" to lead the right in decades to come. Look at Reagan losing in 1976. The right is determined. They see every defeat as an illustration of why they need to double down, not an illustration of why they need to go to the center. Hence the Democrats are running the quintessential centrist, while Republicans are running a batshit insane Twitter troll.
Perlstein's books are thick, and I doubt I'll deeply analyze everything, but a few stray thoughts from chapter 2:
1) A frequent figure in Perlstein's work is Richard Viguerie, who spent decades perfecting mail-order campaign fundraisers. On page 35 Perlstein notes a lesson that Viguerie got from the leader of YAF (Young Americans for Freedom): Even though they have only 2,000 members, they should like and claim to have 25,000. If the lie is more effective then use the lie.
Democrats lie, of course. Everyone lies. But mostly I think Democrats try to deny, while Republicans outright invent. I don't say that as disparagingly as you might think. Republicans, much like Keyser Soze, understand that the winner just has to be willing to do what the other guy won't.
2) On page 36, I learned that the right saw the appointment of Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State as a betrayal. Kissinger was as Machiavellian as any right-winger, but he was willing to sit down and talk to the USSR, so he wasn't conservative enough. To the right, there's no such thing as too conservative, while to the Democrats moderation is a virtue. And before we mock the right for this, let me note something: Their batshit insane Twitter troll won. Because the right fights.
And as much as I might argue for traditionalism, I also want to be fair, so I don't fight as hard as I should. I pull punches. And this is why traditionalist academics lose: Because we aren't radicals. The progressive educators are radicals. They've got their kool-aid and they know that the only thing better than kool-aid is more kool-aid. We traditionalists lose because we don't fight dirty enough. And the thing about fighting dirty is you don't even have to choose to be dirty. You just have to choose to be relentless and go wherever that implies.
