Overview
E.J. Dionne Jr.’s Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism—From Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond offers a sweeping, meticulously researched narrative of the American conservative movement and the Republican Party from the 1960s through the rise of Donald Trump. Dionne’s central thesis is that the right’s current turmoil and radicalism are not sudden aberrations but the result of a long trajectory that began with the GOP’s embrace of Barry Goldwater’s ideology in 1964, rejecting the more moderate conservatism of Dwight Eisenhower in favor of ideological purity and anti-government fervor124.
Goldwater’s 1964 campaign is pivotal in Dionne’s analysis. Goldwater’s brand of conservatism was uncompromising, anti-government, and deeply skeptical of the postwar consensus that had defined both parties. While Goldwater lost badly to Lyndon Johnson, his campaign set the template for a new, more radical right. This movement, Dionne argues, was animated by a sense of grievance—particularly among white Southerners and conservatives alienated by the civil rights movement and the expansion of government under the Great Society45.
Goldwater’s defeat did not discredit his ideas; instead, it galvanized a movement that would push the GOP further right in subsequent decades. The “Goldwaterism” that Dionne identifies became the ideological anchor of the party, demanding a kind of purity that would define Republican politics for the next half-century24.
Dionne describes a recurring cycle within modern conservatism: Republican leaders campaign on sweeping promises of small government and social rollback, but once in office, they confront the practical limits of governance and the political realities of a diverse, modern society. The result is a persistent sense of betrayal among the party’s base, who believe their leaders have “sold out” or failed to deliver on the conservative utopia they promised567.
This cycle began with Richard Nixon, who, despite his conservative rhetoric, governed as a centrist and was castigated as a traitor by the right. Ronald Reagan, often mythologized as the conservative ideal, also expanded government in certain areas and made pragmatic compromises. George H.W. Bush’s tax increase and George W. Bush’s expansion of government programs (including Medicare Part D and education reform) further fueled the right’s sense of disappointment, even as these presidents maintained conservative credentials in other respects57.
Dionne argues that the right’s pursuit of ideological purity has been both its driving force and its undoing. The “purity movement” did more than marginalize moderates; it actively expelled them from the party, narrowing the GOP’s appeal and making it increasingly difficult to govern or build broad coalitions124.
The Tea Party, which emerged in the wake of the financial crisis and Barack Obama’s election, is seen by Dionne as the logical heir to Goldwater’s ideology. The movement’s anti-government fervor and disdain for compromise were as much a reaction to George W. Bush’s perceived moderation as to Obama’s progressive policies. The Tea Party’s rise signaled the triumph of the purity movement, but also deepened the party’s internal divisions and alienated key segments of the electorate, especially as the country became more diverse and socially liberal147.
A core theme in Dionne’s book is the gap between conservative rhetoric and political reality. The right’s leaders have long promised a return to a smaller, more homogenous America—invoking the government and culture of the 1950s, and even earlier eras. Yet, Dionne notes, most Americans, including many conservatives, have little interest in turning back the clock so radically. The vision of a “small government utopia” is not only impractical but also politically unsustainable, requiring wrenching changes that the public does not support67.
This disconnect has led to a politics of perpetual disappointment. Each new Republican leader is judged by the base not by what they accomplish, but by how closely they adhere to the unattainable standards set by Goldwaterism. The result is a cycle of purges and primary challenges, with each generation of leaders deemed insufficiently pure57.
Dionne emphasizes that the GOP’s adherence to this increasingly narrow vision has left it out of step with a changing America. As the country has become more diverse, urban, and socially liberal, the party’s base has grown older and whiter. This demographic narrowing has made it harder for Republicans to win national elections and has contributed to the party’s internal crises14.
Although Dionne’s book was published before Donald Trump’s election, he presciently identifies the forces that would propel Trump to the GOP nomination. Trump’s rise, Dionne argues, was not an aberration but the culmination of decades of grievance politics, ideological purity tests, and anti-establishment rhetoric. Trump exploited the same sense of betrayal and cultural anxiety that had animated the Goldwater movement, but took it further by discarding traditional conservative orthodoxy on issues like trade and foreign policy14.
Dionne concludes that for the health of both the Republican Party and American democracy, the right must abandon its obsession with purity and return to a more pragmatic, inclusive conservatism. He calls for a revival of the Eisenhower tradition—one that values compromise, accepts the legitimacy of government, and seeks to build broad coalitions. Only by doing so, Dionne argues, can the right escape the cycle of disappointment and contribute constructively to the nation’s future124.
Why the Right Went Wrong is both a history and a warning. Dionne’s analysis is notable for its fairness and depth, tracing the evolution of American conservatism from Goldwater to the Tea Party and beyond. He shows how the pursuit of ideological purity has led the right into a cul-de-sac, alienating moderates, narrowing its base, and making effective governance impossible. Dionne’s call is not for the right to abandon its principles, but to rediscover the virtues of pragmatism, compromise, and inclusion that once made it a vital force in American politics245.