Zelizer Discusses Legacy of 70s Conservative Movement

Julian E. Zelizer is professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is writing a history of the politics of national security which will be published by Yale University Press. Next year Harvard University Press will publish a book that he co-edited, "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s." He is also the author of "On Capitol Hill" and the editor of The American Congress.

Photo courtesy of Princeton University

Alexander Heffner: Of all your investigation into America's past, is today's the most intriguing political climate in our history?

Julian Zelizer: This is one of the most interesting periods to follow. We are at a moment when the conservative movement is struggling. The movement, which had a huge impact on American society, is struggling politically and intellectually. Yet, at the same time, conservatives have deep roots in American politics so their influence won't disappear. As a result, we are in a moment of transition and uncertainty which is usually the most exciting to follow.

AH: How would you begin to compare the rightward turn America experienced in the 1980s—following the coalescence of conservative elites and laymen in the 70s—to the Republican successes since 2000?

JZ: The conservative mobilization in the 1970s, which we document in our book, was a period of grassroots organization, ideas, and movement building. Then, conservatism was young and its heart and soul was still outside positions of political power. The movement thus enjoyed a certain measure of freedom and energy that has long since disappeared. Once conservatives were in power, particularly after 2000, they started to struggle with some of the challenges that come from being the Washington elites rather than fighting against them. Even if Sen. McCain can win the election, which is clearly possible, conservatives need to regroup, to figure out what ideas and policies they stand for, and demonstrate that they can represent the voice of the future and of innovation.

AH: With John McCain at the helm of the Republican Party in 2008, are the old-school conservative forces built in the 70s destined for death?

JZ: No. Just as liberalism did not die after the 1960s and continues to influence our politics and culture, so too will conservatism. The institutional, organizational, and intellectual changes born out of the conservative movement are very extensive. Even if we have a more liberal government for the next eight or twelve years, they will have to grapple with what they inherit from conservatives—just as conservatives in the 1970s inherited the accomplishments of liberalism.

AH: McCain has claimed throughout the primary season that he was a proud "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution." Besides a few photo-ops with the president in the Oval Office, how truthful is McCain's assertion—and would the late president agree?

JZ: I don't think the claim is so out of line. Clearly, McCain has broken with conservatives on many issues, including campaign finance reform and immigration. But on some of those issues, like immigration, McCain is closer to Reagan than his more conservative colleagues. On many issues where McCain has stood with Republicans, such as the war or social issues, one could argue that McCain really has continued the Reagan Revolution: he has called for a tougher posture on national defense, he has railed against the corruption of Washington, and he has supported conservative stands on social policy.

AH: In the 2008 GOP primary story, Mike Huckabee was the reincarnation of...

JZ: That's a tough one. I don't think we have seen anyone put together a campaign of conservative populism in quite the way he did.

AH: Part of the 70s cultural backlash and counter-revolution was led by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed. Some claim that the Evangelical brand of Republicanism no longer has a monopoly on the party. Do you agree?

JZ: I don't think they ever had a monopoly on conservatism. One of the things that we learned was that social conservatives played an important role in conservative mobilization, but that elected conservatives often disappointed them. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and even George W. Bush all found that once in power there were substantial limits to how much they could please these elements of the party. Many Republicans did not agree with their policies and many Americans would simply not tolerate a more aggressive form of government intervention on social issues.

AH: You've studied former President Jimmy Carter and his one term in the White House. Some suggest that Barack Obama is a like-minded political lightweight and would have little practical success brokering compromises across the partisan fence. True?

JZ: I would not say that Carter was a political lightweight. I think he was a skilled politician and had considerable potential. That said, he had tremendous problems building political coalitions once in office and finding ways to achieve compromise on issues like energy. The anti-politics positions that he embraced in his campaign, which worked in the 1976 election, was not so good when it came to governing. We have to see what happens with Obama if he wins the presidency, but the Carter presidency might be one Obama should study and examine closely.

AH: In the 70s, 80s and 90s, respectively, which of these forces was the most influential in the conservative community: William F. Buckley's National Review, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson and other televangelists, or Right-wing talk radio?

JZ: All of these were important elements in the movement. The fact that there were so many components to the movement—intellectual writers, conservative religious activists, and radio show hosts who introduced many average Americans to political ideas—explains why the movement was so powerful.

AH: It seems that one of the most lasting legacies of the 70s rightward march -- still alive and well today, despite President Clinton's two terms -- is a marked shift in the federal judiciary's and Supreme Court's composition. Can conservatives thank their leaders from the 70s for the more entrenched power they now have on the nation's courts?

JZ: Yes, focusing on the courts was one of the most successful accomplishments of conservatives. The composition and tenor of the courts has changed dramatically. This is one of the more lasting reforms that a Democratic president could not quickly undue.

AH: In a recent Washington Post column, you and your Princeton colleague Sean Wilentz conclude "The unintended consequences of the well-intended reforms of the 1970s are now glaringly clear. Perhaps now, both parties will agree to reform the nominating system once again: abolishing caucuses, regularizing a rigorous system of national debates, closing open primaries, grabbing power back from the media and so on." What's the likelihood that this year's discontent among Democrats (and some Republicans) triggers such universal reform?

JZ: I do think the bitter divisions that emerged in the primary might cause Democrats to think about improving the system. I don't think reform needs to be "pro-Clinton" or "pro-Obama" but can instead be seen as an effort to create a more democratic and successful process. Parties that don't reexamine their processes tend to suffer historically. If Democrats lose the election in 2008, I think the pressures for reform could be quite substantial. Many people would not understand how Democrats could lose this election, and questions will arise about the process that led them toward that path, if that is what happens.

AH: You recently wrote about the growing concern among Democrats that they may lose in November if the party infighting continues. What's the best way for the party to extricate itself from its current situation and present a united front for the general election?

JZ: I think once the primaries are over, the loser will have to publicly support the winner and throw his or her weight behind them. I think it is that simple. If that happens, Democrats can overcome the divisions. If the divisions continue into the fall, even through hesitant support, they are doomed.

AH: You're currently completing your forthcoming "Washington Warfare." Could you briefly preview your book's angle/approach for our readers?

JZ: Yes. This is a history of the relationship between domestic politics and national security since the Cold War. I argue that politics never stopped at the water's edge and this book provides the history of how these issues played out in the domestic sphere.