Conservatism as defined post-1970 typically rests upon the ideological origins of the likes of Edmund Burke, The Roman Republic and a variety of other historical influences that culminate in the mid-to-late twentieth century. The vast majority of historical interpretations of what we now call conservatism pre-1970 were overwhelmingly put forth by progressive historians usually in an attempt to paint the movement as corporatists, anti-labor, and even anti-change. Of course, these historians, such as Charles Beard, were attempting to solidify and justify the progressivism of the day and for good reason, as a very thorough and organized anti-progressivism movement was on the rise. The ideological and political tussle between contemporary conservatism and progressivism has endured for well over a century, yet the roots of this conflict are normally pinned to the sweeping changes that took place in American political structures, cultural battles, and academic alignments of the 1960s forward. Neo-conservative graduate students in the 1970s would lay claim to this wavelength and begin a quasi-conservative movement giving historical credence and an interpretative value of conservatism that appeared fresh or new and created by this band of neo-conservatives that politically and ideologically moved forward towards the 1980s onward. While it is true that modern day conservatism saw new alignments and political and cultural battles during this period, it is also true that this fight between left and right had been raging since the beginning of the progressive era, possibly earlier.
As Reconstruction continued to rebuild a mentally and physically torn nation, political violence and radicalism began to fester and grow in the United States. Marxism began to usurp bitter clingers of the slavery era, many converting and producing anarchists, white nationalist socialism, and even nationwide socialist communes. During this same period a number of academics, mostly children of disgruntled, prominent Protestant families, were returning from Germany looking to import the ideals of German socialism, what we now know as progressivism. Men such as Richard T. Ely, Walter Rauschenbusch, and a host of others, would bring this German Marxism across the pond and quite literally take over the academic and religious spheres in America. The political economy, state-run economics, the social gospel, Darwinism, eugenics, and the administration state would all originate from these new ideologues under the auspice of “progress.” This portion of the historiography has been well documented and discussed, and historical consensus, in general, agrees that these new beliefs in progress were well instilled by 1880. Indeed, nearly every university, especially the ivy league schools and prominent research universities by 1900 had nearly all began promoting progressivism and with the election of Woodrow Wilson, an Ely student, the nation had arrived and shifted toward modernism. This rebirth brought about vast governmental controls, eugenics, scientism, social Darwinism, state funded racism, and a massive redistribution of wealth. While progressive and social historians claim this as a victory of justice, equality, and the fulfillment of constitutional prophecy, not all Americans were in favor of this newfound radicalism.
To truly understand the history of contemporary conservatism in America, it is necessary to look past both the arguments that make up the historiography. While both hold truths and historical facts, both the left and right academic paradigms have tended to miss the mark. To see the beginnings of the political, ideological, and cultural wars between conservatism and progressivism, it is necessary to look where few historians have ventured, the republican schisms of the early twentieth century. Furthermore, this split between progressives and anti-progressives within the Republican party began in the late nineteenth century, coming to full fruition between 1900 and 1920, all of which began with the California Republican Party of the period. At the time, these anti-progressive Republicans were called “the regulars.” The Regulars had been contending with progressives who had moved into the California Republican Party, led by Hiram Johnson and his comrades. Johnson was closely affiliated with Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive, and were attempting to upend the Regulars through what can only be described as a hostile takeover. California by the time of the contentious election of 1912 had become one of the most populist states, holding a large number of delegates and a progressive academic and political headquarters. This schism of the Republican Party in California would have national implications, as the split between progressives and the Regulars in California, initiated by Johnson and Roosevelt, would metastasize across the nation, split the Republican vote nationally and hand the White House to Democrat Progressives and Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, the shenanigans of the 1912 elections can quite possibly be interpreted as the creation of the administrative state, the income tax, state-run economics, and even Jim Crow laws, all of which were promulgated by progressives in power. Who were the individuals that contended that this idea of progress was unconstitutional, anathema to American liberties, and illiberal?
Many historians have spoken of Reaganism, libertarianism, ancient Greece, and Rome or even the Founding Fathers as the roots of modern-day conservatism. Very few have discussed individuals that first endured and contested progress as a guise for Marxism. This is where this research comes into play, by looking at these Californian Republicans of the early twentieth century, dubbed “The Regulars.” Regulars like Joseph R. Knowland, Ralph Arnold, Judge Walter Bordwell, Senator William Knowland, all Californian Republicans, all became anti-progressives, and all would influence and help organize a conservative movement and ideology that is still the standard conservative platform today. In revealing these characters, their influence and struggles, this study will trace a line between four men, Joseph R. Knowland, Ralph Arnold, William Knowland, and their nemesis Hiram Johnson. Doing so from a political and ideological framework, the research will lean upon primary source materials from archive collections at Berkeley, the Huntington Library, digital archived materials from books to news articles and secondary source materials on the subject. As a history major beginning as an honor student during undergraduate studies with a capstone on the Hebraic roots of America’s founding, holding a 4.0 GPA through both a Master’s degree in history and thus far in the Ph.D. program towards completion of this dissertation, and a graduate thesis written upon the Rise of Conservatism in the West, with various academic journal articles pending publication, this is a topic that is well-suited to this historians expertise. The effort will suggest that modern day conservatism can be traced to California in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, showing an organized and ideologically orchestrated conservatism that would become the catalyst for later thinkers, politicians, and academics. In sum, the research will place a much-needed focus upon the conservatism of the Progressive Era, hopefully showing the beginnings of a new type of conservatism that produced the likes of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater and the fight against progressivism.
Ron Cook
