Most historians struggle with the difference between what people say and what they actually do. This has become even more of a problem since the development in the early twentieth century of public relations, an organizational profession dedicated to providing us with the words and pictures we want to hear and see. Euphemisms abound. Advertising is so omnipresent that even our children soon learn to be cynical about the spoken and written word. As we look at the most recent cycle of conservatism in American politics, we need to be careful about separating words from actions, rhetoric from reality. As fascinating as developments were in the nation's capitol, we also need to use a wide-angle lens and try to bring some of the politics outside of the Beltway around Washington, DC, into this account of recent U.S. history.

When we do that and let our gaze sweep back as far as the 1950s, we can see that a particular brand of conservatism was already beginning to acquire a base in a number of states. This was originally a style of compromising, moderate conservatism that Ike referred to as the “middle way.” It was from time to time accompanied by fierce rhetoric in foreign affairs. But the policies were, in reality, moderate and cautious in the exercise of power abroad and at home. That kind of moderation was very popular when it provided Americans with peace and prosperity.