Krugman: Cantor, Wingnut Welfare and Movement Conservatism
It's worth the price of admission just to see Krugman using the term "wingnut welfare"
Movement conservatism as distinct from just plain conservatism, which has always been a part of the landscape and always will be is a distinct feature of modern American politics.
It dates, more or less, back to the 1970s, when conservatives, with lots of money from the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, set about building an institutional infrastructure of think tanks, pressure groups, captive media, etc.. At first this infrastructure mainly provided backing to right-thinking (in both senses) politicians. But eventually it provided a career path for up and coming conservatives.
In particular, being a movement conservative in good standing meant considerable career safety: even if you or the politician you worked for lost an election, there were jobs to be had at think tanks (e.g. Rick Santorum heading up the Americas enemies program at a Scaife-backed think tank), media gigs (two Bush speechwriters writing columns for the Washington Post, not to mention the gaggle at the WSJ and Fox News), and so on.
In other words, being a hard line conservative, which to be fair involved some career risks back in the 60s and into the 70s, became a safe choice; you could count on powerful backing, and if not favored by fortune, you could fall back on wingnut welfare.
And Eric Cantor, who got into politics long after the Reagan revolution and for the most part made his career post Gingrich, came across very much as a movement conservative apparatchik. He took very hard line stances, but never seemed especially passionate; he was, arguably, basically a careerist, and as such was fairly typical.
Maybe thats what the primary voters sensed.
Whatever the reason, it turns out that being a movement conservative apparatchik is no longer a safe career choice. This is a very big deal. Conservatives, as I said, will always be with us. But the structure that shaped them into a cohesive movement is now starting to unravel, at a time when movement progressivism which is much less cohesive and much less lucrative, but nonetheless now exists in a way it didnt 15 years ago is on the rise.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/fall-of-an-apparatchik