Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Governments
Author(s): Kenneth R. Hoover
Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 245-268
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/179097
Accessed: 24/06/2010 15:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Comparative Studies in Society and History.
http://www.jstor.org
The Rise of ConservativeCapitalism:
Ideological Tensions within the
Reagan and ThatcherGovernments
KENNETH R. HOOVER
Universityof Wisconsin-Parkside
This article is based in parton a paperpreparedfor the XIII WorldCongress of the International
Political Science Association, Paris, July 1985. I would like to thank Norman Cloutier, Mark
Kann, Thomas Moore, and Raymond Plant for their suggestions in writing this article.
I C. B.
Macpherson, The Real World of Democracy (London: Oxford University Press,
1965), 11. More recently, the discussion of "liberal democraticcapitalism" has been at the heart
of attemptsto revise Marx's theory of the state. See Samuel Bowles and HerbertGintis, "The
Crisis of Liberal DemocraticCapitalism:The Case of the United States," Politics and Society,
11:1 (1982), 51-93.
245
246 KENNETH R. HOOVER
7 Robert Behrens locates the fault line in the ConservativeParty between the Ditchers, who
have boughtinto the postwarpolitics of statism, and the Diehards, who insist on the "true faith"
of the free marketand personalresponsibility.The libertarian-traditionalist distinctiondiffers in
assessing the historicaldimensionof this split and its impacton currentpolicy. Traditionalists,in
our view, deviate only when they compromise Burke;and the faith of the Diehards, as Behrens
allows, is in an adaptationof utilitarianismand laissez faire, not the conservativetradition.Cf.
Behrens, "Diehards and Ditchers in ContemporaryConservativePolitics," The Political Quar-
terly, 50 (July-September1979), 287-88, 292; idem, The ConservativeParty from Heath to
Thatcher (London: Saxon House, 1980), 7-9, 39. For terminology used in the analysis of
developmentsin GreatBritain, see the distinctionbetween the New Right and the Tory Far-right
in PatrickDunleavy, "Analysing British Politics," in Developmentsin British Politics, Henry
Drucker,ed. (New York: St. Martin'sPress, 1983), 292-93; the discussion of Drys and Wets in
RonaldButt, "Thatcherissima:The Politics of Thatcherism,"Policy Review, 26 (Fall 1983), 30-
35. Cf. Lon Felkerand RobertThompson, "The IntellectualRoots of Economic Conservatismin
the Reagan and Thatcher Administrations," Journal of the North Carolina Political Science
Association, 3 (1983), 38-55.
8 Tibor Machan, ed., The LibertarianAlternative (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1974), 499. For
nuancesin the argument,cf. Nash, ConservativeIntellectualMovement, 16-18, 32-33; and Noel
K. O'Sullivan, Conservatism(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1976), 27.
9 For a critiqueof Hayek's argumentin this respect, see RaymondPlant, "Hirsch, Hayek, and
Habermas:The Dilemmas of Distribution," in Dilemmas of Liberal Democracies, A. Ellis and
K. Kumar,eds. (London and New York: Tavistock, 1983), 45-64.
10 Cf. Nash, ConservativeIntellectualMovement,73; RobertNisbet, Communityand Power
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1962).
RISE OF CONSERVATIVE CAPITALISM 249
We have seen these ideological tendenciesjockey for position over the last
severalyears. I will briefly tracetheiremergenceduringReagan's first termin
relationto his policy proposals on income security and the New Federalism,
examine some internaldissensions over their implementation,and assess the
impactof these policies on the structureof opportunity.We will then turnto
the Thatchergovernment, where similar strains may be observed in several
dimensions of style and policy.
The struggle over income security remains at the core of the ideological
debate in the United States. The specific question as to whetherthe states or
the federalgovernmentshould finance welfare was the pivotal structuralissue
of PresidentReagan's 1981 New Federalismproposal. The New Federalism
was originally envisioned as a sweeping change in the structureof federal
relations involving drastically different budgetarypriorities, the shifting of
categorical aid programs into block grants, large reductions in federal reg-
ulatoryactivity, the returnof revenue sources to the states, and the establish-
ment of enterprisezones to aid economic development.I When fully imple-
mented, the New Federalismwas to rival the New Deal and the GreatSociety
as revolutions in the federal system.
Like its two predecessors,this revolutionwas drivenby ideological convic-
tion and powered by the perceptionof widespreadsupportfor change. 2 Yet
the revolutionis incomplete. It consists of budgetcuts and programconsolida-
tions ratherthan the whole programof structuralreorganizationenvisioned in
the original New Federalism proposal. Whetherthe New Federalist agenda
will be completed depends on clearing the hurdle of true structuralchange.
Whether that final hurdle can be cleared depends in part on whether the
ideological thrustthathas energizedthe movementcan be sustainedin view of
internalconflicts between traditionalistsand libertarians.
A brief history of Ronald Reagan's association with welfare policy pro-
vides essential insights into the conflicts that have shaped income-security
policy. The ideological history of the New Federalismreally begins with the
CaliforniaWelfare Reform Act of 1971. The centerpieceof Ronald Reagan's
governorship,it was a response to rapidlygrowing welfare rolls and to pres-
sure from federal welfare administratorsto raise Aid to Families with Depen-
19 Ibid., 202-7.
20 See RobertPear, "3
Key Aides ReshapeWelfarePolicy," New YorkTimes, 26 April 1982,
p. 12; on AFDC, Linda Demkovich, "Medicaid for Welfare:A ControversialSwap," National
Journal, 14 (27 February 1982), 363; on Community Development Block Grants, Catherine
Lovell, "CDBG: The Role of Federal Requirements," Publius, 13 (Summer 1983), 94; on
hunger, LindaDemkovich, "Hunger in America:Is Its ResurgenceReal or Is Evidence Exagge-
rated?"National Journal, 15 (8 October 1983), 2051; on Social Security, idem, "Team Player
SchweikerMay Be Paying a High Price for Loyalty to Reagan," National Journal, 14 (15 May
1982), 849; on Medicaid, "A Weekly Checklist of Major Issues," National Journal, 7 (13
February1982), 303; and on ending federal programsfor the cities, Francis Viscount and Fred
Jordan, "Will Cities' Link to Washington Be Cut?" Nation's Cities Weekly, 4:21 (May 25
1981), 1-2.
252 KENNETH R. HOOVER
21 RobertCarlesonand Kevin R.
Hopkins, "Whose ResponsibilityIs Social Responsibility?:
The Reagan Rationale," Public Welfare, 8 (Fall 1981), 9, 13-14. Cf. Associated Press, "Rea-
gan Blasts Welfare Programs," 16 February1986.
22 In Claude E. Barfield, RethinkingFederalism (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise
Institute, 1981), 70. Economist Wallace Oates, "The New Federalism-An Economist's
View," Cato Journal, 2:2 (Fall 1982), 479, points out that the federalized share of AFDC has
fallen, ratherthan risen.
23 George McGovern, "Whose Responsibility Is Social Responsibility?: An Opposing
View," Public Welfare, 8 (Fall 1981), 9.
24 In Barfield, RethinkingFederalism, p. 81. RegardingCarleson, see "A Weekly Checklist
of MajorIssues," National Journal, 7 (13 February1982), 303.
RISE OF CONSERVATIVE CAPITALISM 253
a distinctionbetween these strategieson the one hand, and the need for certain
nationalminimumsin the areasof healthand income securityon the other. The
federal level should concern itself with "foreign policy, the social insurance
systems we run nationwide-Social Security, Medicare and means-tested
entitlements-that embody all those fundamentalcommitmentsthathave been
made."25
Stockman's position accords with the traditionalconservative argument
that society has a commitmentto its dependentcitizens that must be met as a
matter of obligation. Programs that attempted to alter the distributionof
advantagesin the marketplace,however, were subjectto the budgetdirector's
cuts and/or devolution to the states.
However, the Reagan deficits meant that any effort to rationalizeentitle-
ments at the federal level would requirecuttingback drasticallyon benefits to
those whose claims were, in any way, weak. Stockman learned that weak
claims and weak constituencies are not the same thing, and political realities
are more significant than fiscal realities. An affordablefederalized Medicaid
would exclude many marginal recipients covered under current state pro-
grams-and that was politically unacceptable,just as the full assumptionof
Medicaid costs was fiscally impossible in view of the deficits.
In fact, there is good reason to believe that this dilemma underminedthe
New Federalismnegotiationsin the spring of 1982. RichardWilliamson, the
president'sagent in the negotiations, remarkedin a retrospectiveanalysis that
footdraggingby "certain administrationofficials, whose enthusiasmfor the
New Federalisminitiative had dissipated," was responsiblefor the failure to
complete the Medicaid-for-AFDCswap. He locates the problemin the Office
of Management and the Budget and attributesit to a "senior OMB offi-
cial. "26 The matterof income securitywas in any event the issue of principle
thatcould not be resolved between the governors, both Republicanand Dem-
ocratic, and the Reagan White House.
These differences on the crucial question of federalizationof AFDC are
symptomaticof differences on a wider scale of issues. John Kessel, in mea-
suring policy preferencesdisplayed in interviews with Reagan White House
staff members, found divisions into "unalloyed conservatives," who think
national defense is the only legitimate federal activity, "domestic conser-
vatives," who favor some new domestic programinitiatives, and "lenient
conservatives." The differences among these groups are not great, but it is
25 Quoted in James Reston,
"Discussing the Bugs in the Machinery," interview with David
A. Stockman,New YorkTimes, 12 April 1984, p. 12. Cf. Barfield, RethinkingFederalism, 82.
26 RichardWilliamson, "The 1982 New Federalism
Negotiations," Publius, 13:2 (Spring
1983), 27-28. On weak claims, weak clients, and the role of political constituencies, cf. William
Greider's commentary in "The Education of David Stockman," The Atlantic Monthly (De-
cember 1981), 30, 51-52; David Stockman's apology for the deficits, The Triumphof Politics
(New York: Harperand Row, 1986), 124-27, 408-10; and his 1975 preview of that apology,
"The Social Pork Barrel," Public Interest, no. 39 (Spring 1975), 27.
254 KENNETH R. HOOVER
The New Federalismhas already altered greatly the equation of "who gets
what, when, and how?" The issue of inequalityand its implicationsfor the
opportunitystructureis the point of collision between liberal capitalism and
conservativecapitalism, in either its libertarianor traditionalistvariant.Con-
sequently, any evaluation of the prospects of conservative capitalism must
take account of the economic impacts of the policies so far enacted. While
such an assessment is largely outside the scope of this article, there are
general indicatorsthat these policies have worsened the patternof inequality
in Americansociety. Ourpurposein reviewing this evidence is to suggest that
the results are such that libertariangoals have not been achieved, while
traditionalistfears have been reinforced.
29 RichardNathanand Fred
Doolittle, "Reagan's SurprisingDomestic Achievement," Wall
Street Journal, 18 September 1984, p. 28.
30 John Weicher (AmericanEnterpriseInstitute), "Welfare 'Reforms' Will Stick," Chicago
Tribune, 16 August 1984, p. 27. The presidentindicatedthat total spendingon the poor went up
during his administration,but that was the effect of the recession on the size of entitlement
populations.
31 D. Lee Bawden and John Palmer, "Social
Policy," in The Reagan Record, John Palmer
and Isabel Sawhill, eds. (Cambridge,Mass.: Ballinger Press), 204.
32 Ibid., 185-86.
33 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Ways and Means, Effects of the OmnibusBudget
256 KENNETH R. HOOVER
Income Distribution
While it can be argued that the New Federalism initiatives should be dis-
tinguishedfrom changes in tax policy, the fact is that, for purposesof analyz-
ing shifts in the opportunitystructure,they were both partof the revolutionin
federalrelationsthat Reaganenvisioned upon takingoffice. The most signifi-
cant impact, for purposes of the ideological debate, was that the distribution
of income was made more unequal.
According to 1984 Census Bureau data, the bottom 40 percent of the
populationhas lost ground in median income since 1980 with respect to the
top 40 percent (-$477 and +$1,769, respectively).37A staff reportof the
CongressionalJoint Economic Committee (November 1985) found that the
real income of families with childrenhas been especially hardhit: The lowest
quintile lost 23.8 percent in mean income from 1979 to 1984. Losses to the
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA) Welfare Changes and the Recession on Po'verty, Com-
mittee Printfor the Subcommitteeon Oversightand Subcommitteeon Public Assistance and Un-
employment Compensation, 98th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 25 July 1984),
Table A, p. x.
34 Ibid., 12.
35 Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C., "Taxing the Poor" (April
1984).
36 CongressionalBudget Office projections,February1983, cited in "The CombinedEffects
of Major Changes in Federal Taxes and Spending Programssince 1981," staff memorandum,
April 1984, preparedby the staff of the HumanResourcesand CommunityDevelopmentandTax
Analysis Division of the CongressionalBudget Office, Table 3, p. 7a.
37 Newsweek, (9 September 1985), 24. This is the lowest percentagerecordedfor the bottom
40 percent since the Census Bureaubegan collecting this data in 1947.
RISE OF CONSERVATIVE CAPITALISM 257
three middle quintiles were 14 percent, 10.5 percent, and 3.2 percent, with a
gain to the top quintile of 1.5 percent.38
These shifts bear out the directionof the projectionsgeneratedon the basis
of modeling reported by John Palmer and Isabel Sawhill in August 1984.
According to the Urban Institute's simulations of the impact of Reagan's
policies, the lowest quintile was to lose 7.6 percentof its income, and the top
quintile stood to gain 8.7 percent. While some redistributionwould have
taken place because of the recession, the Reagan policy increased the in-
equality of the redistribution.When measured against the Urban Institute's
alternative,more conventional policy model, the Reagan policies added 1.6
percentagepoints to the gain of the top quintile, and increasedthe loss of the
bottom quintile by an additional4.1 percent.39
The continuinghigh levels of povertyplace the justificationof furtherNew
Federalistinitiatives in doubt. While libertarianconservatives may be reas-
sured by the degovemmentalizationof some areas of policy and regulation,
traditionalconservatives in Congress and the media have evidenced signs of
restlessness over the increasinglydifficult position of the poor. The devasta-
tion of the black family and the feminizationof poverty generally has placed
increasingnumbersof children below the poverty line. The poverty rate for
black children (51 percent) is the highest it has been in fifteen years.
Meanwhile the trickle-downeffects have been scatteredand contradictory
at best. The percentage of the population living below the poverty line has
declined slightly (from 15.3 percent to 14.4 percent), but there are still six
million more people living below the poverty line now than there were in the
late 1970s. Unemploymenthas declined somewhat, but remainson a plateau
higher than for any previous recovery. The congressional Office of Tech-
nology Assessment studiedthe fate of displaced workersin the period 1979-
84. Only 60 percentfound new jobs and nearly half of them took pay cuts.40
The savings rate, which was supposed to rise in consequence of the tax cuts
and supply new investment in jobs, has instead fallen to the lowest levels
since the early 1950s.41
The assessment of the success of the initiatives of the first term of the
Reaganpresidency must be that what has been accomplishedis a form of de
38 U.S.
Congress, Joint Economic Committee, "Family Income in America," staff report,
99th Cong., 1st sess. (28 November 1985), Table I, p. 4.
39 MarilynMoon and Isabel Sawhill, "Family Incomes:Gainersand Losers," in Palmerand
Sawhill, The Reagan Record, 329, Table 10.5; 333, Table 10.6.
40 Kenneth Noble, "Study Finds 60% of 11 Million Who Lost Jobs Got New Ones," New
YorkTimes, 6 February1986, p. 1. Noble reportsthat "the study said a large proportionof the
displacedworkerswere middle-agedpeople in manufacturing'with long and stablejob histories,'
ratherthan young people who change jobs often," and estimated that the programinstitutedin
1982 to deal with displaced workers reached no more than 5 percent of them.
41 Robert
Hershey, "Savings Take a DramaticSlide," New YorkTimes, 3 November 1985,
sec. 4, p. El.
258 KENNETH R. HOOVER
ership in 1975 following the defeat of Edward Heath. The way had been
preparedby the challenges laid down by Enoch Powell on the immigration
and social expenditure issues-a rough parallel in British politics to the
welfare issue (with its racial overtones) in the United States.45These views
were joined with those of Keith Joseph, the intellectual force behind mon-
etarism, and Thatcher became the standardbearer when both Powell and
Joseph founderedon accusations of racism.46
In both cases there were elements of a middle-class revolt against social-
welfare programs coupled with high levels of taxation. By striking these
chords, both Reagan and Thatcherwere able to use middle-classpopulism as
a recourse against the upper-class images of their parties. In practice, the
economic policies they advocated benefitted the upper classes materially.
The Heathgovernmenthad tried and failed to breakout of the conventional
mold established by the Labour Party, and this allowed Thatcherto attack
both the principlesof the Heath leadershipand his practicalhold on the party
establishmentwith its traditionalistcadre in Parliament.As Milton Friedman
pointedout, "the thing that people do not realize is that MargaretThatcheris
not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth century Liberal. But her
party consists largely of Tories. They don't really believe in free markets.
They don't believe in free trade. They never have as a party."47Though the
Reagan and Thatchergovernments each arrived at power by playing upon
somewhatdifferentideological combinations,they are both heir to the natural
strainsbetween libertarianand traditionalistideology.
In the Thatchergovernment, there are a numberof examples of that ten-
sion. One of the sources of her rise to power was the criticism of Prime
MinisterHeath's nationalizationof the Rolls-Royce company and his support
for statutorycontrol of wages and prices. While both of these positions could
be justified by traditionalistconcerns for maintainingthe "ensemble" of the
basic forces in the society, they are anathema to libertarians.There were
similarconflicts between the Heath and Thatchercoteries over social-welfare
issues.48
Sir Keith Joseph, apostate from MacmillaniteToryism and founderof the
ConservativePartyCentre for Policy Studies, took the lead for British liber-
tariansin simply denying that society was responsiblefor inequalitiesbetween
people (thus living up to Robert Behrens description of the Diehards as
"sociology-baiters").49What was not caused by society cannot be corrected
45 Ibid., 177-78.
46 Robert Behrens, The ConservativeParty in
Opposition, 1974-1977: A Critical Analysis
(Coventry:LancasterPolytechnic, 1977), 13-15.
47 Quoted in Raymond Plant, "The Resurgence of Ideology," in Developments in British
Politics, Drucker, ed., 13.
48 Cf. Behrens, Conservative Party, 14-17, 74.
49 Nick
Bosanquet, "Social Policy," in Developmentsin BritishPolitics, Drucker,ed., 168-
69; re Behrens, see his "Diehards and Ditchers," 286.
260 KENNETH R. HOOVER
54 Beer, Britain against Itself, 126-31. Cf. Richard Vigurie's mix of libertarianismand
populism in The Establishmentvs. the People (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1983).
55 Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, The New Class War (New York: Pantheon,
1982), 23. Cf. Alford, "Reagan Budgets," in Future of AmericanDemocracy, Kann, ed., 47-
48, on Daniel Bell's argumentof the same kind; and Samuel Beer's argumentabout "pluralist
stagnation" in Britain, Britain against Itself, 100-101.
56 John Hoskyns, "ConservatismIs Not Enough," Political Quarterly, 55 (January-March
1984), 10-11. The government is also criticized by the libertariansfor being "inadequately
radical." See Hugh Thomas (chairmanof the (Conservative)Centre for Social Studies), "The
Fruitsof Conservatism," New Society, 67:13 (1984), 435-36.
57 David Walker, "ThatcherFaces Revolt on StudentAid," The Chronicleof Higher Educa-
tion, 3 (3 December 1984), 1.
262 KENNETH R. HOOVER
CONCLUSION
To returnto the comparisonof conservativecapitalismand liberalcapitalism,
Bowles and Gintis arguethatthe latteris a spectrumof procapitalistresponses
to the naturaltendency of capitalism to erode.73 Rather than being tied to
liberalcapitalismas an ideal type, they see it in Marxistterms as a bundle of
relationsinteractingdialecticallyand changingover time. Fromtheirperspec-
tive, the extendedfight over the level and form of subsistencerightsillustrates
the process. Yet reducingthese tensions to the languageof "dynamics" and
"contradictions"runsthe dangerof obscuringthe distinctionsthat are clearly
evident in the policy initiatives that have been taken by the Thatcher and
Reagan governments.
The question then is, when does it become useful to distinguish conser-
vative capitalism from the liberal version? Perhaps when the objective
changes from haltingerosion to advancingthe main formation.Libertarianism
isn't one more attemptto have the governmentsupply palliatives to a sickly
system; it is an effort to dispense with the doctor and declare the patient
healthy. The aim here is to bring into being a new consensus to displace
entirelythe New Deal and Butskellism (the convergence of Labourand Con-
servativeprogramsunderthe leadershipof R. A. Butlerand HughGaitskellin
the 1950s and early 1960s).
What the admixtureof elements of traditionalismillustrates, however, is
71 MartinDurham,
'Family, Morality, and the New Right," ParliamentaryAffairs:A Jour-
nal of ComparativePolitics, 38:2 (Spring 1985), 180-91.
72 Behrens, Conservative Party, 118.
Cf. "Thatcher's Answer to Deficits: Tax!" George
Will, Los Angeles Times, 30 September 1983, sec. II, p. 7, col. 1; and Peter Riddell, The
ThatcherGovernment(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984).
73 Bowles and Gintis, "Crisis of Liberal Democratic
Capitalism," 61-64.
266 KENNETH R. HOOVER
76 This is the general argument of Bowles and Gintis, Adam Przeworski, and Immanuel
Wallerstein and others. Cf. Helene Slessarev, "Two Great Society Programs in an Age of
Reaganomics" (Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Convention, Chicago, April
1984), 3-5.
77 Cf. British traditionalistRoger Scruton, The Meaning of Conservatism (Totowa. N.J.:
Bares and Noble Books, 1980), 127-28, and American traditionalistRussell Kirk, "The
Problemof Community," in his A Programfor Conservatives(Chicago:Regnery, 1962), ch. 6,
esp. 140-42.
78 This argumentis developed by Ben Fine and LaurenceHarrisin The Peculiarities of the
British Economy (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1985).
79 Accordingto FederalReserve Boarddata, the annualnet acquisitionof United States assets
by foreigners has more than tripled in the period 1980-85. Cf. Andrew Gamble's distinction
between "liberal political economy" and "national political economy" in Gamble, Britain In
Decline, 133 et passim.
268 KENNETH R. HOOVER
ests are historicallyat the heartof the RepublicanParty, have watched spec-
ulatorsprofit while their own positions are ever more effectively challenged
by increasing internationalcompetition, giant mergers, and even foreign-
based takeovers.The loss of supportfor Reaganand Thatcherin theirrespec-
tive legislaturescontinues even as the need for symbolic reassurancemain-
tains each leader's personal popularity.
For the present, the hybridof conservativecapitalismallows conservatives
to presentthemselves both as defendersof the past and as modernizers,while
casting those on the Left off as failed deviationists.80That, and the palpable
gains for the incomes of the traditionalelite, keep the movement in motion
even while the traditionalistelement of its ideological base appears to be
eroding.
The capacity of ideologies to provide an anchor for class identity through
myths concerning "ensembles"-or "exploitation"-based on class dif-
ferencesconfronts, in moderncapitalism, a force fundamentallyindifferentto
the continuityof personal identity.81While socialists and progressives pro-
vided liberal capitalisma scenario for the preferredidentity of the reformers
and the disadvantaged,traditionalistshave given to conservativecapitalisma
sense of class identificationwith the establishment.Capitalism,by promoting
entrepreneurshipas the only truly legitimated role, celebrates a transitory
figure ever at risk of displacement-thus underminingits class alliances
whenever it becomes too closely realized in policy.
Similarly, both liberals and conservatives have flirted with versions of
populism as a way of recouping the supportof those dismayed by reformist
do-goodism and elitism on the one hand, and economic royalism on the
other.82 The "authoritarianpopulism" Stuart Hall observes in Britain is
evident as the New Right in the United States. Yet politics is not alone a
matterof identity, nor of hegemonic intent-the realitiesof economic results
intrudein ways that mythology cannot conquer, though it surely can respond
in powerful definitions of the natureof the problem.
We have, of course, sketched only a few of the dynamics of identity and
class in which ideology becomes both cause and effect in the context of
capitalistpolitics. The intentionis to fill in a partof the largerpicturethat has
been obscuredsince the twenties when conservatismenjoyed its last period of
open ascendancy.
80
Cf. PatrickWright, On Living in an Old Country(London:Verso New Left Books, 1985).
81 For a fuller
exploration of the relationshipsbetween identity and politics, see Kenneth
Hoover, A Politics of Identity (Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 1976), esp. chs. 5, 6.
82 To use Stuart Hall's terms, there is a limit to how far the class-to-partynexus can be
dissolved into a government-to-peopleconception without engenderinga reactionfor both eco-
nomic and sociopsychologicalreasons. See Hall's thesis concerning "authoritarianpopulism" in
"Moving Right," Socialist Review, no. 55 (1981), 113-37. Cf. Vigurie, The Establishmentvs.
the People; Gamble, Britain in Decline, 145.