Conservatism gains political traction: from Wilson to Taft (1912 - 1952)

A short history of conservatism: Part 12

May 7, 2008
Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst

This essay deals mainly with the emergence of traditionalist conservatives in American politics during the 1912–1952 period. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, was elected president. He was the first in a series of progressive presidents. Many traditionalists entered politics to oppose the progressives. In 1952, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, often called "Mr. Conservative," was at the peak of his political influence and was the bane of the progressives.

1890: The progressive movement begins

Although it is difficult to find a definitive starting date for the progressive movement, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the most famous of the early progressive bills, provides as good a date as any. A group of writers called the "Muckrakers," who were loosely associated with the progressive movement, were extremely critical of business monopolies.

The progressives and the muckrakers sought a wide variety of social reforms. However, the anti-business element of progressivism and the reaction of pro-business conservatives provides a convenient guide for tracing the rise of the movement.

The first powerful conservative in government who openly opposed the progressive movement was Thomas Bracket Reed, Republican Speaker of the House (1889–1891, 1895–1899). We shall use a few of his quotable quotes to contrast conservative views with progressive doctrine.

The progressive movement gained steam under the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover (yes, he too was a progressive), and Franklin Roosevelt. Conservative reaction to the Progressive movement steadily increased and reached its apogee with Senator Robert Taft's powerful opposition to the New Deal.

Conservative restoration vs. reaction

The progressives thought their reforms were for the common good and therefore labeled the conservative opposition "reactionary." This term was coined by the Marxists as a standard expression for conservative opposition.

The conservatives wanted to restore true constitutional government as established by the founders. They were "restorationists" seeking to restore the old republic and were not mere opponents of change as the progressives alleged.

Natural Law vs. libertarians and progressives

Contrary to the ideas of some libertarians, the early 20th century conservatives did not view the increase of government spending or new government programs as necessarily bad. The conservatives did not accept the libertarian conception of a struggle between the individual and government in a zero sum game in which individual freedom diminishes in direct proportion to the increase in the activities of government. The conservatives applauded vigorous and effective government action when it stayed within the scope that natural law assigns to government and within the boundaries imposed by the constitution.

However, when the progressives launched federal programs that transgressed the natural and wholesome boundaries for government and trespassed upon the natural prerogatives of individuals, families, churches, businesses, communities, and states, the conservatives opposed it as a matter of principle. The conservatives were not blindly anti-government, but insisted that government must play by the rules and function within proper boundaries.

The willingness of progressives to violate constitutional boundaries and thereby break the rules of the game of government has tempted their liberal heirs to break the rules in various ways. The most obvious example is the liberal judge who tweaks the Constitution to make it say what he wants it to say. Another example is the political candidate like Lyndon Johnson who violates the election rules to win a close election and rationalizes it on the grounds that it is all right to cheat if it is for a progressive cause.

The five heresies of the progressives

There are perhaps a half dozen fundamental theological doctrines that are essential to Christianity. False teachings that undermine these doctrines are heresies. Therefore, there are a half-dozen categories of heresies. Interestingly, the progressives and populists put forward six political heresies that are destructive to a republic. The five heresies attributable to the progressives are listed below. A sixth heresy attributable to the populists will be described later.

Progressive heresy 1: Change is good. Magical "forces of history" that are friendly to man ensure that change will be salutary.

This is nonsense, of course. There are no such magical forces of history. However, this tomfoolery is very popular.

Today, political candidates routinely promise "change" without bothering to explain what the change is and where it will lead. The mindless mob hears these rhetorical promises of "change" and cheers like crazy, while having no idea what they are cheering for. Magical thinking easily lends itself to the inflammation of passions while the rational faculties close down.

Shakespeare puts these words in Mark Antony's mouth after Antony incited the Roman mob to hysteria and riot: "Why friends, you go to do you know not what." In like manner, Barack Obama's crowds get into a tremendous uproar over...they know not what.

It is no accident that so many progressive/populists, like Huey Long, were skillful demagogues. The conservatives called them "rabble-rousers" because they aroused the rabble and transformed them into mindless, hysterical mobs.

A rational man knows that change can be good or bad. It is equally irrational to be either blindly for change or blindly against change. However, the experience of life teaches us that most new ideas are worthless and only a few new ideas are valuable.

Thomas Brackett Reed, early opponent of the progressive movement, said, "Most new things are not good and die an early death; but those that push themselves forward, and by slow degree force themselves on the attention of mankind, are the unconscious productions of human wisdom and must have honest consideration and must not be made the subject of unreasoning prejudice."

Reed's reference to a slow-working unconscious wisdom indicates that he was a traditionalist conservative in the manner of Edwin Burke.

Wise conservatives like Reed were not opposed to new ideas, but called for a slow process of sifting new ideas. Those who pan for gold might find a few grains of gold among thousands of worthless grains of sand. The gold is like the few good new things and the grains of sand are like the many worthless new things Reed talked about.

Most of the management fads and church fads that have passed through town during recent decades are now forgotten. However, a few of these fads have been retained in modified form because they have proven their worth. The temporary madness that makes men susceptible to fads is mitigated by the common sense to reject most of the goofy fads after they run their course.

Businesses and churches can easily drop bogus fads, but governments cannot. Once a fad becomes a government program, it often is granted everlasting life and the folly goes on forever. Therefore, when a legislature rejects Thomas Reed's caution, the government becomes a repository for the unlimited accumulation of human folly. That is why the leading tax experts possess have encyclopedic knowledge, and reforming the labyrinthine tax code is like cleaning the Augean stables.

Heresy 2: There are no natural boundaries for the scope of government. The appropriate scope for government changes with the times. "Modern times," whatever that is, require a wider scope for governmental powers than the "simpler times" of the 19th century American Republic.

When all men believe that government has no natural limits, government will steadily expand until it dominates every aspect of life. All we hold dear will gradually be crushed in the slowly closing vice of government.

The progressives took the brakes off a truck careening down the hill when they said that there are no boundaries for government. By default, they have left it entirely to conservatives to find the brakes before the runaway truck runs over the people. This kind of default reveals a deep irresponsibility imprinted upon the hearts of the progressives.

Do not loan money to a person who lives in a magical world of his own invention, because all such persons behave irresponsibly. In like manner, do not trust the progressives, for they live in a fantasy world and will soon renege on their promises.

A rational man knows that government is one thing and private life is another. Only a child confuses what is public with what is private — and embarrasses his parents in public places. "Junior, I can't take you anywhere!"

The very idea that the public sector has no natural boundaries is childish. The careless intrusion of progressive government into the private sphere betrays the awkward lack of grace of a child. The conservatives can be forgiven if they view the antics of the progressives as juvenile. For example, when a liberal turns a private funeral memorial into a political speech, conservatives regard the stunt as sophomoric and disrespectful.

The odd idea that former days were simpler and therefore needed less government betrays a deep ignorance of history by progressives. The civilized, cultured, literate, and articulate 19th century people, who lived in socially complex communities, did not live in "simpler" times. Their high culture and sophisticated society contrasts favorably with the social and cultural primitivism of our modern neobarbarians.

Heresy 3: Government is an "organic living entity." It grows, develops, and matures. It is "evolutionary." In like manner, the Constitution is a "living document" that changes through the agency of the liberal judiciary to accommodate the changing and growing government. After all, "change is good." Let's not stand in the way of "the path of change" or "turn back the clock."

A rational man knows there is no such thing as a magical "path of change" and that there is no such thing as a mystical "clock of history." Surely only a child can believe such nonsense. Yet this childish nonsense is still widely believed.

Is government "organic"? For years, I observed the inner workings of many agencies of a state government. The inner works put me in mind of a crazy Rube Goldberg contraption. I saw nothing that resembled organic biology in the disjointed, crazy-quilt world of government. (However, I did observe the "biology" that motivated a boss to promote a young, blond, and remarkably silly woman who worked two hours a day. I am afraid that government has a great deal of this kind of "biology.")

Like the other progressive myths, the claim that government is organic is a raw assertion that one either must take on faith or leave alone. The only way one can believe this preposterous fantasy is to never see government from the inside. Otto Von Bismark said, "Laws are like sausages. It is better to not see them being made." One can be idealistic about sausages and governments by preserving a perfect ignorance about what is put into them.

Heresy 4: Government is innately good. It is the agent that the "forces of history" have "chosen" to bring us a better world. Hold on, kids! If these magical forces are impersonal, how can they choose, and how can they care about our welfare?

Progressives posit that government is a distillation and expression of the people and what Rousseau vaguely called "the general will." Government is the "friend of the people," for after all, "the government is the people." Notice the mystical fuzziness and naivete of such conceptions. It is almost as fuzzy as an Obama speech.

Progressives tell us that capitalists, plutocrats, and aristocrats are "enemies of the people." Why? They are private interests that block the "path of progress" via the social engineering of society by the government. We are told that business is not "the people," but government is "the people," in spite of the fact that business offers a much freer scope for individual human thought and action than does government.

Thomas Hackett Reed said, "One of the greatest delusions in the world is that all the evils in the world are to be cured by legislation." This delusion flows from the assumption that government is innately good, wise, and trustworthy. Silly people.

The fact that Reed made this warning during the 1890s reminds us of how old these delusions are. There is something deeply perverse in human nature that a popular delusion can endure so long. But lest we be astonished beyond measure, recall that most of the theology heresies are more than 1,500 years old. This fallen race has always bred more rascals and fools than it has bred those who are rational, trustworthy, and wise.

Heresy 5: Human rights are granted by the government, not by God or natural law. Therefore, human rights change over time.

The conservatives saw this idea as absurd and pernicious, but never dreamed how quickly the mischief would accumulate. The idea that rights are created by government enabled judges and legislators to invent a "right to privacy" in which anything goes behind closed doors. They invented a "right to an education," a right to not be poor; a right to medical care; a right of gay "marriages," and the gay adoption of children; a right of blacks to have equal representation in colleges and jobs; the right of women, blacks, and gays to not be excluded from private clubs; and the right for officially protected "victim" groups never to hear an utterance that is personally "demeaning." Progressive government routinely invents such "rights" as part of their program to create a brave new world.

The rights enumerated in the constitutional amendments known as the Bill of Rights all enhance freedom without compromising order. Many of the newly-minted rights diminish freedom, or diminish order, or both.

The American founders taught us that our rights came from God, or from natural law. Therefore, our rights are limited in number and are fixed, universal, and unalienable. On rare occasions, a government can discover rights, but can never create rights. The government is not a god to mold our nature and bestow contrived rights according to that contrived nature. The government is not a force of nature from which we have sprung so that she can nurture us and bestow gifts upon us like a mother caring for her children.

I have examined the bowels of most of the large agencies of a state. As I treaded the labyrinths of that dark, troubled underworld, I found no father god of government to give me a name or a nature. I found no nursing mother of government with warm breasts to suckle me. The idea that this wasteland is where my nature is molded and my rights are conjured up would be frightening if it were not ridiculous.

Why must we have a government that is playing God? Why can't the government just be the government? Well, men must be grown-ups to insist that the government is only the government and not a magical entity to dazzle fools like a witch doctor bewitches his tribe. Also, a man must honor the true God before he can stop looking for false gods. A man must have the real God before he can be a real man. All the problems we are discussing have spiritual roots. Progressivism is a symptom of a spiritual sickness.

Progressives and populists

There was a considerable overlap between the progressive movement and the "populist" movement as the word was understood in the 19th and early 20th century. Robert La Follette, who ran for president in 1924 as the candidate of the Progressive Party, was both a progressive and a populist, but was more progressive than populist. Huey Long, governor of Louisiana (1928–1932), and senator (1932–1935), was more populist than progressive. Interestingly, Al Gore has descended from a long line of leading political populists in Tennessee.

"Power to the people" was the motto of the populists, and "down with the elite" was implied in that motto. (Paradoxically, the Gores ran an elite political machine that was populist in agenda.) Populists were social levelers and were for the "little guy." They hated hierarchy and emphasized equality. They were anti-regime and wanted to overthrow the establishment. In contrast, the progressives liked the elites if they were progressive elites, or were elites congenial to their movement. They did not mind hierarchy if they were at the top of the pyramid, or could influence those at the top.

Populists put more emphasis on popular democracy and saw government as "the voice of the people." When my outspoken grandmother heard the populists say, "The voice of the people is the voice of God," she would say, "the masses are asses."

Progressives and populists agreed that they did not like big business or conservative middle class institutions. They both liked labor unions, family farmers, and unlimited, untamed democracy. "Let the people speak," they cried. They did not agree with the founding fathers that democracy unleashed tends to run amok, but that democracy tamed and harnessed by the Constitution and the rule of law can ensure our freedom.

The sixth heresy

The populists added a sixth heresy to the heresies of the Progressive-Populist Movement: that democracy is the holy grail. Democracy is inherently good, they said. Anything that limits or filters raw democracy is bad. Furthermore, democracy is the hope of the world. If democracy can be brought to all mankind, the ills of the world will fade away, or so they thought. This kind of messianic democracy for the world was particularly notable in the international policies of Woodrow Wilson.

The American founders had read Locke, Bolingbroke, and Montesquieu, and thereby understood that democracy can be good or bad. Democracy unchained and running rampant easily yielded to mob rule, popular demagogues, social upheaval, and men on horseback riding in to rescue the mob from itself. Men like Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler can quickly rise to power on the fragments of regimes shattered by popular passions.

However, if a republic is to be devoted to the freedom of its inhabitants, it must have an elected legislature to provide a carefully restrained representative democracy. When legislators are tamed and instructed in law and stoic rationality and civilized with the self-restraint of a gentleman, there is hope for an elected legislature. But human nature being what it is, structural restraints are needed. When the legislature is balanced against 1) an aristocratic senate, 2) an executive, 3) a judiciary, and 4) state and local government, the legislature can be a true defender of freedom. Such a system is essentially a republic and only secondarily a democracy.

From the time of Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, America has had two major parties, one believing that America is a democracy and the other believing that America is a republic. The populists of a century ago who embraced the sixth heresy had predecessors going back to the time of Andrew Jackson. Thomas Jefferson had views somewhat akin to populism, but indulged them more in theory than in practice.

My grandmother always stamped her letters "This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way." The word "republic" has always stirred deep feelings within me. The word "democracy" has never moved me. I can imagine myself dying for The Republic, but cannot conceive of dying for democracy.

The Coolidge quasi-conservative prelude

Calvin Coolidge (president 1923–29), is perfect example of how an honest and self-restrained gentleman can be of great service to a republic.

Contrary to popular belief, Calvin Coolidge was not a philosophical conservative. He was a de facto conservative by default. Coolidge was torn between the progressive wing of the party, led by Teddy Roosevelt (who wrested control of the Republican progressives from La Follette) and the moderately conservative wing of the party, led by William Howard Taft. As Governor of Massachusetts, Coolidge's program included a few dashes of progressive legislation.

Coolidge had a keen legal mind and took the Constitution and its federal separation of powers seriously. He concluded that the constitutional role for the presidency was a limited one. His policies may have superficially resembled those of a laissez faire economic conservative, but his policies were determined by his federalism, not political or economic theory. Although Coolidge was a business booster, he dissociated his business cheerleading from his executive policy. His policy was federalism pure and simple.

Coolidge was a scrupulously honest lawyer. The man had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he refused to claim executive powers that were not constitutionally granted to him. His refusal to act on various occasions was not because he was passive or lazy. He refused to break the law, and the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. Just as he often refused to speak unless he had something specific to say, he refused to take executive action unless the action was legal and had a legitimate objective.

Coolidge set the standard for the future constitutional conservatives who would defend federalism, fight the expansion of the executive branch of government beyond its constitutional boundaries, and oppose judicial interpretation of the Constitution according to ideological bias and social engineering fancies.

Traditionalists become political

As noted in the prior essay, there are three kinds of Traditionalists. One of those three is the Burkean (or social fabric) conservatives. There are three kinds of Burkean conservatives: 1) the Paleoconservatives (paleocons), 2) Agrarians, and 3) the followers of Russell Kirk. It was the paleocons who first gained a measure of political power through the Republican Party. In those days, paleocons were called "classical conservatives."

Unlike Coolidge, the paleocons had a political philosophy based upon a world view and a belief in a transcendent moral order. Their key principles are outlined in the prior essay. Their substantial political ideas contrasted favorably with the insubstantial ideals of liberal progressives — which were based upon vague notions of "progress" and cloudy ideas of a coming "utopia."

For example, President Harry Truman believed in the inevitability of progress leading to a future utopia, but his ideas about "progress" and "utopia" were so vague as to be incoherent. His ideas of "progress" were almost as vague as Barack Obama's rhetoric of "change."

Paleocon reaction to the New Deal (1932–1952)

No one reacted with greater hostility to the New Deal than the Paleocons. When President Franklin Roosevelt died, some Paleocons threw parties to celebrate. To the end of her life, my paleocon grandmother could not hear the name Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) without reacting with expressions of disgust.

Although we must not countenance the Paleocon hatred of FDR during that generation, we must realize that they saw FDR as marching at the vanguard of forces that were undermining constitutional government and tearing apart a cherished American way of life, and they were not mistaken.

The most intense period of Paleocon political reaction was 1932–1952. The Paleocons gained significant political traction from the congressional elections of 1938. After four years, the New Deal had still failed to cure the Great Depression. FDR and the Democrats were falling in public esteem. World War II cured the Depression and revived the fortunes of the Democrats.

Paleocons objected to high taxes, deficit spending, creeping socialism, the inefficiency and waste of New Deal programs, the regulation of business, farm subsidies, programs favoring labor unions, nationalized health insurance, the "packing" of the Supreme Court by FDR, John Dewey's progressive education program, aggressive involvement in foreign affairs, the League of Nations, excessive immigration, and the influence of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops upon New Deal social policies.

Robert Taft, "Mr. Conservative"

Robert A Taft of Ohio (1889–1953) was elected to the Senate in 1938. He organized the Conservative Coalition of Congress, which was an alliance of Republican conservatives and conservative Southern Democrats. The mission of the coalition was to oppose the New Deal agendas and abolish or curtail existing New Deal programs. Taft's most famous legislation was the Taft-Hartley bill of 1947 which corrected the untoward federal favoritism towards labor unions inherent in the Wagner Act of 1935.

Interestingly, Taft supported social security and federal housing programs. However, as a general rule, he had a libertarian streak and generally advocated free markets and the limitation of government. Taft's libertarian tendencies were a precursor to William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, synthesis of Traditionalism and Libertarianism.

Taft ran for president in 1940, 1948, and 1952. He was a strong candidate in 1940, but liberal Republicans objected to Taft's non-interventionist foreign policy and his opposition to New Deal programs. In those days, the Republican Party still had many liberals who were the heirs of Teddy Roosevelt's Republican progressives. The Republicans nominated Wendell Wilkie for President in 1940, the second of four weak "me-too" liberal Republican campaigns for the presidency (namely Landon, Wilkie, Dewey, and Dewey).

Taft did not run for president in 1944, which was just as well. His opposition to America's entry into World War II made his election impossible because of the general popularity of the war and remarkable surge of American patriotism during the war years. Taft tried again in 1948, but was bested by Thomas E. Dewey, who was also making his second run for the presidency. Then came the memorable brouhaha in Chicago in 1952.

Taft's cold war dilemma

In order to understand the 1952 brouhaha, we must first understand Senator Taft's Cold War dilemma.

Paleoconservatives always had an isolationist streak. President William McKinley and Senator Thomas Brackett Reed were almost alone in their opposition to the popular Spanish American War (1898). Senator Henry Cabot Lodge opposed American membership in the League of Nations (1919) on the grounds that it would impair American national sovereignty. Senator Taft opposed American entry into World War II. The America First Movement of the 1940's was a paleocon affair. Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak opposed sending American troops to Iraq, because their paleocon instincts told them that America was not going to get much out of it (2003).

Communism was uniquely abhorrent to Paleocon conservatism. Whereas liberal reformers were slowly unraveling the social fabric one strand at a time, the Communists wanted to throw the whole fabric into the furnace. Stalin and Mao Tse Tung conducted a mass extermination of the middle class and also murdered a large portion of the intelligentsia and professional class.

A man like Taft must hate communism with a passion. At the same time, he was a moderate isolationist during the war years. His paleocon urge to fight communism was checked by his paleocon aversion to international entanglements. In contrast, President Truman ordered the Berlin air lift, shored up anticommunist nations through the Marshall Plan, manipulated the United Nations to foil the Soviets, and fought a proxy war in Korea to check communist expansionism.

Progressives like Wilson, the two Roosevelts, and Truman were enthusiastic internationalists. The conservative opposition was not.

1952: Paleocons torn between isolationism and anticommunism

My paleocon grandmother and my paleocon aunt went to the 1952 Republican convention as delegates. My aunt was loyal to Taft. My grandmother, who was a politically-active isolationist during World War II (while her son was flying P-51 Mustangs in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy), defected from Taft to Douglas MacArthur (while her son was flying Mustangs in Korea).

These two conservative Republican women perfectly manifested the inner conflict of paleocons. Will they remain true to their isolationist "America First" principles? Or will they hate communism so much that they will vote for General Mac Arthur, whose motto was "There is no substitute for victory" — that is to say, victory over the evil communist foe is imperative. William Manchester wrote that Mac Arthur was like Julius Caesar, in that: "He was as great as a man can be without being good, and as wise as a man can be without being humble." This was the truly great but deeply flawed man who dazzled my grandmother.

In 1952, Truman's popularity was at a low ebb because he was perceived as soft on communism: too weak to insist upon victory in Korea, and too soft to root out communist infiltration of the State Department. During 1952, the ideal moment came for the Republicans to nominate a general like MacArthur or Eisenhower, and an anti-communist crusader like the young Richard Nixon.

Irony of ironies, 1952 was the year that Senator Taft's influence in the Republican party was at its zenith. This was his golden moment to ascend to the White House at last. Unfortunately, his anti-New Deal paleocon ascendancy occurred when American anti-communism was white hot. What then should be the priority of a good Republican? This conflict of loyalties brought about a tremendous collision in 1952. The shockwaves of that collision are with us still.

The brouhaha in Chicago

Taft ran for president in 1952 and went to the Republican convention in Chicago as the leading candidate. The Republicans wanted to line up a winning candidate before the voting began.

The manic haggling for delegates took place in rooms that were filled with cigar smoke, whiskey, filthy spittoons, and sweaty deal-makers. My grandmother, who had marched in the Women's Christian Temperance Movement, was utterly disgusted and sickened. Her motto was: "Lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine." In contrast, her big, hearty, back-slapping, belly-laughing daughter drank whiskey and was as rough and tough as the men in the smoke-filled rooms. She was my jolly but formidable aunt — and I made it my business to stay on her jolly side and avoid her formidable side.

The wheeling and dealing for delegates at the Republican Convention astonished those who were watching the debate on TV. A fight over the credentials of delegates got ugly. Eisenhower's (Ike's) handlers were superb propagandists and deal-makers. Ike's bandwagon went down the streets with foghorns blaring, "Thou shalt not steal," accompanied by actors dressed like bandits who were pretending to steal delegates. However, the real funny business in the credentials battles was the dirty tricks played by Ike's moderates, not Taft's conservatives. On the first ballot, Ike beat Taft 595 to 500.

If only Taft had been a little more overtly anti-communist, a little better of an orator, and a little better of an impromptu deal maker in the smoke-filled rooms, the Republican nomination and the presidency would surely have been his. His courtly, magisterial oversight of the Senate unfitted him for the knife fight in Chicago.

Elephants stampede the Cow Palace

Elephants have long memories. Conservative delegates to the 1964 GOP convention had bitter memories of stolen delegates and lying propaganda during the 1952 convention. A tough young woman named Phyllis Schlafly aroused and enraged the elephant herd with her book A Choice Not an Echo. She lambasted the party leaders of the New York establishment for foisting a series of weak "me too" candidates on the party, for cheating Taft of his rightful nomination, and for attempting to shove the moderate Nelson Rockefeller down their throats. For once let us real Republicans have a choice, she cried, instead of tamely submitting to the decrees of the party leaders of the New York establishment.

The elephant herd flew into a rage and stampeded in the Cow Palace at San Francisco, where the 1964 convention was held. They denounced the Rockefeller moderates, defied the national GOP leaders, and pushed through the nomination of Barry Goldwater for president. Don't mess with angry elephants!

Stay tuned for part 13, in which we consider how William F. Buckley, Jr., developed a new conservatism that was a blend of Traditionalism, Libertarianism, and Christian moral conservatism. This new conservatism opened the door to the Goldwater nomination and the Reagan presidency.

© Fred Hutchison