AHC: from 1970s, U.S. movement conservatives focus 80% on corporate power.

AHC: from 1970s, U.S. movement conservative focus 80% skepticism on corporate power.

And only 20% on governmental power. That is, almost a complete reversal of the way things have been.

Perhaps, the conservative movement is much more about Main Street conservatism, or much more savvy about the loss of middle-class jobs than in OTL? Maybe even the Democrats are more savvy, too!

Bonus Points if there's still a leveraged buy-out craze in the 1980s, but maybe it just doesn't last as long.
 
Last edited:
Then it wouldn't be movement conservatism, it'd be a paleoconservatism that excluded the Frank Chodorovs and Buckleys of the American right.

You'd also need a point of departure in the 40s or 50s to lift the paleocons -- isolationists in an age of Cold War, not quite as beholden to the private sector -- above Buckleyite fusionism.
 
Movement conservatives tend to be people who march to their own drummer. Maybe through newsletters and the like, the idea gains greater currency that for capitalism and growing-the-pie-bigger-for-everyone to really work well, you don't necessarily need complete equality between buyer and seller, but it sure helps for the two parties to be equal enough that you have genuine negotiation. And therefore we have been much too quick to dismiss unions. Unions do contribute to a growing economy.

And besides that, it's good politics to win over 30% of union members to the Republican party and later more.

So, a fair number of movement conservatives start promoting the idea that being pro-union is both good policy and good politics.

*what I mean is that conservatives aren't all gray flannel suit people that just love the corporate environment. And if working in trades provides a solid second path and contributes to a multi-path as far as making it in society, that's good for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Maybe have the dialogue within the conservative movement go something like this...

A: We gotta unshackle free-enterprise from the chains of evil socialism!!

B: Yaay!! Right on, you tell 'em!

A: Free the corporations!!

B: Yee haw! Corporations rock!

A: And we gotta clean up all the moral filth that's polluting our culture!!

B: Yeah! Round up those deviants!!

A: And let's not forget the people who are financing and making money off of all this cultural pollution!!

B: Amen, brother! Tell us who it is!

A: IT'S THOSE CORPOR-...!! Oh, uh, yeah, hm.

In other words, the light-switch finally clicks on, and they realize that, among the millionaires and billionaries whose rights they are so assidiously championing, are a significant number who are profiting off of all the porn movies, racy sitcoms, and heavy metal 8-tracks supposedly infesting the culture. And aim their sights accordingly.

Of course, this assumes that the leaders of the movement allow the cultural warriors to rise up and declare war on a whole section of capitalism. Possibly ASB, the more likely scenario being that, as in OTL, they'd just blame it all on public-education and government arts funding, the two safe targets that Hollywood and the music industry have little interest in defending.
 
Well, heck, I kind of like racy sitcoms! Mmm.:cool:

Alright, there's some of that. But let's say conservatives also focus in the fact that the networks moved away from the Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres to crime dramas. I think there was some period in the early '70s where this shift happened. And also that The Waltons was cancelled when it was still successfully? Maybe because it was running at 30% of viewing audience and the network wanted more. And the network may have been mistaken and may have been better off sticking with The Waltons.
 
Last edited:
Only one time around 1981, I saw the Libertarian Party staffing a table inside at a major regional mall in Texas (mall management may have later decided they made a terrible mistake!).

Their big issue was to repeal an Eisenhower-era federal law which limited the liability of power companies in the event of a nuclear accident to 100 million. This sounds like an enormous amount of money, but if a serious accident unities ten million persons, well, you get the point.

The guy said that without thus cap, maybe the power company could buy insurance and maybe not. Either way, the market would be making a more rational decision on risk and benefit.

And I know there's not one-to-one correspondence between libertarians and conservatives, but there is some. So, if some of this kind of thinking bled over, might have more of an anti-corporate flavor. And please remember, the minor but potentially serious accident at Three Mile Island happened in March 1979.
 
The situation with the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in the 1970s. A new fault line was discovered, pretty much right under the proposed location, and some guy said, we've already spent so much money . . .

Even though not one crane or anything else had been taken to the site!

Just the engineering studies, as if it's a full-employment act for engineers. As if the safety's just pro-forma.

This seems like a ripe topic for conservatives to jump in.

========

They went ahead and built Diablo Canyon and nothing happened. But probably too big a risk to take.
 
Top