Governor Peterson in the NYT last Sunday (and a question)

I think there's a bit of (4.00 / 2)

revisionist history here, on Governor Peterson's part.

Goldwater gave the term currency with "Conscience of a Conservative." The New Hampshire Republican Party was dominated by Yankee moderates; they organized a write-in campaign for Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964 to beat Goldwater in the primary. That experience clearly pitted "The Concord Gang," as Loeb then called the GOP establishment (including Peterson, Cleveland, Bass, and Gregg) against the Conservative movement.

The GOP, locally and nationally, was triangulating: not so "big government liberal" as LBJ, not so "extremist conservative" as the Goldwater camp. Peterson was himself followed by a truly scary conservative, Mel Thomson.

In the language of the day, IIRC, Peterson was considered a moderate Republican. Even his opponents on the left conceded that he was far less conservative than the Goldwater / Thomson crowd.

(This all ties in to my thesis that the dividing line is not  Progressive / Conservative today, but rather Pragmatic / Dogmatic, with Dems generally Pragmatic and the GOP leadership entirely Dogmatic. Peterson is a pragmatic statesman. That is not in conflict with being conservative; it is in conflict with being a 21st Century Republican.)

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:07:12 AM UTC

Yes on pragmatic/dogmatic (0.00 / 0)

As you know, I'll take a dozen of that.

Of course, one could say that Russell Kirk's version of Conservatism embraced pragmatism, whereas Goldwater injected the idealism in -- it that way, perhaps in retrospect, Peterson could identify with the Kirkian brand? Kirk did make an early attempt at rescuing the term with _The Conservative Mind_.

But it sounds like from what you're saying that no one in NH would have been using the term in that way -- that given the political situation, conservative = Goldwater. Kirk would have had insignificant influence on the term?

(Of course here it gets hairy, because Kirk's pragmatism is also wrapped up in some Cultural Conservatism, so you're not getting the whole list Peterson mentions there either.)

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:23:45 AM UTC

I think so (4.00 / 1)

It's a linguist's question more than anything.

I think terms like "conservative" end up being meaningless except in the context of the current political spectrum, which changed about every four years then.

He won in 1968, following Dem. Gov. John King, who had managed LBJ's disastrous NH primary. I don't recall what his opponent (Emile Bussiere) was running on, for issues. But I think that there's a good chance that Peterson appeared at least as moderate as his Democratic predecessor and opponent. Combine that with the Union Leader and Mel Thomson emerging to his right, and it's a reach to think of him as standing in Conservative territory.

Plus, he actually managed to get tax reform through. He replaced the 'Stock in Trade' Tax with a Business Profits Tax and, IIRC, started the Rooms and Meals Tax. The UL and the right wing of the GOP absolutely hated that.

Now, his words don't really claim that he was viewed as, or positioned himself as, the conservative candidate -- just that there is a form of conservatism that we used to celebrate, that he found comfortable, and it's gone.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:42:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think a good example for those of us (4.00 / 1)

without extensive roots in NH would be to look at a guy like Jim Jeffords as typifying what Peterson is getting at.  Linc Chafee is also not bad, but because he really was just filling in for his dad in terms of party affiliation, it's not as strong an example.

Jefford's historic move out of the party to me was really the defining moment of the end of Peterson's conservative world, the moment where the Republican party's former strength and worth ceased to be.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:55:42 AM UTC

That's a fair take (4.00 / 2)

But if I can play color commentator:

Peterson's experience was much more bitter than Jeffords, at least until Jefford left and was shunned by the GOP.

Peterson faced the Union Leader, which was the most vitriolic and hate-filled mainstream media source in the nation. They eagerly pounced on stories that attacked his kids in high school. Today's readers will not understand just how despicable the paper and its owners were. (The front-page editorial -- a custom I haven't seen anywhere else, BTW -- attacking Nixon's Secretary of State as "Kissinger the K*ke" gives a taste.)

And Peterson faced a Republican Party that was being taken over by a mob. Mel Thomson took political discourse down to license-plate rhetoric: "AXTAX" was the vanity plate he paid for. (Thomson enjoyed license-plate rhetoric: he made a federal case out of a Jehovah's Witness who taped over 'Live Free or Die.' The man's family was shunned; New Hampshire taxpayers paid to have the case thrown out dismissively in the Supreme Court.)

Jeffords had the advantage of a much more civil environment, at least in state politics. He could have been re-elected easily.

Peterson saw his own party and political philosophy stolen in his own backyard. Jeffords had to drive down to DC to witness the theft.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:38:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

part of a dialogue (4.00 / 3)

A friend and I have been discussing this very article so here's part of my commentary to him:

That was an interesting article - but like most other post-electoral analysis, it's not quite right.

Jeb Bradley was always referred to as a moderate - but it isn't true. Bradley was the only Congressman from New England to vote in favor of an amendment to the US Constitution banning marriage equality. He was staunchly in favor of REAL ID, which is hated by many in this state. He consistently rubber stamped the disastrous fiscal policies of the Bush admin - and so did Charlie Bass. Bradley refused to the bitter end to take a stand against privatizing Social Security - and I believe that is one of the chief factors in his loss - something that is going ignored and unreported by the pundits. Bass, too, was pro-privatization - and both of them loved the disaster that is Medicare Part D. In a state with an aging population base, these were two important issues in this election, and no one is paying any attention to their role in the election.

As for the NH House - the GOP has had a stranglehold on it since the Civil War. People are sick and tired of the lack of solutions offered by the majority party. NO TAXES and CUT SPENDING have begun to sound like the cries of Chicken Little. The NH GOP has taken the voters for granted. For years many of them ran unopposed, and it never occurred to them that they might one day have to EARN those seats. The Democrats came at them with organized campaigns and they were unprepared - because they thought the almighty gave them those seats for life. I had a really angry email from a GOP legislator who did not get re-elected, snarling about how the voters in his district didn't know anything about his record, and so on. He hasn't responded to my return email asking whose fault that was. He didn't have a campaign - and now he's ticked off. 

The national GOP made a huge mistake in letting the religious right take over the party. Small evangelical churches are springing up like mushrooms here, but as yet, we haven't been overtaken by the religious right. Their kind of hatred doesn't play well here.

Perhaps the thing they're ignoring the hardest is that the GOP has moved so far to the right that the Democrats have become the centrist party. They have no one but themselves to blame - but typically, they aren't taking any responsibility for their failure.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:24:07 AM UTC

And corruption (0.00 / 0)

Any attempt to figure out this sudden shift in the political climate here has to acknowledge the GOP corruption issue. From the Gene Chandler "corn roasts" to the Benson seashore landscaping to the phone jamming to the robocalls -- the state party finally disgusted a lot of voters.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:43:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

::sigh:: (4.00 / 1)

Looks like Laura and Elwood will have to keep pounding away at the CW on new residents:

Demographic changes also played a role, especially the influx of people from out of state, mostly retirees and employees of New Hampshire's burgeoning technology industry.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:50:24 AM UTC

2/3 right (0.00 / 0)

Out-of-state still plays a role, just Mass is net red influence.

Retirees -- I suspect from the recent demographics this is a big influence, but I haven't seen a profile of what an average retiree immigrant looks like. How rich? Are they dodging taxes by moving here in some way? (at base, on a fixed income consumption/sales tax will make your money worth much less). Or are they more upset about Social Security?

We do import a lot of tech people. And the tech economy is one thing that needs more play in the media coverage here. I always felt that Kerry got a bit of an upper hand on Dean in 2004 because while Dean was still locked on the war, Kerry in Jan/Feb started talking H1B and job exportation. SO did Edwards. Both got bumps.

To paraphrase the quote about the Velvet Underground, there may have only 10,000 people in the state that lost jobs to exportation, but every single one made it to the polls.

So I'm fine with most of that quote, although it simplifies the shift,and like most attempts to minimize the internal shift.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:32:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scala wag (4.00 / 2)

On reading the Peterson quote and Scala question:

1. Scala is dishonest in his wording "before Goldwater and Thomson 'bastardized' the term." Goldwater was 1964, Thomson 1972. Peterson was elected Governor in 1968. Peterson's perspective would be before Thomson affected the term, but not before Goldwater.

2. Every example Peterson gives of 'traditional' conservatism is consistent with Goldwater. Small government, no dole, balanced budget, live and let live.

Scala is playing gotcha here, it seems, in a transparently unfair manner.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:33:08 AM UTC

That explains my confusion (0.00 / 0)

To me, Peterson's quote was obviously referring to the religious conservative movement, the neoconservatives, or some mix of the two.

Since Mel Thompson's governorship was not during my lifetime and I had no knowledge of Peterson's, Scala's interpretation gave me the impression that Peterson preceded Goldwater's movement, which if I'd done any fact-checking would've proved false.

I still don't get why he'd play stupid though. What point did Scala intend to make here?

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:59:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, dishonest no (0.00 / 0)

I think the question kind of comes back to where Peterson is seeing himself historically.

I think Scala's point here is not so much when he was Governor, but if there was ever an idyllic time when Conservative != Goldwater conservative here in NH, as opposed to moderate Republican.

Peterson initially seems to be referring to a mythical time.

It sounds like lumping Thompson in with Goldwater is unfair though. Coming back to my second point, despite the history, despite the UL, is it possible that Peterson is really referring here not to some pre-Goldwater conservatism...but to a conservatism circa 64-70 that included Goldwater AND him in it.

Sorry, rambling a bit here, but I used to be a bit of a fan of Goldwater style conservatism, and when I read Peterson's definition, I didn't originally see him thinking of Goldwater "bastardizing" the term, but of people much later. Peterson words this definition carefully and broadly enough that it would apply to *both* a moderate 1960s Republican AND Goldwater. The history you guys have added here makes that very interesting.

But while it sounds like Scala is hyping his point a little through the inclusion of Thompson, I still think it is going to be very interesting to see how Conservatives begin to rewrite their history in the coming months, so I think his basic question is a good one, and one we'll be watching here as well.

And I'm not just saying that because he agreed to blogroll us ;)

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:42:59 PM UTC

Thanks -- (4.00 / 1)

'Dishonest' is probably too strong, and the wrong word.

But Scala must realize that the timeline just doesn't work. Peterson was prominent in state politics before being elected Governor -- he was House Speaker from 1965-1968 -- but not really before Goldwater was defining the conservative movement. The question of whether Peterson called himself a 'conservative' pre-Goldwater is sort of like asking, did JFK call himself a 'liberal' pre-FDR.

This is starting to get before my time -- but I believe the dividing line in the NH GOP prior and during the Goldwater era was not conservative / moderate as such, but McCarthyite anti-Communist hysteria. NH-01 Congressman Louis Wyman was a McCarthyite, NH-02 Congressman Jim Cleveland defended a teacher accused of being Red. Both were considered conservatives; Cleveland's reputation as being somewhat more moderate was based in part, I think, on his greater respect for civil liberties, and in part on NH-02's habit of always seeing its Congressman as a moderate.

The center-right divide has sort of shifted from ant-Communist fervor to environmentalism to reproductive rights to gay rights over the years...

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 13:16:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Graniteprof just gave us some love (0.00 / 0)

Over here:

http://graniteprof.t...

Which clarifies his comment in light of our comments.

I suppose the question *I* come out of this with (and maybe it's my Catholic upbringing) is:

When do people like Peterson see the grace as having left the Republican Party? Had you asked them in 1979 their answer might have been different. But how do they see it now?

It's a particularly interesting question for me because I have recently come to my personal realization personal responsibilty does not lead to personal freedom...which to me always seemed the bargain Goldwater was selling and that I LIKED.

[The reason the party of Goldwater is destined to become the party of proto-fascism is actually quite simple, now that I see it: if personal responsibility = personal freedom, then those who are not free or trapped by circumstance MUST be responsible for their situation. So we swallow wiretapping (only wiretapping bad guys), high prison rates (hey, they did break the law), Gitmo, torture, etc.

In other words, BushWorld is just Bush reading the Goldwater equation from the other direction.]

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 18:50:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On the Exchange today (0.00 / 0)

in response to a caller's comment, Scala said that if the Democrats can actually convince people that they are the party of pragmatism while the GOP is ruled by ideology, the Dems may remain in power at both state and federal levels for a very long time.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 19:06:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and one more thing (4.00 / 1)

I guess the real problem is, it never mattered back then what Peterson, or Thomson, or Cleveland, called himself. Political discourse in the state was driven by Bill Loeb and the Union Leader, period. There was no public radio, Boston media didn't cover NH.

That was the real-world dividing line: were you a Union-Leader candidate? To be one, you had to be a particular type of right-wing populist. But there was a LOT of political spectrum on the other side.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 13:21:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]