The Old New Right

Conservative grandee Richard Viguerie looks to the future of a right-wing coalition that operates outside the Republican Party

Brian Doherty | December 15, 2008

With the right wing reeling after Barack Obama's victory and the Democrats as firmly in control of Congress as they’ve been in more than a decade, reason checked in with Richard Viguerie, a man who has had a front-row seat, including some hand in steering, as the conservative movement rose and fell (and rose and fell) since the mid-1960s.

Viguerie was the leading early innovator of right-wing direct mail fundraising, and his company, American Target Advertising, has mailed over 2 billion letters over the past 40 years. During that time, Viguerie has had a hand in everything from the Young Americans for Freedom to the Moral Majority. He was a central theoretician of "The New Right," the more traditionalist and populist wave of right-wing activism that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. His latest book is Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006). He currently runs the web site ConservativeHQ.com.

He has been known for a truculent refusal to bow down to the standard gods of the GOP, having been a loud public critic of politicians from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani to George W. Bush, criticizing each in the name of his own right-wing vision, which combines free-market economics with cultural traditionalism—a combination he still believes has a political future in America. He made his bones understanding the needs of a significant portion of the electorate. I spoke to him by phone last Thursday about what he thinks the near future holds—and should hold—for American conservatism.

reason: Why did McCain lose?

Richard Viguerie: Obama got under 53 percent of the vote, with McCain carrying around his neck a very unpopular president, a very unpopular body of Republicans in Congress, and a very unpopular war. McCain was also outspent three to one, and the entire mainstream media left the sidelines and joined the other side. In addition, McCain for a good part of the last 20 years was at war with the base of his own party. He’s fortunate it wasn’t more of a blowout, with the financial meltdown on top of that.

For whatever reason Republicans have been nominating highly inarticulate candidates, whether Bob Dole, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain. It took a plumber to frame the debate in the last weeks of the campaign! So with all the handicaps McCain brought to the table, it’s amazing he did as well as he did.

reason: Sarah Palin seemed like a vice-presidential pick straight out of your New Right playbook, with her stance as the populist, mainstream, family-values American opposed to hoity-toity Eastern and media elites.

Viguerie: Palin was huge for a number of reasons. One that hasn’t gotten a lot of publicity is that Republicans tend to be royalists. The king is king, long live the king, and whoever’s turn it is next in the apparent line of succession has a massive head start. You saw this with Reagan, the first Bush, Dole, McCain. If McCain had chosen a Tom Ridge, a Mitt Romney, a Tim Pawlenty, it would have been “their turn” in 2012. So now it’s a clear field for conservatives, which there wouldn’t have been if he’d picked a moderate or liberal Republican for VP.

I think Palin was a brilliant choice. I was with 300 conservative movement figures the morning that she was announced, and our feet didn’t touch the floor all day long. I was with [Phyllis] Schlafly, [James] Dobson, and for the most part serious conservatives had been on the sidelines or not doing a whole lot [for McCain], unenthusiastic. Palin got the conservatives energized in a way I can’t think anything else would have done. We take the attitude that she has been so vilified by the mainstream media for only one reason: She’s effective. People don’t kick sleeping dogs. They see her as a serious threat so they are trying to destroy her.

reason: Are you still excited about Palin’s future?

Viguerie: Absolutely. I was with a bunch of conservative leaders the night before last, and everyone is still very excited and enthusiastic about her. Still, the number one mistake that conservatives have made in the last dozen years is, they have become an appendage of the Republican Party, looked to the GOP in the House, the Senate, the RNC [Republican National Committee], for leadership.

I think it has caused us a great deal of problems. You don’t see that on the left. Unions, for example, are notorious. When you have a Democratic president and they get 90 percent of [whatever they want], they scream and yell till they get the last 10 percent. I have never been concerned about White House invitations or returned phone calls, and far too many of my friends are. Like I said, Republicans tend to be royalists and like to be close to the seat of power and touch the king’s purple robe.

But I had three different cabinet officers during Reagan’s presidency tell me privately we need [public criticism from the right of the sort Viguerie provided]. “Keep it up! We need to go in to a cabinet meeting and say we can’t do that because the conservatives will go ballistic.”

If conservatives had spoken out loudly and consistently from day one when George W. started making nice with [Sen. Ted] Kennedy and with No Child Left Behind, farm bailouts, prescription drug benefits, we would have had far more success. Conservatives in Washington don’t have the strength, many of them, to hold to their beliefs like liberals do. The MoveOn crowd, the environmentalists, they stand up to a Democratic president.

I’m writing a book now that says the key to conservatives coming to power is what I call a “third force”—not a third party but a third force. The left’s success has been through 340 different environmental organizations, consumer groups, race-based organizations, feminist groups, homosexual groups, unions; they all have their own membership, their own agenda, their own source of funds, and they pull everybody, Republicans and Democrats, in their direction.

Comments

|12.15.08 @ 3:14PM|#

Fuck conservatives. Fucke em I say!
Whenever you come across a conservative, bend him over and dry fist him before you even say hello.

If every conservative had this done to him three times a day, six days a week, for the next forty years, then we'll call it even.

BakedPenguin|12.15.08 @ 3:17PM|#

Whenever you come across a conservative, bend him over and dry fist him before you even say hello.

But if you videotape this, don't sell it in Indiana.

</|12.15.08 @ 3:21PM|#

What did conservatives do to you Warren?

|12.15.08 @ 3:26PM|#

I had no idea Warren was Caligula. Now I know.

Kolohe|12.15.08 @ 3:31PM|#

Interesting insights into this guy's mind. Too many fundementally flawed - and in some cases contradictory* - assumptions to count, but fascinating nonetheless.

(*for example, McCain is 'highly inarticulate', but Palin was 'a brilliant choice'?)

BradK|12.15.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Wow, what an asshat. And conservatives wonder why they can't get respect from anyone except their fellow kool-aid drinkers? Often times not even that. Back to Bedrock for Mr. Flintstone here.

squarooticus|12.15.08 @ 3:53PM|#

For some reason, that picture reminds me of the cover of UAIOE.

|12.15.08 @ 3:58PM|#

You have two main ideologies in America, associated with the two major parties: 1) Socialism; 2) socialism. The difference between the two is that the latter pretends that it wants small government.

|12.15.08 @ 4:03PM|#

Yadd, yadda, yadda. What we have in this country today is a one party system. Symptoms? Corruption; the elevation of mediocrities; intense squabbles over stands on the issues that are essentially the same. Who is the dumb one here?

Vote against ALL incumbents. Demand term limits. Cash out your IRA before Herr Obama nationalizes it to pay for his follies. Put your money somewhere, where you aren's buying US Treasuries. If Bush bails out Detroit, don't EVER buy another Big 3 product again. Spread the word around.

I remember a German friend talking about the collapse of East Germany. The people just quit listening to their government. The Communists screamed and hollered and threatened, but at the end of the day they just packed up and got out of town. Perhaps that might work here.

Sun_Stealer|12.15.08 @ 4:36PM|#

I thought, neo-conservatives were the religious right, which is it reason. Depending on who you ask, a libertarian will tell you a neocon is a theocrat(Reason), a paleocon will tell you a neocon is an agressive version of a rockefeller(Viguerie), and the neorockefellers(Bill Kristol) will tell you we are limited government, hawkish libertarian, Goldwater-Reaganites. Which is it Mr. Doherty?

stuartl|12.15.08 @ 4:50PM|#

A neocon is any conservative you don't like. Duh.

Sun_Stealer|12.15.08 @ 4:59PM|#

Warren | December 15, 2008, 3:14pm | #

NEOCONSERVATIVE IS PIG
DO YOU WANT A BARRY GOLDWATER?
DO YOU WANT A RONALD REAGAN?
NEOCONSERVATIVES IS PIG DISGUSTING
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY IS A MURDERER
F***KING NEOCONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

Mike M.|12.15.08 @ 5:08PM|#

It's critical for conservatives to also operate independently of the GOP and launch thousands of new organizations at the national, state, and local level, dealing with narrowly focused issues, public education, or maybe in your local community it might be property rights, it could be taxes, whatever the issue might be, work on those issues wherever your abilities and talents lead you to.

With great respect to Mr. Viguerie, it's simply never going to happen. With the exception of a small number of think tanks and foundations, the right in America simply isn't as motivated to push its agenda on a day-to-day, grass roots level as the left is. The primary focus of life for most conservatives is friends and family, and conservatives naturally are individualists, not activist groupthink types.

Egosumabbas|12.15.08 @ 5:48PM|#

I know, it's easy to beat up Mr. Viguerie because he goes to mass, but as an overarching strategy, cooperation would be the only way to get small government into place. Yes, that will mean reaching out to icky evangelicals.

It's either that or go gulching, which is harder and harder to do nowadays, unless they invent cheap and safe space travel (I'm not holding my breath).

|12.15.08 @ 6:00PM|#

Spot the contradiction:

"For whatever reason Republicans have been nominating highly inarticulate candidates, whether Bob Dole, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain."

"Palin got the conservatives energized in a way I can't think anything else would have done."

|12.15.08 @ 6:07PM|#

Quoth the Viguerie:

"The left screams and yells about the separation of church and state, how it's terrible the Republicans use religion as a wedge issue. But they complain because it has allowed conservatives to be as effective as they have been in the last 30 years or so."

"Palin got the conservatives energized in a way I can't think anything else would have done. We take the attitude that she has been so vilified by the mainstream media for only one reason: She's effective. People don't kick sleeping dogs. They see her as a serious threat so they are trying to destroy her."

So, according to Viguerie, the reason liberals attack their ideological opponents is only because their opponents on the right are effective, not because they are wrong. That is, leftists are complete hypocrites, complete political pragmatists.

But on the other hand, says Viguerie:
"Conservatives in Washington don't have the strength, many of them, to hold to their beliefs like liberals do. The MoveOn crowd, the environmentalists, they stand up to a Democratic president."

So leftists attacking conservatives only because the conservatives are effective opponents. Yet, somehow leftists hold their beliefs more stronlgly than those on the right, which is a source of strength to the left.

Which is it? Do Viguerie's opponents gain political strength because they are hypocritical political pragmatists, or because they are true believers in their ideology?

</|12.15.08 @ 6:08PM|#

No contradiction at all.
The first group couldn't articulate a conservative message because they weren't conservative.

Sarah Palin can because she is.

|12.15.08 @ 6:13PM|#

With the exception of a small number of think tanks and foundations, the right in America simply isn't as motivated to push its agenda on a day-to-day, grass roots level as the left is. The primary focus of life for most conservatives is friends and family, and conservatives naturally are individualists, not activist groupthink types.

Spot on. Political gendas are plans to impose rules on others. Those areas where some on the right do want to impose rules, you do see activist groups (prop 8, etc). But for the most part, if a law doesn't affect them directly, rightists tend to keep quiet. Libertarians are the worst in this regard. Leftists who dedicate their lives towards getting a new regulation enacted are a dime a dozen, but few libertarians can be counted on to merely spend aan afternoon on a petition drive to remove a regulation.

It's why the left gets so much done, they have activists. The right just has whiners.

|12.15.08 @ 6:27PM|#

Viguerie says the GOP are "royalists" and he loves Palin.

But we rejected monarchy in our Constitution 200 years ago.

Keep the laughs coming, Viguerie.

"Conservatism" is nothing but reactionary anti-science douchebaggery. Congrats - you made the case for your own obsolescence.

Lefiti|12.15.08 @ 6:28PM|#

Did Viguerie advise Ron Paul on the newsletters?

</|12.15.08 @ 6:32PM|#

shrike,

Viguerie ic contrasting the GOP and conservatives.They aren't synonymous.

Opposing "science-informed" public policy is not the same thing as opposing science either.

Some Guy|12.15.08 @ 7:37PM|#

You have two main ideologies in America, associated with the two major parties: 1) Socialism; 2) socialism. The difference between the two is that the latter pretends that it wants small government.

#2 also wants to legislate their own specific version of "Christian" morality.

If we're going to have socialism, I'd rather we at least socialized the profits along with the risk...

|12.15.08 @ 7:50PM|#

Opposing "science-informed" public policy is not the same thing as opposing science either.

I cannot interpret this.

This Viguerie guy is out of touch - a real boner for the 70-yr old set for the GOP.

The GOP has nothing for contemporary Americans - they are merely an extension of the Falwell/Billy Graham braindead set.

|12.15.08 @ 8:43PM|#

#2 also wants to legislate their own specific version of "Christian" morality.

And #1 doesn't? There is a significant minority of liberals that wish to impose their own version of Christian morality. They just do it in a collectivist way, instead of an individualist way. Welfare is a good example, with liberals arguing that it is the Christian thing to do. "Liberation Theology Lite" is still big in the US.

John Lofton|12.15.08 @ 8:49PM|#

Forget "conservatism," please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).




John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
[e-mail]

PS- Hear my exclusive interview with Viguerie here. He was not pleased with my questions....

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=710

|12.15.08 @ 10:58PM|#

Libertarians are not "rightists," and certainly not conservatives.

no government > small government

And I won't even get into the "conservatives" who are too conservative to be conservatives, because the conservatives don't call for an adequate level of barbarism to appease their god-love.

|12.16.08 @ 8:32AM|#

Responses to two comments:

1.

"I thought, neo-conservatives were the religious right, which is it reason. Depending on who you ask, a libertarian will tell you a neocon is a theocrat(Reason), a paleocon will tell you a neocon is an agressive version of a rockefeller(Viguerie), and the neorockefellers(Bill Kristol) will tell you we are limited government, hawkish libertarian, Goldwater-Reaganites. Which is it Mr. Doherty?"

It's weird. But I'll say this right now: neoconservatism is not theocratic. Certainly neoconservative wars are ardently supported by the religious right-wing, but understand that those voters, for the most part, follow the tradition of the martial South. They've supported every American war, and always will. Here's where we start to see the differences. Neoconservatives, or paleoliberals if you want to call them that, embrace an idealistic and interventionist foreign policy, free trade, anti-communism (now anti-islamism); are less socially conservative, and tolerate the welfare state to a degree. There's a lot of variation here, especially when it comes to domestic policies, so it's very heavy on foreign policy-- this is what really unites neoconservatives. Think more Henry "Scoop" Jackson. It's more secular and Jewish than Christian fundamentalist. And it goes beyond the narrow self-interest of libertarians and paleoconservatives who don't like spending money on foreigners.

2. "Viguerie says the GOP are 'royalists' and he loves Palin.

But we rejected monarchy in our Constitution 200 years ago.

Keep the laughs coming, Viguerie."

What he means by this (and he's exactly right) is that the Republican Party is a top-down party. Unlike the Democratic Party, which is an organization cobbled together from a set of often conflicting interest groups organized at the grassroots level (which is how you get a party made up of gays, blacks, and industrial unions), the conservatives are beholden to a party controlled by elders who decide where to dispense cash (or "contributions") and direct support. You don't see upsets like Barack Obama, who deposed the Democratic Party's "heir" to the presidential "throne" - Hillary Clinton - in the Republican Party. After Reagan lost to Ford in '76, he was the nominee for the next time around. George H.W. Bush was the heir through the 1980s; Bob Dole after him; Texas Governor George W. Bush after him; John McCain, his challenger in 2000, after him; and now Mitt Romney, the runner up this time around. Maybe Sarah Palin has supplanted Romney. It's whatever is brewing in the dark subterranean basement underneath the RNC headquarters that'll give a hint as to who it'll be.

Always Impressed|12.16.08 @ 1:45PM|#

"Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2)."

So very gay...

brian churchill|12.16.08 @ 1:49PM|#

I live in the West and am a registered independent who's conservative/libertarian.
I combed through the presidential election results by county for 2000, 2004, and 2008 and I made some very disturbing discoveries.

First, not counting AZ, only two counties in the West (defined as the states of CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, WY, NM, CO, AZ. NV, UT) were more red this election cycle than in 2004. Even worse, compared to 2000, just 19 counties in the West were more red. In both 2004 and 2008, no urban county voted more Republican for president.

This should be especially disturbing to the GOP since the ticket had two Westerners running, plus it was thought that McCain's maverick stance and Palin's individuality and strong stance on guns and being a small business owner before entering politics would carry the ticket far in the West.

This decline can't be blamed on evangelicals staying home. They voted 75-25% for McCain, which is as strong or stronger showing as Bush rec'd in 2000 and 2004.

Here's some raw data to flesh out the Republican decline:

Blue Counties in 2000 in West: 72
Blue Counties in 2004 in West: 80
Blue Counties in 2008 in West: 126

Dark Blue Counties in West (Dark Blue means Dem Candidate won by 15% or more)

Dark Blues in 2000: 31
Dark Blues in 2004: 40
Dark Blues in 2008: 66

While the GOP was not going to win California under any circumstances, it's time to hit a panic button when reliably Republican counties like San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino voted for Obama and McCain/Palin just narrowly held onto Orange County.

The only states with a large number of counties voting more Republican now than in 2000 is OK, AR, and TN. Nice states, but hardly bellwethers for political trends.

Why is the Republican Party in such decline here? I think the answer is that the Republican Party has forgotten the importance of good governance. The GOP historically stood for a strong defense, limited gov't, effective gov't, free markets, and certain social issues such as pro-life. Yet the Bush Admin. didn't handle the war in Iraq very well for several years; Afghanistan is in trouble; the bailouts are about to kill capitalism in order to save it; Katrina recovery was a mess; and earmarks and corruption lost the GOP majority in Congress in 2006.

While I understand that importance of the party's pro-life stance, it's not an election winner. McCain/Palin were strongly pro-life and presented a very dramatic contrast to Obama. Yet the election returns didn't show that it mattered much to the electorate-at-large or even in states with a large Catholic population.

I think the hope for conservatives are the nation's governors. Future presidential candidates should be governors who have kept taxes low, generated lots of good paying private sector jobs, emphasize education and keep state college tuitions low for state residents, and have proven crisis management skills in disasters, budget crunches, etc.

And governors with libertarian stances on issues such as guns, stem cells, etc. would go far, too.

Alan|12.18.08 @ 9:09PM|#

Reading this article made me sick to my stomach. Mentioning the "Constitution Party" and the LP in the same sentience is actually vomit inducing.

Thanks to all the libertarians on this thread who spoke out against (trashed) this ass hole.

Billy Mills|12.25.08 @ 5:20PM|#

I think, if John McCain had not signed the $ 700 B Bailout, he would have won the Election. BUT, when you consider Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama being backed by George Sorose and all of the 150,000 Muslims in thsi Country and the $ Millions he got from overseas,totally the $ 1 Billion he said he would spend to gain the Whitehouse. Plus the Gullible American people "hearing Change" and not having to pay income taxes, getrting kickbacks from the rich and given to the poor. I hope the Idiots realize what they've done. They let a smooth well trained Arab African woo them into Islamic Law. GOD HELP AMERICA......