Copyright 2014 Christopher Towler Reactionary Or Traditional Conservatism?: The Origins And Consequences Of The Far Right Movement Of The 1960s Christopher Towler A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Christopher Parker, Chair Luis Fraga Matthew Barreto Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Political Science University of Washington Abstract Reactionary Or Traditional Conservatism?: The Origins And Consequences Of The Far Right Movement Of The 1960s Christopher Towler Chair of Supervisory Committee: Associate Professor Christopher Parker Department of Political Science The emergence of the Tea Party movement is a reminder that the Far Right can be a powerful political force in America. Yet, scholarship on the Far Right pales in comparison to work on left-wing social movements. My project examines the Far Right by revisiting the 1960s, a critical time because of the ideological realignment that shapes America today. Scholars explain that far-right movements are motivated by a commitment to retain social prestige, and unlike traditional conservatives, sympathizers with the Far Right are reactionary conservatives who resists social change at all costs. However, work on the Far Right and reactionary conservatism, especially work focused on the 1960s, fails to place the movement in its appropriate historical context, theorize and subsequently test the theory. My project first grounds reactionary conservatism in the political context of the 1960s. I examine the driving forces behind the Far Right’s resistance to social change in relation to the progress of the Civil Rights movement and the ever-present Cold War. Through a comparison of Far Right literature to mainstream conservative thought, the Far Right’s anxiety toward social change stands out. Moreover, an analysis of 1964 National Election Study data suggests that anxiety toward social change goes above and beyond other explanations to explain sympathy for the movement. Far-right sympathy is also a powerful predictor of political participation, negative attitudes toward integration and out-group antipathy. Finally, I use panel data to examine the power of reactionary conservatism over time, and test whether or not the anxiety of the Far Right is a long-standing, stable attitude acquired early in life. I find that reactionary conservatism is an important explanation for political behavior and attitudes in times of clear social change and years into the future. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures..………………………………………………………………………….viii List of Tables..…………………………………………………………………………….x Acknowledgments..………………………………………………………………………xi Sections I. Introduction: The Far Right and American Politics……………………...……1 II. Chapter 1: Anxious of a Changing World: Theorizing the Far Right....……..19 III. Chapter 2: Anxiety, Racism or Anti-Communism: Understanding Support for the Far Right Movement of the 1960s….……………………………………71 IV. Chapter 3: A Seat at the Table: The Far Right and Political Engagement....101 V. Chapter 4: How Far to the Right? Far Right Sympathy, Integration and Out- Group Antipathy……………………………………………………………135 VI. Chapter 5: The Enduring Power of Reactionary Conservatism………..…...177 VII. Conclusion: The Far Right as Endemic in American Politics….…………..218 Appendices I. Dissertation Appendix……………………………...………………………231 II. Chapter 1 Results: Content Analysis……………………………………….245 III. Chapter 2 Results……………………..…………………………………….251 IV. Chapter 3 Results…………………..……………………………………….252 V. Chapter 4 Results……………………..…………………………………….253 VI. Chapter 5 Results……………………..…………………………………….255 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………260 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1: Main Content Themes…...………………………………………………60 Figure 1.2: Secondary Content Themes…...…………………………………………62 Figure 1.3: Tertiary Content Themes…...……………………………………………62 Figure 1.4: Far Right Conspiratorial Content by Theme-Type………………………63 Figure 1.5: Secondary Themes of Content by Main Themes…...……………………64 Figure 1.6: Far Right Conspiratorial Content in American Opinion by Month (1960- 1964)……………………………………………………………………..66 Figure 2.1: Sociodemographic and Political Characteristics, by Far Right Sympathy (Voting for Goldwater in 1964)…...………..……………………………90 Figure 2.2: Association between Anxiety and Far Right Conspiracy (JBS) and Voting for Goldwater in 1964……………………………………………………96 Figure 3.1: Political Engagement in 1964…………………………………………..121 Figure 3.2: Political Engagement in 1964, by Goldwater Vote…………...………..122 Figure 3.3: Political Engagement in 1964 among Conservatives, by Goldwater Vote……………………………………………………………………..124 Figure 3.4: Association between Voting for Goldwater in 1964 and Political Engagement……………………………………………………………..128 Figure 4.1: Attitudes toward Integration in 1964……………………………….…..153 Figure 4.2: Attitudes toward Integration in 1964, by Goldwater Vote……………..154 Figure 4.3: Attitudes toward Integration in 1964 among Conservatives, by Goldwater Vote……………………………………………………………………..155 Figure 4.4: Association between Voting for Goldwater in 1964 and Attitudes toward Integration..……………………………………………………………..159 Figure 4.5: Attitudes toward Out-groups in 1964……………………………….….162 viii Figure 4.6: Very Warm Attitudes toward Out-groups in 1964, by Goldwater Votes……………………………………………………………………163 Figure 4.7: Very Warm Attitudes toward Out-groups in 1964 among Conservatives, by Goldwater Vote………………………………………………….…..164 Figure 4.8: Association between Voting for Goldwater in 1964 and Attitudes toward Out-groups………………………………………………………….…..168 Figure 4.9: Association between Voting for Goldwater in 1964 and Attitudes toward Civil Rights Groups…..…………………………………………….…..170 Figure 5.1: Political Engagement in 1973……...……………………………….…..191 Figure 5.2: Political Engagement in 1973, by Goldwater Vote…..…………….…..192 Figure 5.3: Association between Voting for Goldwater and Political Engagement in 1973……...………………………………………………………….…..196 Figure 5.4: Attitudes toward Integration in 1973……...………………………..…..199 Figure 5.5: Attitudes toward Integration in 1973, by Goldwater Vote…..…………199 Figure 5.6: Association between Voting for Goldwater and Attitudes toward Integration in 1973……....………………………………………….…..204 Figure 5.7: Attitudes toward Out-groups in 1973……...………………………..….207 Figure 5.8: Very Warm Attitudes toward Out-groups in 1973, by Goldwater Vote……………………………………………………………………..208 Figure 5.9: Linear Regression Models Predicting Attitudes toward Out-groups in 1973……....………………………………………….………………….211 Figure A1.1: Total Articles by Year……………...……………………………….…..246 Figure A1.2: Main Content Themes (full results)…….………….……………….…..247 ix LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1: Voting for Barry Goldwater for President in 1964………………………89 Table 2.2: Predicting a Vote for Goldwater in 1964………...………………………95 Table 3.1: Predicting Political Engagement………………………………………..126 Table 4.1: Predicting Support for Integration……………………….……………..158 Table 4.2: Predicting Warm Attitudes toward Out-groups………….……………..166 Table 5.1: Predicting Political Engagement in 1973……..………….……………..195 Table 5.2: Predicting Attitudes toward Integration and Busing in 1973……..…….203 Table 5.3: Predicting Attitudes toward Out-groups and George Wallace in 1973……………………………………………………………………..210 Table A2.1: Predicting a Vote for Goldwater in 1964…………………..……..…….251 Table A3.1: Predicting Political Engagement in 1964…………………..……..…….252 Table A4.1: Predicting Support for Integration in 1964…………………..……..…..253 Table A4.2: Predicting Warm Attitudes toward Out-groups in 1964……...…..…….254 Table A5.1: Comparison of Survey Sociodemographics………………..……..…….255 Table A5.2: Comparison of Regression Results from 1964 ANES and 1965 YPPS…………………………………………………………………....256 Table A5.3: Predicting Political Engagement in 1973…………………..……..…….257 Table A5.4: Predicting Attitudes toward Integration and Busing in 1973……..…….258 Table A5.5: Predicting Attitudes toward Out-groups and George Wallace 1973…...259 x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Growing up, my parents pushed me hard to succeed in school, and always stressed the importance of education. I never imagined that their drive and determination would lead me to where I am now. I want to sincerely thank my mom and dad, Cynthia and Charles, for their love, and especially my mom for her strength and guidance. My determination and resolve is entirely due to them. Upon entering graduate school, though, I found a new source of support in the Chair of my dissertation committee, Christopher Parker. Even though it often felt like I was a new pledge while working with him, only now do I understand his astounding influence on my project and my growth as a scholar. His support, advice and brutal honesty helped me complete a challenging dissertation to a level that I never dreamed possible. I am also indebted to the Ford Foundation, Ronald E. McNair Program and the University of Washington Graduate Opportunities and Minority Affairs Program. In addition to the monetary support these organizations provided, I also relied upon the network of other scholars of color trying to accomplish a feat similar to my own. The journey to a PhD can be a lonely one and the support of these organizations reminded me that I am not in it alone. I also want to thank the rest of committee, Luis Fraga and Matt Barreto, who carefully read each chapter of this dissertation and provided instrumental feedback. In addition, Naomi Murukawa and Jack Turner also supported me along the way. Finally, I want to dedicate this dissertation