Putting the Red in Red States

Yglesias notes the right's recent infatuation with "____-o-fascism" labels, and finds it strange that they would appropriate what was once a common rhetorical tactic of the left: call anyone you disagree with a fascist.

That the right would take a page from the old communist playbook isn't really surprising, though, when you consider that Conservatism's whole grand stratgey over the past 20 years comes right out of Gramsci -- a war of position, a long-term struggle to alter the ideological terrain to the point where actual victory is a, um, cakewalk.

It's all there in Gramsci: the goal is not a quick political victory but to shift the dominant ideology to your own. To do this, build alliances with target groups and classes; devote resources to "education" i.e. convincing groups that their real interests are best represented by your ideology; create or co-opt civil society institutions that will reinforce your ideology; above all, bill your ideology as "anti-hegemonic", i.e. a brave casting off of a dominant, dishonest, and disastrous world-view in favor of a bright, true future.

The American right has done all of this, and well. In fact, it may be one of the most successful communist revolutions in history. By the 80s, deregulation was seen as vanguard thinking. By 1992, "liberal" and "welfare" were dirty words, and all non-military spending could be summed up by the pejorative "big spending". By 1996 Heritage Foundation and the like were being treated as real research institutions. And, lo and behold, by 2000 the right had captured all branches of government.

Too bad for them they handed that victory over to a Stalinist administration hell-bent on seizing absolute power for the thrill of it, and about as committed to the founding ideology as ol' Uncle Joe himself.