GAMAY, Roots of the Republican Right

For those bemused by the string of circus acts parading through the Republican nomination process, here’s your primer.

While the Republicans vie for the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the Gipper would disapprove of much of what they propose. He was not the fountainhead of Republican orthodoxy. The actual source of modern “conservatism” is William F. Buckley Jr. Sixty years ago, 26-year-old Buckley, recalling his term at Yale, authored God and Man at Yale. GAMAY, as it came to be known, essentially laid out the doctrine of modern Republican politics.

Buckley had two bones to pick with his alma mater:

First, in politics, Yale professors were teaching the Keynesian model of economics. As a laisey faire advocate, Buckley had no truck for government meddling in economic affairs. Surely the market would rein in industrialists and protect us from corporate and executive greed (as we’ve seen in the last few years?). Regulation and fiscal policies pursued by devious politicians would only bring distortion to pure market forces. Buckley advocated “individualism” to combat the looming menace of “collectivism,” the sure path to socialism, which he associated with “communist” regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung.

Secondly, he was outraged over the academic, secular tilt of Yale’s religion department. By and large, the professors in theology at Yale, some of whom were ordained ministers, taught academic religious theory, instead of proselytizing the Christian faith to young, absorbent minds.

Buckley argued that academic freedom was a myth, and it was the responsibility of the University to lead its students down the path of [Buckley’s] choosing. “I believe,” he stated, “that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”

The Cold War was raging, as well as a hot war in Korea, and McCarthyism had spread its tentacles across our vision of freedom. Still these forces did not directly affect Mr. Buckley, and he seemed to be unconcerned with issues of freedom. These parochial views clearly defy the vision of “intellectual,” which we normally ascribe to this erudite and articulate gentleman.

Buckley conflated Christianity and economics into the focus of our goodly struggle against an evil, Godless empire. It was good verses evil. Even scholarly, John Maynard Keynes would lead us down the path to perdition.

And who would argue with this doctrine? Who could argue with it? There was no logic behind it---then, nor is there now. This is sentiment, a rationality based on emotion and faith. But this sentiment has imbued the modern Republican Party with the almost mindless fervor that is required to lock out reasonable dialogue. Sentiment trumps logic, or facts, because it's backed by the force of emotion. They don't discuss matters of politics because they're not dealing with what they "think;" it's a matter of what they believe. "Facts" or science have no bearing. When speaking derisively of the "intellectual elite" they're talking of non-believers, thinkers!

This anti-intellectual approach leads directly to the bombast of demagogues like Rush Limbaugh. It leads to sensational titles to widely-selling books from people like Ann Coulter: “Treason,” “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Demonic,” and “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America.” It also leads many on the right to make the irrational connection between Republican conservatism and Christianity.

You wonder why actual conservatives such as Jon Huntsman and (even) Mitt Romney can’t breach the walls of Republican legitimacy. They don’t speak with fervor and righteousness. And when they try, they don’t get it right. They sound phony. The Republican base demands chords of crusade.

So the next time you slip into a “discussion” with a Republican, keep in mind that you’re speaking to his heart, not his head. If you’re not speaking his language, he won’t be listening.