Why is the US so conservative?

[Mechaman]

Did Hitler actually campaign on exterminating all the Jews?

From what I learned in History of the Holocaust class my senior year in high school: no way.
In fact our teacher emphasized how covert Hitler was about the plans.  Most of the German people had no idea that genocide was happening.  I remember reading about a former member of the Nazi Youth thinking the Allied authorities were telling him lies when he first heard what the Nazi Government did.
That isn't to say everybody was in the dark.  There were quite a few people who did know, but a lot of people thought that all Hitler and his buddies were doing was putting these people in camps.
It wasn't until 1944 before the extent of the Nazi atrocities was realized.

[Free Palestine]

Big congressional districts, the FPTP system, the two-party system, and the fact that the United States is a huge country, where places as liberal as Western Europe, with enough of a population to be a small country, like San Francisco, are mashed together with places that can be as conservative as Saudi Arabia.  The latter is a reason I support decentralization.

Also: my crazy history professor said the Holocaust was not really even Hitler's plan to begin with.

[Mechaman]

Big congressional districts, the FPTP system, the two-party system, and the fact that the United States is a huge country, where places as liberal as Western Europe, with enough of a population to be a small country, like San Francisco, are mashed together with places that can be as conservative as Saudi Arabia.  The latter is a reason I support decentralization.

Also: my crazy history professor said the Holocaust was not really even Hitler's plan to begin with.

Of course it was not.
Heinrich Himmler seemed to be the brains behind the whole "Final Solution" part of the Nazi regime.  I would argue that Hitler was merely the mouthpiece of the Nazi Party.  Himmler and other military leaders seemed to be the brains behind the government, at least in regards to pacification of "undesirables".

But meh, that is a discussion for another time.

[AUH2O Libertarian]

The US is conservative because it's almost impossible for things to change in either direction.  Whether it's because we don't want things to change, or because the sheer size of the country makes things extremely difficult, are some explanations.  It takes very extreme situations to shift America either towards socialism or towards liberalism.

People are simply too entrenched in the status quo.  The result is a corporatist economy, no clear foreign policy, and a weird mishmash of religion and libertine consumer culture.

[Person Man]

The result is a corporatist economy, no clear foreign policy, and a weird mishmash of religion and libertine consumer culture.

Wow. That's our number alright.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Did Hitler actually campaign on exterminating all the Jews?

From what I learned in History of the Holocaust class my senior year in high school: no way.
In fact our teacher emphasized how covert Hitler was about the plans.  Most of the German people had no idea that genocide was happening.  I remember reading about a former member of the Nazi Youth thinking the Allied authorities were telling him lies when he first heard what the Nazi Government did.
That isn't to say everybody was in the dark.  There were quite a few people who did know, but a lot of people thought that all Hitler and his buddies were doing was putting these people in camps.
It wasn't until 1944 before the extent of the Nazi atrocities was realized.

Warning: This post contains intentionalism.

As for the question, I don't think the United States seemed to be markably more conservative in the era before world war two than most 'developed' countries. In fact, the opposite is in part suggested by thee non-emergence of any real fascistic type movement. (On the other hand this can be balanced by the weakness of the Labour movement and progressivism in general from the 1920s onwards. But the progressive 'movement' and the SPUSA were hardly irrelevancies in their time...). Now happened after WWII is another thing...(May I suggest that the militarization of US society during the Cold war be listed here as a possible factor. The USA is unique among western countries in the political power and social prestige of the military. Which creates political knock-on effects...).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

'Liberal' gun laws is a conservative position.

Guns are heavily restricted in most of the rest of the world. And wrongfully so.

Says a guy who lives in the country with the highest number of gun related deaths per capita among developed countries.

Says  a guy who lives in the most f'd up country on earth.

[Gustaf]

Hitler didn't campaign on exterminating the Jews in the genocidal sense beause they didn't decide to do that until well after they stopped having elections. He did however campaign on an anti-Jewish platform that goes beyond what I heard from any politicians in the US on Hispanics, for example.

[republicanism]

2. An extremely conservative political discourse, with roots in America's only slightly odd take on liberalism. Now that liberalism is dead as a political project* (we're now quite close to the 100th anniversary of that, by the way) all political discourses that are rooted in it will inevitably be highly conservative in practice this.

That's an excellent point Sibboleth, that is mentioned rarely.
Liberalism is dead, it is effectively dead since universal male suffrage, because Liberalism has always been, and will always be, an ideology of educated owners.

I'd like to add just one point to the question of American conservatism,, that may sound banal but is important in my view: The wideness of the land.
Not only that class struggle has been avoided because workers could move to the west, but there is also the myth of "Frontier" and "manifest destiny" that helped developing a special culture.
To put it simple: A culture of driving big cars, gun ownership, individual freedom, strong opposition to federal government and anti-bureaucratism.

[All Along The Watchtower]

So I've been reflecting more on this question, and my answer  now is:

Large sections of America were agrarian for a long time. Additionally, America's largest single region was an ultra-hierarchical, authoritarian slave society for a very long time. So social/cultural conservatism is rooted in that. Agrarian societies tend to be very slow-paced, and  not accustomed to change.

As for the industrialized parts of America-those are and always have been where the wealth and intellectual power of the nation is concentrated, which, in a capitalist society,  translates to real power. Thus, America has always been a nation that has embraced government when it helps  the interests of business, and attacked government when the interests of business are being replaced by the interests of people in general. Egalitarianism is not in America's makeup., because the combination of agrarian respect for authority, the legacy of slavery and pervasive racism in the whole country, and the metropolitan areas' capital and resource advantages over the rural parts of the nation have lead to a profoundly contradictory political situation.

On the one hand, agrarian, rural, and working-class interests are deeply resentful and suspicious of the urban elites who control government, business, institutions in general, media, popular culture-the list goes on. But on the other hand, egalitarian, left-wing, and liberal ideas are toxic to many rural people, since they are propagated by or associated in large part with members of  the urban intelligentsia, the academic, the professional, the arrogant, the condescending elite. That, plus white anxiety over poor people of color on the one hand, and resentment at the "liberal elites" in the cities on the other, leads to not just a conservative, but a reactionary right-wing political consciousness.

So you have liberal Democrats, who are an interesting combination of well-educated, upper-class people and working-class to poor people, many of whom owe much to government due to living in metropolitan areas where ordinary people have more contact with the government, whether it be in the form of welfare, contracts, direct employment, great public schools, etc.

And then you have conservative Republicans, who are largely rural or have rural heritage these days (exurbs and some suburbs), where outsiders are suspected, where family, church, and local ties are more important, and where people resent government intrusion into their lives, even when it helps them (note: social religious-right conservatism should be understood as local religious intrusion, not government intrusion). Generally in such areas, it is the local businessmen and other people of authority-local and state politicians and officials-who interact with the federal government, and they understandably resent being told what to do by Washington, especially when Washington doesn't listen to local concerns (all politics is local, remember that!) Thus, it is those local leaders who have understandable reason to dislike federal intrusion who are  respected and admired in the conservative, agrarian-minded areas, whose opinions carry much more weight in the small towns and farm  communities than the academic musings of a professor or researcher in a metropolis.

So you really have a combination of things: provincial, authority-minded rural agrarian people, or who identify with that heritage, who are conservative and Republican; urban, well-educated people, as well as urban poor and working-class people, who directly see their tax dollars working for their benefit, and who are more oriented towards a sense of social justice, whether out of self-interest or for altruistic reasons, who vote Democratic: and the wealth being concentrated in the urban areas, the rural areas resenting that, as well as general white anxiety over issues of race and class.

The reason that America is so conservative in practice is because of these things, plus the profoundly pro-status quo political superstructure of the county, which makes real, meaningful change and cooperation (rather than partisan,emotionally-charged politics) all that more difficult.

[greenforest32]

1. Religion
2. Racism
3. Electoral system (plurality, first-past-the post, etc) that restricts the number of viable parties to two
4. Legislature that curtails public sentiment (every state getting 2 senators regardless of population and then the 3/5 filibuster supermajority makes the Senate a black hole of progress)

[opebo]

Racism, hatred, fear, ignorance, greed, viciousness, vileness, love of violence, love of power, power-worship.  The typical list that describes any right-wing group, but perhaps with a bit of a harder/sharper edge because the ignorance is heightened to such an amazing degree.

[Link]

There is no denying that compared to almost every other developed country the US is  very conservative, in what other country could Michelle Bachmann be a serious contender for the presidential nominee. In almost every other developed country opposing universal health care would make you an extreme right winger, but supporting it in the US makes you a socialist/communist/marxist. Why is this?

Its because things aren't really that bad over here.  You can be pretty uneducated and still afford a decent apartment and a car.  If you need healthcare you can go to an emergency room and stiff the hospital on the bill.  They won't drag you into court over it.  Why have universal health care when you can just rip the system off?

The issue of race can't be ignored.  The minute a Democrat signed the Civil Rights Act the South went from being Democratic to being Republican.

Another issue is the system.  In a parliamentary system Bachmann would never have gotten as far as she has.

General ignorance.  Americans as a whole are easily duped.  They glorify politicians where as in other countries the average citizen is skeptical about anything ANY politician says.  Over here if you disagree with a Republican politician you are "unamerican."  The Republican party is like a cult.  Its leaders can say anything and its taken as a fact, "You'll be murdered if you don't own a gun.  Tax cuts increase revenue.  Global warming is a hoax.  Iraq has WMDs.  Sure your 75 year old grandmother with DM, COPD, CAD, and metabolic syndrome can buy health insurance for $15,000 a year.  Obama is a Muslim.  Obama was born in Kenya.  White people can't find jobs because of Affirmative action.  The war on drugs is a smashing success."  It just goes on and on.

[CJK]

I would guess lower population density.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would guess lower population density.

Scandinavia wants a word.

[CJK]

Also, the left is pretty arrogant (and has been for decades) with their pet obsessions that usually alienate people: internationalism, environmentalism, feminism, civil rights, gay marriage, etc. The posts on this board are the best proof for that. If they stuck to economics alone maybe they would get some traction. Right now it is not considered decent to vote for a political group that is so hostile to the traditional people and culture of this nation. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'd argue that it comes from the Cold War. The US, in order to oppose the Soviet Union, became somewhat right-wing (despite to this day being more liberal in some aspects than Europe). The rest of NATO, which didn't need to try to be ideological opposites to the Soviet Union, could be more left-wing without McCarthy types screaming "socialism!".

[TJ in Oregon]

Also, the left is pretty arrogant (and has been for decades) with their pet obsessions that usually alienate people: internationalism, environmentalism, feminism, civil rights, gay marriage, etc. The posts on this board are the best proof for that. If they stuck to economics alone maybe they would get some traction. Right now it is not considered decent to vote for a political group that is so hostile to the traditional people and culture of this nation. 

Add abortion to that list and the situation you just described is exactly why I am a Republican. Still, I think this speaks more to maintaining the current political polarization than anything else.

I also notice that the issues you cite here are the same ones the Democrats have been winning for decades, while the Republicans have been getting their way most of the time on economics. I think living in the rust belt sort of adds blinders a bit because this area of the country is different from the national political situation and becoming more so over time. I think some other poster called Michigan "the state with dying views" and Ohio is very similar. I am not so optimistic as to believe the social conservative cause is doing well in the long term (with the possible exception of abortion).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I also notice that the issues you cite here are the same ones the Democrats have been winning for decades, while the Republicans have been getting their way most of the time on economics. I think living in the rust belt sort of adds blinders a bit because this area of the country is different from the national political situation and becoming more so over time. I think some other poster called Michigan "the state with dying views" and Ohio is very similar. I am not so optimistic as to believe the social conservative cause is doing well in the long term (with the possible exception of abortion).

Oddly, I find myself socially liberal in areas where social liberalism is making gains--gay marriage most notably--and socially more moderate or even somewhat conservative in areas like abortion and (to a lesser extent) guns where large parts of the country are actually more conservative than in, say, the seventies or eighties. The main exception is the environment, an area in which I'm quite leftist (though for similar reasons to why J.R.R. Tolkien can be considered 'leftist' on the environment if you only look at policy positions and not underlying motivations, i.e. a distrust for the industrial on spiritual grounds) but in which I despair of all that much getting done considering the interests arrayed. Drugs are actually an area in which I'm somewhat more conservative than what seems to be the trend of the country.

I sometimes suspect that my social PM score might actually be positive, though only slightly, if not for LGBT issues, which I feel strongly about because of my personal background.

[Link]

Also, the left is pretty arrogant (and has been for decades) with their pet obsessions that usually alienate people: internationalism, environmentalism, feminism, civil rights, gay marriage, etc. The posts on this board are the best proof for that. If they stuck to economics alone maybe they would get some traction. Right now it is not considered decent to vote for a political group that is so hostile to the traditional people and culture of this nation. 

The OP is from Europe.  NONE of the positions you stated in your post are to the left of most Western Northern Hemisphere countries.  That's his point.  Stuff that is just taken as a given by even right wing parties in Europe and Australia is viewed as "pet obsessions" by the right in this country.  He was wondering why that is.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oddly, I find myself socially liberal in areas where social liberalism is making gains--gay marriage most notably--and socially more moderate or even somewhat conservative in areas like abortion and (to a lesser extent) guns where large parts of the country are actually more conservative than in, say, the seventies or eighties. The main exception is the environment, an area in which I'm quite leftist (though for similar reasons to why J.R.R. Tolkien can be considered 'leftist' on the environment if you only look at policy positions and not underlying motivations, i.e. a distrust for the industrial on spiritual grounds) but in which I despair of all that much getting done considering the interests arrayed. Drugs are actually an area in which I'm somewhat more conservative than what seems to be the trend of the country.

I sometimes suspect that my social PM score might actually be positive, though only slightly, if not for LGBT issues, which I feel strongly about because of my personal background.

I can see that. In a lot of ways you seem to be sort of my liberal alter-ego: my PM score is about ten points higher on both sets of issues, you say your social score might be positive if it weren’t for one or two issues which somewhat analogous to my economic score, and I think we both agree on far more things that the scores would suggest. The real difference is a handful of specific issues and a ton of framing. The main reason why my economic score is positive is that I want to work within the capitalist system to correct problems and am reluctant to end it. Most of the rest of my economic views are pragmatic rather than principled. I don’t particularly like extravagant things or people who are into extravagant things, but I am worried about what the effects on their workers would be if we did harm the rich financially. I generally support free trade, accepting that on the whole people benefit more than they lose, but still try to buy American stuff if I can. When it comes to unions, I have a good deal of sympathy because my Mom was on strike for a while when I was in high school. But, I also accept that it takes two sides to come to an agreement (and some of the ways unions direct money has no benefit to workers). I don’t necessarily want a ‘big’ or ‘small’ government, but I want an efficient government that provides as much as it can for the money collected without stealing it from the future via absurd borrowing. I accept that given the current situation, we are going to have to raise taxes as part of a solution but also think that raising taxes isn’t really the complete answer to our problems and am not really thrilled with the idea. I probably don’t need to explain my social views much because I am pretty conservative on everything except the death penalty and immigration, and particularly vehement about abortion and anything to do with sex and drugs.

I feel as though my social views are clearly declining in popularity but I am not sure what is happening when it comes to economics. It seems like the Republicans are as a whole moving away from me, but I don’t see the Democrats moving my direction either. I do think some level of popular opinion will surround my views on spending and the deficit, but the union/manufacturing “Made in America” world is a thing of the past. I am also frustrated sometimes on the lack of products that are simple and made well. I tried to get a new cell phone recently because my old one didn’t work and was irritated to find I couldn’t buy one that didn’t have a camera or a keyboard or a whole bunch of other crap I have no desire to buy. I just want simple things done well and I can’t get it.

But on the whole, I’d say it’s inconclusive at best for my economic outlook and at worst, my views there are dying too. Such is life.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I can see that. In a lot of ways you seem to be sort of my liberal alter-ego: my PM score is about ten points higher on both sets of issues, you say your social score might be positive if it weren’t for one or two issues which somewhat analogous to my economic score, and I think we both agree on far more things that the scores would suggest. The real difference is a handful of specific issues and a ton of framing. The main reason why my economic score is positive is that I want to work within the capitalist system to correct problems and am reluctant to end it. Most of the rest of my economic views are pragmatic rather than principled. I don’t particularly like extravagant things or people who are into extravagant things, but I am worried about what the effects on their workers would be if we did harm the rich financially. I generally support free trade, accepting that on the whole people benefit more than they lose, but still try to buy American stuff if I can. When it comes to unions, I have a good deal of sympathy because my Mom was on strike for a while when I was in high school. But, I also accept that it takes two sides to come to an agreement (and some of the ways unions direct money has no benefit to workers). I don’t necessarily want a ‘big’ or ‘small’ government, but I want an efficient government that provides as much as it can for the money collected without stealing it from the future via absurd borrowing. I accept that given the current situation, we are going to have to raise taxes as part of a solution but also think that raising taxes isn’t really the complete answer to our problems and am not really thrilled with the idea.

That's pretty close to how, pragmatically, I'd go about fixing (or trying to fix) the economy if I was actually in a position to do so. It's a lot easier to take hardline anti-capitalist positions when you grew up in a community that could probably be self-sustaining without much difficulty and where cell phones and wireless Internet don't work more often than they do. I recognize that if I'd grown up in the old Manufacturing Belt, or in some city or suburban area in general, as opposed to in a rural backwater with a harsh climate but fair-to-high crop yields, I'd probably have a much more pragmatic outlook on this. So I guess I'd say my economic score's so far to the left because my ideals tend towards the axiomatic (which is part of my personality in general) and have been relatively unalloyed by my experiences (and since I plan to do communitarian academic and religious work, they'll probably remain so, which is why I admit I would probably never make a very good policymaker in this area).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The death penalty and immigration I'm pretty far left on for religious reasons, actually. Don't take this the wrong way if I'm incorrect, but I'd hazard a guess that the same (to whatever extent you're to the left on them) is at least partially true for you. And my support for gay issues comes in part from the fact that my generalized disapprobation of overt sexuality applies more or less equally no matter what combination of genders is involved so it seems kind of silly to me to oppose it (though that's not why I care about it; that comes from people I'm close to), which...I don't know, but somehow I doubt that's a conventionally liberal reason to have, ha.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh my God, this sounds exactly like something that could happen to me! In fact, this summer my computer, which is a Vostro 1510 that runs Windows XP that I've had since the summer of 2008, stopped charging the battery and had some dead pixel rows on the screen. I refused a new computer, sent mine in to Dell for a week so they could replace the motherboard, and used an even older computer belonging to my godfather for most of the time that it was away. My cell phone's about as old (I still have my first laptop and my first cell phone; I only got them when I went away to college); it's a flip phone that snaps right back together when I drop it and the back and battery come off (which is often, since my family is congenitally clumsy), and it can call and receive text messages and even has an alarm clock. I really don't understand what else I would want a phone to do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...basically what I'm saying is, yeah. I know that feeling all too well.

[Kevin]

There is no denying that compared to almost every other developed country the US is  very conservative, in what other country could Michelle Bachmann be a serious contender for the presidential nominee. In almost every other developed country opposing universal health care would make you an extreme right winger, but supporting it in the US makes you a socialist/communist/marxist. Why is this?

Its because things aren't really that bad over here.  You can be pretty uneducated and still afford a decent apartment and a car.  If you need healthcare you can go to an emergency room and stiff the hospital on the bill.  They won't drag you into court over it.  Why have universal health care when you can just rip the system off?

The issue of race can't be ignored.  The minute a Democrat signed the Civil Rights Act the South went from being Democratic to being Republican.

Another issue is the system. In a parliamentary system Bachmann would never have gotten as far as she has.

General ignorance.  Americans as a whole are easily duped.  They glorify politicians where as in other countries the average citizen is skeptical about anything ANY politician says.  Over here if you disagree with a Republican politician you are "unamerican."  The Republican party is like a cult.  Its leaders can say anything and its taken as a fact, "You'll be murdered if you don't own a gun.  Tax cuts increase revenue.  Global warming is a hoax.  Iraq has WMDs.  Sure your 75 year old grandmother with DM, COPD, CAD, and metabolic syndrome can buy health insurance for $15,000 a year.  Obama is a Muslim.  Obama was born in Kenya.  White people can't find jobs because of Affirmative action.  The war on drugs is a smashing success."  It just goes on and on.

I'd counteract that by pointing out that both parties are responsible for this time of rhetoric like mentioned before in this thread

From the Republican/conservative POV-Support Abortion? Your a baby killer? Support universal health care-Your a left-wing Socialist? Support gun control-your an authoritarian on par with Adolf Hitler/Joesph Stalin.

And from the Democratic/liberal or left view-Oppose Amnesty for illegal immigrants/want restrictions on immigration-Your a racist and probably a closeted Neo-Nazi white supremacist. Support Free Trade-Your a job killing heartless crook(picture Mr. Burns from the Simpsons) Support the War in Iraq-Your a warmonger/war criminal.

So this type of extreme talk clearly runs in both parties.

I mean comparing US and British politics, the Republican and Conservative parties stand largely the same on most issues. While the same goes for the Democrats and Labour comparison.

Therefore it's a matter of rhetoric in my opinion.   

[Link]

There is no denying that compared to almost every other developed country the US is  very conservative, in what other country could Michelle Bachmann be a serious contender for the presidential nominee. In almost every other developed country opposing universal health care would make you an extreme right winger, but supporting it in the US makes you a socialist/communist/marxist. Why is this?

Its because things aren't really that bad over here.  You can be pretty uneducated and still afford a decent apartment and a car.  If you need healthcare you can go to an emergency room and stiff the hospital on the bill.  They won't drag you into court over it.  Why have universal health care when you can just rip the system off?

The issue of race can't be ignored.  The minute a Democrat signed the Civil Rights Act the South went from being Democratic to being Republican.

Another issue is the system. In a parliamentary system Bachmann would never have gotten as far as she has.

General ignorance.  Americans as a whole are easily duped.  They glorify politicians where as in other countries the average citizen is skeptical about anything ANY politician says.  Over here if you disagree with a Republican politician you are "unamerican."  The Republican party is like a cult.  Its leaders can say anything and its taken as a fact, "You'll be murdered if you don't own a gun.  Tax cuts increase revenue.  Global warming is a hoax.  Iraq has WMDs.  Sure your 75 year old grandmother with DM, COPD, CAD, and metabolic syndrome can buy health insurance for $15,000 a year.  Obama is a Muslim.  Obama was born in Kenya.  White people can't find jobs because of Affirmative action.  The war on drugs is a smashing success."  It just goes on and on.

I'd counteract that by pointing out that both parties are responsible for this time of rhetoric like mentioned before in this thread

From the Republican/conservative POV-Support Abortion? Your a baby killer? Support universal health care-Your a left-wing Socialist? Support gun control-your an authoritarian on par with Adolf Hitler/Joesph Stalin.

And from the Democratic/liberal or left view-Oppose Amnesty for illegal immigrants/want restrictions on immigration-Your a racist and probably a closeted Neo-Nazi white supremacist. Support Free Trade-Your a job killing heartless crook(picture Mr. Burns from the Simpsons) Support the War in Iraq-Your a warmonger/war criminal.

So this type of extreme talk clearly runs in both parties.

I mean comparing US and British politics, the Republican and Conservative parties stand largely the same on most issues. While the same goes for the Democrats and Labour comparison.

Therefore it's a matter of rhetoric in my opinion.   

No.  You're wrong.  I'm going to guess you've never been to the UK.  That's the OP's point.  Americans don't even realize how far to the right Republican ideas are.  NO major right wing party in Europe supports the extreme positions of the American right.  I don't know what is more disturbing, how right wing Republicans are or the fact they are ignorant about how out of touch they are with the rest of the human race.

[Link]

I'd counteract that by pointing out that both parties are responsible for this time of rhetoric like mentioned before in this thread

And from the Democratic/liberal or left view-Oppose Amnesty for illegal immigrants/want restrictions on immigration-Your a racist and probably a closeted Neo-Nazi white supremacist. Support Free Trade-Your a job killing heartless crook(picture Mr. Burns from the Simpsons) Support the War in Iraq-Your a warmonger/war criminal.

 

No.  You are wrong, again.  Universal condemnation of the Iraq war is not a Democratic idea.  Its a UN idea.  I've got news for my Republican friends the rest of the world views people who still support the Iraq war as warmongering/war criminals.  That's the OP's point.  Even right wing politicians in other countries view the US actions in Iraq as illegal.  The American right exists in its own world quite separate from the rest of reality.