Now, among the latest entrants to the growing list of books on the right comes David Farber’s The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism: A Short History, new from Princeton University Press. At age 15, Farber canvassed Chicago neighborhoods for George McGovern’s presidential bid, and he is known for his work on a decade that few would call conservative: the 1960s. A professor of history at Temple University, he has also written on the Iran Hostage controversy and (with his wife, Temple historian Beth Bailey) sex and race in World War II Hawaii.
In his new book, he traces modern conservatism back to a revolt against the New Deal’s remaking of liberalism. Told through the stories of key figures in the movement—Sen. Robert A. Taft, William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush —it argues that central currents run throughout the decades: hostility to restraints on markets, a grounding in religious faith, devotion to social order, and concern for political liberty. Farber also shows how the movement created discord in civil society, developing outside established parties and institutions and politicizing the public.
As the title indicates, the book ends with the election of Barack Obama, and what Farber sees as the fall of conservatism. Talk about timing. No backlash against Obama covered; no Tea Party; no election of conservative Congressional figures to once key liberal seats. Farber does conclude, “Contemporary conservatism is not moribund. Conservatives are not without power and presence in American life.” He adds, however, “Still, the way forward for the conservative movement remains uncertain.”
One thing that seems certain is that books on conservatism will keep coming.—Karen Winkler
Follow PageView through your favorite RSS reader: 
5 Responses to The Rise of Conservatism, in Historical Scholarship
bpilgrim - May 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Barack Obama was elected because of one thing: George W. Bush. Without George W. Bush, there is no Barack Obama. If conservativism is dead, it’s because George W. Bush killed it.
interculturaled - May 27, 2010 at 12:29 am
I think that it is fair to say that each of us has a mixture of ideas. There are some things that we like about “conservatism” and “liberalism” and “middle of the roadism”. I think that Farber’s book probably will help us reflect on our personal mixture of ideas.
historychick - May 27, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Well said, interculturaled. We can all use more reflection on our own ideas and to search for common ground with those who differ.
supertatie - May 28, 2010 at 7:24 am
What a joke. This is what passes for a historical account? A very liberal author predicting the “fall of conservatism”? Let’s take a breather while I laugh out loud. And the book ends with the election of Barack Obama? Well, why wouldn’t it? Isn’t he the Second Coming for the Lefties? Or is that just media gloss created by the coincidental placement of halos and auras, fawning puff pieces about Obama’s abs, and questions about his dunk shots at press conferences?Instead of “talk about timing,” this piece should have read, “talk about embarrassing.” And let’s see – “the movement created discord in civil society.” Sort of like, “Oh, those bothersome founding fathers! Complaining about oppression and crying out for liberty and freedom when all most of the rest of us wanted was a nice hot cup of tea.” And discord as opposed to what? The Weathermen? Students for a Democratic Society? The Khmer Rouge? Lenin’s revolution? Stalin’s purges? Mao’s induced famines? Cuba’s crushing poverty? Burma’s military oppression? North Korea’s work camps and mass starvation? Nope, no discord there.bpilgrim, although you’re right that George Bush was a contributing factor in the election of Barack Obama, it is an oversimplification. Obama could have been elected without Bush as a predecessor, but not without an adoring media that were too busy performing the journalistic equivalent of sex acts on Obama to do their job of investigating and reporting. And Bush didn’t “kill” conservatism, he galvanized it. But in fairness, this was coming before the 2008 election, as anyone who paid attention to how conservatives voted (or didn’t) in 2006 could tell you.And while reflecting on one’s ideas may be an interesting exercise, it will not result in conservatives and statists finding “common ground.” Nor, for the reocrd, is Obama interested in that. That sounds wonderful, and people fall for it (which is why he talks about it; read Obama’s pal Alinsky some time). But his TRUE attitude is, “I won, so I trump you on that one.” It is about POWER, and grabbing all he can, and using every crisis (thank you Rahm Emanuel for stating it so clearly) and every political tool at his disposal to take power AWAY from the people and entrench it in government – where political appointees with no private sector experience and no accountability who know SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE REST OF US POOR SLOBS can decide everything.Farber’s book isn’t “history,” it’s (more) lefty propaganda. Those of us who know REAL history are not fooled by Obama’s glib banality, the Pravda press’ slobbering accolades, or the latest paean to government control and obituary for individual liberties coming out of the ivory tower.I hate to break the bad news to you all, but the people who do NOT want the federal government to take over every in of our lives (in the name of “fairness,” or “equity” or “social justice” or whatever other shibboleth it’s being peddled under) are NOT going away. The movement is growing, and there will be plenty of “discord” in November of this year. I for one cannot wait; it will be worth it, if only to watch the pundits, soi-disant scholars and chattering heads try to reconcile an absolute rout at the polls with their previously proclaimed triumph of “pro[re]gressivism.”
yandoodan - June 1, 2010 at 10:20 am
“Farber also shows how the movement created discord in civil society, developing outside established parties and institutions and politicizing the public.”Assuming Ms. Winkler’s summary is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it), this is another example of the reversal of roles between the Left and the Right. As short a time as 40 years ago Leftists were the ones who wanted to politicize the public, and who strived to organize political action outside established parties and institutions. Indeed, Left thought is founded on the concept that established parties and institutions were mere minions of the ruling class, and that the people they controlled needed to develop class consciousness, politicization.Does anyone on the Left ever get they queasy feeling that they are on the wrong side — as they collaborate with multi-nationals over global warming and green energy, while dismissing universal prosperity as “unsustainable”?Do they ever get the feeling that they have become the minions — and that the Tea Party movement is the visible part of an emerging class consciousness? That Marx may have sketched in the outlines of revolution correctly, but that the current generation of the Left has gotten the details disastrously wrong?