William F. Buckley basically destroyed the Birchers back in 1965[1], and Regan was a staunch anti Bircher.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/15/john-birch...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/15/john-birch...
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1966/10/11/reagan-juggles...
The more straightforward explanation is that the reactionary movement in America is due to the anti-democratic means American liberals have used to achieve social change, which differs markedly from what is the case in other developed countries. For example, Germany and France don’t have as strong of a reactionary anti-abortion movement because they never had anything like Roe that overruled the public opinion on abortion.
In America over half the country still disagrees about the ban on school prayer, including apparently the democrat Mayor of New York City: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/20.... Meanwhile in the UK, school prayer is still legally mandatory: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshir.... That law is adhered to more or less depending on the local community, and overall declining religiosity. But American liberals overruled public opinion on this more than 70 years ago.
If you repeatedly use the nuclear option to overcome political opposition you’re going to generate a reaction. You don’t need a Bircher conspiracy to explain what happened.
That's patently false. The majority of the progressive policies you speak of were legislated by actual left win (not liberals) governments that came to power after Ww II. These governments and coalitions did not have absolute majority. In most cases they did not reach 51% representation even, mostly ~20% to ~30%. In all of these countries there were conservative segments that staunchly opposed these policies and represented ~20% of the population. The rest of the population belonged to other parties that aligned more or less with differing sides of the argument. So considering how the popular opinion was more or less evenly split in these countries at the time, by your proposition they all have legislated those measures anti-democratically.
But this part of your argument requires special attention:
> the reactionary movement in America is due to the anti-democratic means American liberals have used to achieve social change
There is no way to democratically win over those who want to live in 200 years ago with the traditions and practices that belong to two thousand years ago, practicing child labor, segregation, treating women as 2nd class beings, denying actual natural reality and trying to enforce their own false belief as the truth. From conservative American states which just recently legalized child labor to delirious kooks who say that the Earth is flat and dying in the process of launching their own homemade rockets to prove or confirm that belief, the American anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists are exactly the same today like how they were back then. If the society of 19th century did not override them and made progress happen, they would successfully have prevented a lot of the social and even technological progress that you take as normal today. They were openly against technology and they wanted to stop or limit its progress. You can see the heritage of that anti-intellectualism in how Mormons live today. If this feels like an unlikely case, note that the religious fundamentalist segments of the society DID succeed in keeping out or limiting scientific and technological progress in most of the Middle East from 18th century until mid 1950s, and that is the reason why those regions have fallen behind the rest of the world this much.
They were still legislated, according to the systems those countries have for enacting legislation. Political horse trading among party coalitions is still democratic. That’s just representative democracy versus direct democracy. In the US by contrast, those same decisions were carved in stone by 9 people who by definition were members of the educated elite.
> There is no way to democratically win over those who want to live in 200 years ago with the traditions and practices that belong to two thousand years ago
Yes, I get that liberals think moral regulation is this distinct sphere that should be carved out from the democratic process and entrusted to committees of Harvard and Yale graduates. I’m simply pointing out that doing this makes the proles mad. Quite predictably so. You don’t need some Bircher conspiracy theory to explain what’s happening.
Story time: When my home country became independent and adopted a constitution, some elites had the bright idea to make “secularism” one of the founding pillars of the constitution. Of course a decade or so later the stupid hillbillies made Islam the official religion. To this day my dad is shocked by the “reaction.” But I’m like “what the f—k did you think was going to happen?”
If the US had proportional representation, all of those policies would have been enacted at earlier points through the same mechanic that is in effect in Europe. You seem to think that there is a different kind of distribution of support/opposition to such policies in the US than anywhere else and there is a greater segment of the population that actually opposes these policies. That is not so.
> Yes, I get that liberals think moral regulation is this distinct sphere that should be carved out from the democratic process and entrusted to committees of Harvard and Yale graduates
Harvard and Yale graduates are among the conservative segments of east coast old money types that keep the reactionary traits of the US society going since early 19th century. If you said MIT, Berkeley, Caltech etc, your shaky proposition about 'liberals' could have been more credible. But as it stands it now contradicts itself by proposing that the conservative types of the old aristocracy who spearheaded the Reaganite movement have legislated progressive legislation against their own voter base.
> I’m simply pointing out that doing this makes the proles mad. Quite predictably so. You don’t need some Bircher conspiracy theory to explain what’s happening.
The behavior of far-right nationalist and religious fundamentalist groups anywhere on the planet are identical: If there wasn't these 'issues' that you speak of, they would be mad about something else just like how similar groups elsewhere in the world are.
> some elites had the bright idea to make “secularism” one of the founding pillars of the constitution
I dont know which one is your home country. However even speaking in the context of the US, secularism was and still is one of the fundamental tenets of the Age of Enlightenment that made the modern society, more importantly, the scientific revolution, possible. Before that, religious institutions and the religious elite and power groups were intervening in both politics and science and hampering the scientific progress. Any society that was not able to adopt it before 19th century started, was retarded in development and they either were conquered or made satellites by the countries that did adopt it. Which means that this is an excellent example of how it is necessary for society to prevent such fundamentalism and the fundamentalists that propagate it from sabotaging itself.
The U.S. is much more socially conservative than Europe, which has to do with being much more religious than Europe: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/01/with-high-l....
Proportional voting would probably make the U.S. even more conservative. Currently, the Democratic Party is a coalition of more socially liberal whites and more conservative/moderate minorities and immigrants. For example, here is the Democratic mayor of New York City complaining about the 1962 Supreme Court that banned school prayer: https://www.christianpost.com/news/nyc-mayor-says-it-was-a-m.... A multi-party proportional system would give this segment more independent political power and weaken liberals.
> Harvard and Yale graduates are among the conservative segments of east coast old money types that keep the reactionary traits of the US society going since early 19th century.
Incorrect. The "east coast old money types" are among the most socially liberal of the subgroups of the U.S., and Harvard and Yale are extremely liberal on social issues.
> If you said MIT, Berkeley, Caltech etc, your shaky proposition about 'liberals' could have been more credible.
Engineering schools like MIT and CalTech are actually more socially conservative than schools like Harvard and Yale. STEM workers in general are more conservative on average: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246
> But as it stands it now contradicts itself by proposing that the conservative types of the old aristocracy who spearheaded the Reaganite movement have legislated progressive legislation against their own voter base.
There was no legislation, but that's close to what happened. The Reagan GOP was a coalition of often socially liberal big business types, and religious conservatives in the midwest and south. Nixon and Reagan appointed a bunch of libertarian-leaning Supreme Court justices, who's often defected to the liberal side on social issues. Roe was written by a Nixon appointee (and a Harvard grad). Casey was written by a Reagan appointee, joined by another Reagan appointee (and Harvard grad). Obergefell was written by a Reagan appointee and Harvard grad.
Now that the Democratic Party is friendly to big business, most of the “old money” types are democrats. 90% of Wall Street donated to Hilary Clinton.
> The behavior of far-right nationalist and religious fundamentalist groups anywhere on the planet are identical: If there wasn't these 'issues' that you speak of, they would be mad about something else just like how similar groups elsewhere in the world are.
Not so. In my home country of Bangladesh, there hasn't been much of a "reactionary" movement since Islam was reinstated as the official religion in the 1980s. "Reactionaries" are by definition are reacting to change. That’s where the term comes from—reactionary movements rise in response to revolutionary movements.
> I dont know which one is your home country. However even speaking in the context of the US, secularism was and still is one of the fundamental tenets of the Age of Enlightenment that made the modern society, more importantly, the scientific revolution, possible. Before that, religious institutions and the religious elite and power groups were intervening in both politics and science and hampering the scientific progress. Any society that was not able to adopt it before 19th century started, was retarded in development and they either were conquered or made satellites by the countries that did adopt it. Which means that this is an excellent example of how it is necessary for society to prevent such fundamentalism and the fundamentalists that propagate it from sabotaging itself.
You're conveniently forgetting the U.S., which was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that quite consciously distanced themselves from the European enlightenment. But became much more successful than continental Europe. Meanwhile, continental Europe has become so culturally decrepit that they have lost the will to perpetuate their society and are being replaced by Muslims.
But I'm not debating religion with you. My point is that if went into Bangladesh and legalized same-sex marriage by court order because you think your morality is better than the morality of stupid villagers, you should expect a "reaction." That's basically what liberals have been doing in America for decades. The reaction to that isn't some Bircher conspiracy, it's a natural cause-and-effect.
Thats a misconception. The main conservative voting blocs in both locations have the same kind of weight and cloud if reflected in a proportional system.
> A multi-party proportional system would give this segment more independent political power and weaken liberals
Nope. Like the above, the main driving blocs would remain mostly the same in their talking points, while many separate parties would align, cooperate and make coalition with the main drivers.
You are also missing the fact that the reason why people coalesce in such big 'broad umbrellas' in the US is because they have to do it.
> Incorrect. The "east coast old money types" are among the most socially liberal of the subgroups of the U.S., and Harvard and Yale are extremely liberal on social issues.
The recent finance/media cliques can be said to be so. However we were talking about the traditional heritage of the US. And in history, it is as I described.
> Engineering schools like MIT and CalTech are actually more socially conservative than schools like Harvard and Yale. STEM workers in general are more conservative on average: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246
We were not talking about social conservatism. We were talking about anti-intellectualism, secularism. A MIT grad being more socially conservative on gay marriage or LGTBT rights does not mean that he or she will be tolerant to anti-intelectualism or will support anti-intellectual, anti-scientific policies of middle America.
> Roe was written by a Nixon appointee
Again, you are getting stuck on peripheral social issues while losing the gist of the argument. Anti-intellectualism is something that has a much bigger scope than the abortion debacle or LGBT rights.
> Not so. In my home country of Bangladesh, there hasn't been much of a "reactionary" movement since Islam was reinstated as the official religion in the 1980s.
My good man, if the islamism has already taken over, it means that you reactionary movements have already won. Which means that they existed way before that, and they were at work to achieve precisely that objective.
Which means that your secular society did not encompass everyone and did not try to bring all the amenities of modern science, technology and social advance to those people through education, social programs, employment and the like. They remained poor and destitute, seeking help from religious groups instead. Which is a perfect fit for Islam since Islam already has such charity/solidarity organizations built into the religion.
Again, its a perfect case that fits the pattern I described.
> You're conveniently forgetting the U.S., which was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that quite consciously distanced themselves from the European enlightenment
That's false. The leaders of the American Rebellion were followers of the Enlightenment, and some even were way beyond just being followers. Thomas Paine even served a few terms in French Revolutionary parliament as a MP. From Washington to Jefferson, the leaders of the rebellion were way too radicals for their time, even in the issue of slavery. The sole reason that the concept 'America is not founded on religion' exists is because of those radicals. And it was one of them who explicitly said that.
> Meanwhile, continental Europe has become so culturally decrepit that they have lost the will to perpetuate their society and are being replaced by Muslims
This sounds like your personal opinion fueled on your personal perceptions without any statistical or historical basis. The percentage of muslims in Europe is 6%, and this includes those who dont practice.
The reason Europe is faltering is precisely because the center-right conservative types are implementing Reaganism for the last 40 years and their projects of privatization, profiteering are finally having their effects visible.
> The reaction to that isn't some Bircher conspiracy, it's a natural cause-and-effect
Anti-intellectualism and gay marriage are not things that are in the same rank. Anti-intellectualism existed before anyone 'forced' anything on anybody and it wanted people to live like the Amish or Mormons then, and it does so even today. If the late 19th century seculars have not forced secular modernism on the society, they would succeed to do so, as can be seen from how backwards the Middle East remained due to rejection of science.
Your personal biases are causing you to make extreme extrapolations and lose sight of the core subject.