The Right Since Obama: The Rise of Market Fundamentalism

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

The Right Since Obama: The Rise of Market Fundamentalism

Wednesday, 21 April 2010 05:21

This article originally posted at dissentmagazine.org

THE CRAZIES have come out of the conservative woodwork. Enraged and infuriated by the election of President Obama, bereft of any intellectual leadership or compelling figurehead, unable to stomach their declining powers in a multicultural America, conservatism has been reduced to a rump movement of alienated working class whites who can only mount bizarre “tea parties” to express their discontent.

Or so runs the conventional liberal wisdom on the conservative movement after the election of Obama. Even some leading conservatives appeared to agree. Sam Tanenhaus has recently announced the death of conservatism and called for a return to “classical conservatism,” and from his perch at the New York Times, David Brooks has cast a wistful eye at responsible “grown-up” British conservatism.

But the reality of the situation is more complex: The crash of 2008 has recalibrated the balance of power between market fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists in the Republican Party and what we are now seeing is the rebirth of a potent strain of pro-capitalist, anti-statist thought. This aspect of the right has always perplexed liberals, and few expected its return in the wake of a crisis that did much to discredit free-market economics. And yet libertarianism has surged (and religious and cultural conservatism has faltered) as the economy has pushed economics back to the forefront of the policy agenda.

The election of Obama has put conservatives back where they are most comfortable and, arguably, most powerful: on the outside looking in—or, as William F. Buckley, Jr. had it, “Standing athwart history, yelling stop!” Liberals may be comforted by this fact: After almost a decade of George Bush, it’s nice to see what the view is like from inside the White House. But they’d do well not to relax, for it is in periods of political exile that the right has developed its most effective ideas and political strategies.

WHEN THE markets tanked in 2008, conservatives were caught unprepared. For decades they’d been celebrating the powers of American capitalism and proposing the market as the solution to all social problems. Their vision of capitalism was narrow and teleological: it led always upwards, and it largely ignored the boom-and-bust cycle that has marked the American economy for centuries.

The confusion was, perhaps, best captured by a chastened Alan Greenspan, who appeared before Congress in October 2008 to confess the “flaw” in his ideology. It was a breathtaking moment: Not only was a powerful political figure admitting he had been wrong, but he was also invalidating the whole neoliberal worldview that his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman had come to symbolize.

But Obama’s election has reinvigorated the right’s faith in capitalism and its skepticism of government. The swift and loud conservative reaction to the stimulus has clouded the policy agenda and slowed the political momentum for change, and Obama’s presidency has become rich fodder for a right that has transitioned from religious fundamentalism to market fundamentalism.

Remember the “values voters” of 2004? It wasn’t long ago that the GOP perfected the art of the wedge issue, drawing on social issues that had animated religious conservatives since the late 1970s. George W. Bush picked up the mantle of Ronald Reagan, winning the allegiance of conservatives by speaking sincerely about his religious belief and famously declaring Jesus Christ to be his favorite philosopher. Nowadays, however, political candidates are more likely to be asked “who is your favorite economist?”

New populist pundits like Glenn Beck and old favorites like Rush Limbaugh have best weathered the transition from religious and cultural issues to free-market economics. Beck launched himself with the 9/12 project—which lists as its second principle that God is “the Center of my Life”—but he has also twinned it with a revised version of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense that he has subtitled “The Case Against an Out of Control Government.” Generalized invocations of God and Christianity remain a theme for both Beck and Limbaugh, but they are now in a decidedly minor key.

Nowhere is this clearer than in these pundits’ embrace of Ayn Rand, one of Greenspan’s mentors, who was for decades banished to the fringes of conservatism. Now she is a staple of Limbaugh’s monologues and her books are one of Beck’s favorite props. Liberals have always scoffed at Rand’s melodramatic novels and her overdrawn contrasts between good and evil. But Limbaugh now hails her as a prophet, and at the tea parties that swept the nation last spring, protesters waved signs that read: “Ayn Rand was right” and “Read Atlas Shrugged before it happens.”

WHEN IT first appeared, Atlas Shrugged was disliked by conservatives and liberals alike. Written in 1957, the novel is set in a decaying future America, where a socialist government has brought the country to ruin and the country’s top industrialists and executives—led by the heroic John Galt—have gone “on strike.” Panned by critics, Atlas Shrugged was criticized by conservatives for its atheism and its harsh view of humanity. None other than Whittaker Chambers, the patron saint of modern conservatives, called it “a remarkably silly book” and declared its underlying message to be: “To a gas chamber—go!”

But on today’s right, Rand’s many uses have obscured the controversial side of her philosophy. Rand redirects conservative rage away from the more obvious targets on Wall Street and focuses it instead on the federal government. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, outrage against bankers and their outsize compensation packages was widespread among those on both the right and the left. But now the bankers have been rebranded as “John Galts” who are being punished for their virtues.

Rand’s dark vision of government matches the way many conservatives see the Obama administration’s policies, and her binary worldview of good and evil dovetails with the conservative mindset. Modern political conservatism emerged among widespread fears of Communism, often understood as a global battle between the forces of Christianity and atheism. Today, Rand enables pundits like Beck and Limbaugh to continue this familiar pattern and channel their moral outrage into economic terms. Instead of saints and sinners, it’s the producers against the moochers and looters.

Though she’s not a fan of Rand, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin strikes a similarly divisive pose when she praises “real Americans.” The precise identity of these “real Americans” is left vague, but it is a remarkably malleable term that can be attached to a variety of targets—from Wall Street bankers to beltway insiders. Religion is central to Palin’s political identity but—like Beck and Limbaugh—much of her message pivots on the growth of government. Though her appeal appears limited to activist cadres, her “throw the bums out” message resonates with many independent voters, the fastest growing segment of the electorate.

FOOLISH THOUGH it seemed in late 2008, the right’s decision to stand by free-market capitalism was shrewd. Conservative attacks on the bailout and the stimulus have helped crowd out discussion about the root causes of the economic crisis; the rise of conservative populism has siphoned off the outrage toward Wall Street and redirected it toward the federal government. Americans remain both dependent on government and deeply skeptical of it. The same might be said of capitalism, but few voices have persuasively articulated the case for better regulated markets.

Instead, celebrity conservatives like Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin have reactivated a powerful strain in the American political DNA: conservative anti-statism. Though 2008’s presidential election signaled the momentary weakness of conservatism, it has also given the right a shot of adrenalin. At February’s CPAC convention, an annual gathering of conservative activists, the mood was jubilant and upbeat. Scott Brown’s surprise victory in January was blood in the water for conservatives, and they now foresee a string of similar victories in 2010. They may well be right, for the history of American conservatism has demonstrated repeatedly that conservatives thrive on defeat as much as success.

Comments (16)

|2010-04-21 09:02:52 Tristan Band - *sigh*

While I understand that it may seem like libertarianism is on the rise, I am more cynical. Conservatives use free-market rhetoric when out of power, to curry favor from the libertarian voting block. When in power, they go back to business as usual, expanding the warfare state and violating the separation of church and state.

As for market fundamentalism, that's a complicated topic. I tend to side with Dean Baker, a progressive, and say there is no such thing. Both sides of the aisle support government intervention, the question is for whom and for what purpose. Between the two, I send to side with the Democrats: Republicans, far from furthering the market, cater to vested interests that Cobden and Bright fought in Britain when trying to repeal the Corn Laws. While I reject both forms of interventionism, I know that the Republicans are far worse.

As a libertarian, I think that the whole market fundamentalism charge is one that is fair, but often overwrought. I'll let go lumping...

|2010-04-21 17:07:07 Paul R

"Market fundamentalist" is vocabulary that obscures real divisions and insults people who have actually studied economics. The methods of thought that lie behind the pro-market and pro-religion positions are vastly different and not compatible, and the most consistent exemplars of the two positions are mutually suspicious of each other.

|2010-04-23 01:05:44 Patrick Manley - Market Fundamentalism

This shift from religious to market fundamentalism appears to be less of a "shift" and more of an "emphasis" as a result of less reliance on religion as a society. This is a good transition for conservatives as arguments in favor of free markets are inherently less subject and more tangible than platforms based upon religion.

The liberal claims that this recession is proof that capitalism is a failure is remarkable considering how many laws, regulations, regulatory agencies and congressional oversight was in place long before the events of 2008.

Market fundamentalism continues to be much more attractive than a Federal government too large and too powerful. At the end of the day, that which protects individual freedom is that which serves best.

|2010-05-12 08:37:43 David Landau - Capitalism

It is very easy to "demonize" Capitalism to the indiscriminate and use this political philosophy out of context - Many Progressives Do! "What has Capitalism done for you lately?" Pure Capitalism is Individual Freedom, but we have never seen it - but we were close.
Palin plagerizes, copies (means well) but does not have an original thought. Beck and Limbaugh have flawed foundations, but Beck's Investigative "skills" have helped IN SPITE! So we are simply stuck with the best of a bad lot. Imagine how a rational man feels in an irrational society.

|2010-05-14 21:37:13 m painter - Truth

Why is it that American ‘liberals’, and others on the Left, pretend they can’t see past the bankers and capitalism , when they look to apportion blame for the great financial crisis?
Why do they pretend to be blind to the real genesis of the crisis, in the socialist engineering of the Clinton administration and its zealous socialist foot soldiers in the far Left activist and community- organising groups?

• Why do they desperately try to keep the world in the dark about the fact that –far from being a failure of capitalism and the markets---the crisis was due to the social engineering of a Left wing government ( even though it had had to masquerade as a fiscally conservative government and steal the Republican policies in order to function---as Socialists always find at some point they have to do (see China), because their own ideology produces misery and chaos).
• Why do ‘liberals’ not want Americans to know that it was interference in and corruption of the markets by their...

|2010-05-14 21:40:34 m painter - truth

• When ‘bankers’ are demonised, why is the subtext always that of course they must be Republicans, or at least of the Right, when in reality, many of the most prominent of the ‘greed is good’ crowd are in fact leading lights of the Democrats. Clinton’s Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin was ensconced in a cushy job with a humungous salary at Citigroup, almost before the ink was dry on his Clinton Administration legislation that made Citigroup and other super-banks, and their derivative and credit default swap escapades , possible. Other Democrat luminaries and favourite sons were rejigging things at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to advantage themselves, and were rewarded for that Democrat ‘liberal’ debacle, with jobs in the Democrat ‘liberal’ Obama administration.
It was the Bush administration that wanted to regulate back in 2003, and the Democrats who vetoed that
The reason the conservatives are active and engaged while out of power is because they have to come up with the strategi...

|2010-11-04 12:40:08 Alphonse Warakomski - Very Funny

I checked out the tea baggers at several rallies. Unfortunately I did not see the beings that have been reawakened to a new market fundamentalism. I did see a collection of older fools with their favorite poster sign "Keep Government Out of My Medicare". There also were many poster signs that labeled the President (BHO) who saved American capitalism from the fundamentalist free market capitalism unleashed by Armey-Gramm ("Conservative" Republicans) as a socialist or communist. Glen Beck, Rush Hudson Limbaugh II, and Sister Sarah Palin have unleashed the equivalent of the previous Know Nothing Party.

|2010-11-05 16:39:38 Alan - Cults of personality are dangerous

Alphonse, your ill-informed use of pejoratives not withstanding, the Tea Party movement is about the assertion of our individual rights and the rejection of the state's central role in our lives. Free market capitalism has been hobbled by the intervention of the state going far back to FDR. It is a tribute to the America free market that it has prospered in spite of the continued interference of progressives. The personality BHO will be gone in the blink of an eye and dispatched to the history writers. Their treatment will not be kind but it will be fair. The free market system will repair itself from the damage inflicted low these past 2 years.

|2010-11-16 14:04:00 Alphonse Warakomski - Free Markets Always Fail

Alan

Come on now if it hadn't been for the Federal Government's intervention in the American free market there would be no American Free Market as it would have collapsed into bankrupcy. We would all be scrambling to prevent starvation. BHO-GWB acted just like FDR and used Keynesian economics to save American capitalism from itself. When will the free marketers get it free market capitalism left to its own devices always sets up a scenario of absolute failure. Free markets have alawys failed in the long run and always will fail in the long run in the future without Federal goverment intervention.

|2010-11-16 15:24:34 Alan - Even FDR new he could not spend his way to prosper

Even Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau recognized that prosperity through spending would not work. The recent failures which the government contrived to use Keynesian principles as the rescuer are fact problems created by the government through its intrusion into free markets through Keynsian economics. In other words, Keynesian economics is a model which cannot sustain its ever escalating costs. As in the Soviet Union it will collapse under its own weight. Free market capitalism is a self regulating model which if left unmolested by the likes of 0bama does work. GM was in trouble because of the socialist model practiced by unions. Unions who paid who used union member dues to finance 0bama's $810 million campaign. A payoff. The same goes for the housing market. A free market model which the government intruded into by forcing the lending of money to people who were not fit to be borrowers. The outcome is the same, pick the a business model the government intrudes int...

|2010-11-16 15:27:50 Alan - Even FDR new he could not spend his way to prosper

intrudes into and you have failure. It is inevitable. The best thing for GM would have been to fail, flush the bad agreements it made and start over in a right to work state free of the encumbrance of unions. There the organization could have an eye to eye relationship with its employees.

|2011-04-18 17:06:16 Stone Bryson - I really wish...

I sincerely wish you would write blogs more frequently, Ms. Burns; I just recently started digging into your entries, and I am thoroughly enjoying your work. In today's world of hyper-psychosis from both sides, your words are refreshing and poignant.

|2011-08-28 23:03:54 FayREYNOLDS32 - reply this post

Buildings are quite expensive and not everybody is able to buy it. But, business loans was created to aid people in such kind of situations.

|2011-08-29 08:39:47 Paul R - Blog is dead

Selecting "do not notify" as I do not wish to subscribe to a neglected spam haven.

|2011-11-26 04:19:31 Jim Cap - Sorry, Ms. Burns: I don't buy it

Nothing personal, Professor Burns---ironic how the word "Professor" is now used as a "dirty word" by conservatives---but I'm not buying it.

Rand was strange. And somewhat sociopathic. But beyond her many personal problems, her ideas were extremely bizarre and filled with ideological fantasy. She was, indeed, a writer of fiction, and shouldn't be taken any more seriously than any other story teller.

If "free markets" and "unbridled capitalism" always "works" than how come it never has---expect for a very small sliver of society?

Free Market Conservatives, no disrespect intended, are just as delusional as Marxists who believe the the only reason their fantasy utopia hasn't been realized is because, "it's never really been tried!"

Oh, sure...we can all see that... ;-)

|2011-11-26 14:31:40 Brian - The proven failure of the statist model

While free market conservatives can contend the system has never really been tried, we can see the statist model was indeed tried in the 75 years of the Soviet empire and it failed. Free market capitalism scares many people because it compels them to succeed or fail on the merits of their abilities. So many have become accustomed to the hammock of taxpayer funded largesse, they see free market capitalism as a threat to that charity funded on confiscasted income. As such, these recipients, and proponents, of such "entitlements" use contrived negative terms to scare people away from a system which does more to self perpetute the problem as a means to justify its existence.