Wonderful post, Zach. But it's also depressing - what do I call myself? Sigh.

Don't rebrand. Just tell the truth: that being a conservative does not equate with being a Republican, and that the GOP's woes can be blamed on religious populists, Wilsonians, and statists, who are manifestly not conservative.

Regressive. I like that. Is there a digressive party?

I think Chuck is pretty much right on. I don't hear very much disdain for conservatives, though I hear a lot for Republicans and specifically for President Bush. And the latter is almost entirely founded on the mess in Iraq. There is still broad public support for the goals of true conservatism.

There is still broad public support for the goals of true conservatism.

Eric,
I agree with that sentiment.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing to "conservatives" is the apparent total victory in the Executive and Congress (and the Courts), with the utter lack of progress toward policy goals.

The question is: Did the conservative movement give up too much ideology to get where it is today, or were the people who received the benefit of that public support profoundly inept?

And as a follow-up to the post above, one further question:

Is the best strategy for "conservatives" to give ground, "hang the bastards" who failed us, and hope for the left to over-reach when it gains power?

"Perhaps the most frustrating thing to "conservatives" is the apparent total victory in the Executive and Congress (and the Courts), with the utter lack of progress toward policy goals."

I suspect that what this reveals, in no small part, is that the public in fact doesn't much care for many conservative policy goals. For a substantial majority of the citizenry, they don't want social security privatized; they do want seniors (and others) to have help paying medical bills; they don't want their programs cut that would be required to actually pay for the tax cuts (which, however, they also want); they don't want abortion broadly recriminalized. Some other issues, such as gay rights & immigration restriction, may still garner conservative majorities (of one flavor of "conservative"), but slim ones that are growing ever slimmer, and which are opposed by business interests (of another flavor of "conservative").

Dave S. asks:

Is the best strategy for "conservatives" to give ground, "hang the bastards" who failed us, and hope for the left to over-reach when it gains power?

I must confess I'm surprised at just how shrill the expressions of dismay have become from some corners of conservatism. In some cases, it's hard to tell the difference between the Bush-hating left and the Bush-fatigued right. Have we become so tired of the constant drum-beat of propaganda from the left that we've decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? To me, the worst sin Bush and the Congressional GOP committed--and it's an awful big one--is their profligate spending. But Iraq, Gitmo, wiretapping, etc.--I think the administration basically did the right thing.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to deliberately "give ground" to the left. The power of incumbency being what it is, we must fight to put the most conservative candidate in each seat. If I have to choose between Rudy and Hillary for president, I'll hold my nose and vote for Rudy. However, ousting a few incumbents in the primary would send a clear message. Lamont's primary defeat of Lieberman may have helped to solidify the Democrats' anti-war stance; perhaps ousting a few GOP incumbents (in safe GOP states or Congressional districts) could send the GOP back to conservative principles.

To me, the worst sin Bush and the Congressional GOP committed--and it's an awful big one--is their profligate spending. But Iraq, Gitmo, wiretapping, etc.--I think the administration basically did the right thing.

That it is considered "conservative" to support...

1. ...the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us, based on trumped up charges, and with no military or political plan for the aftermath of the invasion (the very very same aftermath predicted by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, BTW)...

2. ...the indefinite detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (most have not been charged with crimes), who are denied the right to have a U.S. judge hear their habeas corpus petitions...

3. ...what many legal experts consider an illegal domestic spying program, that some of these same experts claim the presidential-authorization-of may be an impeachable offense...

...is what gives me pause about movement conservatives. Despite certain lapses (guns, gays, and abortion), it makes sense that those who support the Bush agenda would also support Rudy - there is the distinct whiff of authoritarianism surrounding my old mayor, too..

JohnS,

I don't agree with the way in which you've framed any of those three issues. Putting that aside, however, I grant that there are conservative reasons to oppose the Bush administration's actions in each of those situations, but there are also conservative reasons to support them, i.e. there is tension between the libertarian and national security themes within conservatism.

One definite unifying theme in conservatism is that the world will never be perfect, and we must often choose the lesser of two or more evils. If we abandon the necessity for national security in order to pursue a libertarian ideal, then that ideal situation will be very short-lived.

I think that the biggest problem with this label is what Friedman identified in the quote in this post: "[T]he term conservatism has come to cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations..." Even if someone claims to be a conservative, it is still difficult for me to predict what position that person would take on most issues. The label "conservatism" doesn't even refer to a single philosophy that most "conservatives" agree on, more or less. "Conservative" describes a coalition of people who probably should be divided into smaller categories with their own labels, because when they agree with each other on an issue at all, they have chosen their positions for completely different reasons.

Josh and others, let's create a new label, right now. I have Thesaurus.com open. We just need to find a word for freedom or justice, or whatever we're looking for, that can be turned into an adjective that tells people that we are in favor of it. We will then use the adjective as a noun (for example: liberal, conservative, moderate, or progressive).

I suggested making our new label refer to freedom or justice, but it doesn't even have to be that specific, if we want to follow the "progressive" model. The label "progressive" tells us nothing more about what they believe than if they had called themselves the "positives." Maybe we could be the "positives"! We also have the option of being the "beneficials." We could also consider calling ourselves the "amazings" or the "wonderfuls." Actually, I would like to announce that I am the very first "strong handsome smart." The "strong handsome smarts" are going to run the country, in January 2009. We should just make up name labels like this for fun, with or without a name crisis.

Karl:
It's refreshing to read your posts, which are devoid of googled quotes in support of certain positions (ie: JohnS' consistent use of "as so and so said....), devoid of arguments based on what "many legal experts" say(without naming a single one), devoid of arguments based upon a single ideology (I've both agreed and disagreed with you), and finally, devoid of any vitriol.

the constant drum-beat of propaganda from the left

Eric, did you have any particular examples of this in mind?

Iraq,

If the case for war in Iraq was made with solid intelligence and sober analysis, I would be the last man standing in defense of that war. What turned me away from this administration was the fact that there was a concerted effort to ignore solid intelligence from analysts who worked the field for years.

I voted for Bush because I thought he had the sense to appoint experts in the departments of the Executive and listen to them. Nearly all of the evidence points to the fact that he stuffed them with people who each had their own agenda and went about scheming to implement them, to the detriment of the departments.

It seems pretty clear that Cheney and Rumsfeld put together a team at the DoD whose purpose was to provide "intelligence" on which they would go to war. Why do we pay intelligence professionals? If policymakers are just going to come to a conclusion and pile together evidence to support it, then why do we pay to acquire it in the first place? It would be cheaper to just Google for what they wanted and put a link on the White House blog.

Gitmo,
Gitmo is untenable. I would like someone to tell me how Gitmo is a more just outcome for terrorists than summary execution. In World War II, we shot a member of our own military for desertion. How is it that we cannot execute those that would threaten us?

How about bringing "Tories" back to North America? (Er, or to the US, if they still use that term in Canada... do they still use that term in Canada?)

Actually I just came upon a great solution for Gitmo:

1.) chain everyone there closely together on a concrete platform
2.) Give each of them a (remotely armable) suicide vest
3.) Surround the compound with machine gun nests
4.) Arm the vests

At this point, they can either choose to
1.) Starve to death peaceably, in which case they are dead and no longer wasting tax dollars

2.) Explode themselves and their fellow Muslims, demonstrating to the world that they are more interested in their own glory than promoting a religion of peace

Of course, in the more likely case of #2, we would video tape the whole deal and release it on YouTube, in order to maximize propaganda utility.

I suspect Dave S. isn't kidding. No wonder the GOP is hell bent on NOT having YouTube debates for their candidates.

I wrote:

...the constant drum-beat of propaganda from the left...

Zach wrote:

Eric, did you have any particular examples of this in mind?

Zach, I was referring to the constant chant of "Bush=Hitler," "Bush & his cronies," "Bush lied, people died," etc. (Not only literal chants at protests, mind you, but also the same sentiments dressed up in political rhetoric put forth by Democrats and lefty blogs, etc.)

Eric, while I agree that there is too much of that that pollutes public discourse, I think that other commentary has been much more persuasive in fostering anti-Bush sentiment. This includes more thoughtful analysis not just from Democrats and lefty bloggers but also libertarians, conservatives, and other non-hysterical people. Add to that the GOP's self-evident mistakes, and trying to pin 'shrillness' on bandwagonism is an unlikely proposition.

...the constant drum-beat of propaganda from the left...

And let's not forget to add professional historians to the list of propagandizing "Bush haters!"

John Boehner goes on Fox News and (accidently?) reveals this classified nugget: that a FISA court judge has ruled a nice big chunk of Bush's domestic surveillance program is illegal. The president's solution? Take oversight away from the FISA court and give it to A.G. Alberto Gonzales! And the Dems appear to be going along with it!

Boy, that's some effective "propaganda campaign" the Democrats are running against Bush. I guess we'll have to leave it up to the lefty blogs to make any noise about this latest White House gambit, because I'm not expecting to hear any complaints from the right.

From JohnS's article on professional historians who dislike Bush: "A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found..." (emphasis added). The article also states that some of the responses received were sarcastic.

If a real poll of historians were taken, it might also show the same thing, that a majority of them dislike Bush. However, even that poll would not be relevant, because a "constant drum-beat of propaganda" against Bush can exist even though some of the people who dislike him are not a part of it, and also because professional historians, like everyone else, are capable of participating in the kind of "drum-beat" Eric was writing about. The "poll" carries even less weight when it is a measurement the collective opinion of a self-selected group of sarcastic historians.

Karl

According to the author, the sarcasm was coming from the historians who said they thought he WASN'T one of the worst presidents in our history. You left that part out.

You also personalize, by saying they don't LIKE Bush. They were rating his presidency, not his likability.

As for this so-called "constant drumbeat of propaganda" directed at Bush, I've seen little of anything that I would accurately call propaganda appearing in the mainstream press. Those of us on the left have actually found his MSM coverage largely over-solicitious. And let's get real, it isn't E.J. Dionne, CNN is putting on nightly, it's Glenn Beck and Laura Ingraham. And forget about libs on the radio, despite the fact that the country appears more or less evenly split now between Dems and GOPers. Blogs? I wouldn't call what left wing blogs call propandizing, either. Partizanship, yes, propaganda, no.

Zach, I disagree. There has been thoughtful analysis calling many things about the Bush administration into question, and I think that it has helped to make the success of the "drum-beat" possible. However, I do not think that the analysis brought about the decline in Bush's approval ratings directly. I do not believe that the public turned on Bush because a majority of the American people carefully considered all of the evidence available to them and critically examined the thoughtful analysis to which you refer, and agreed with it (or formed conclusions of their own, based on what they read). I think that the existence of credible negative analysis (and the evidence on which it was based) made the slogans seem plausible, even when the evidence and analysis did not logically support the claims made in that "constant drum-beat of propaganda." For example, the drum-beat doesn't stop with the observation that the administration was stubborn or was dismissive of new evidence concerning weapons of mass destruction -- it continues on to insist that Bush misled the American people on purpose, for reasons unrelated to what it decided promoted national security. It does not stop with the argument that the administration is wrong about the law on important points -- it maintains that Bush does not care what the law can reasonably be construed to require or allow, and that legal arguments are offered by his administration in bad faith to protect Bush from the plain requirements of the law. It does not stop after observing that we have lost a great deal in Iraq with few obvious gains, and that the future does not look promising -- it insists, with a stunning level of confidence, that we will not "win" and cannot win. It does not stop with the claim Bush has diminished American liberty in a few ways -- it advances the idea that Bush would bring authoritarianism to this country, if he could (or, some would say, that he has).

I do not know to what extent these are responsible for public disapproval of Bush, but I would be surprised if they are not a factor. The plausibility of a lot of what Bush has been accused of seems to depend on the sense that Bush and his lieutenants are the kind of people who would do something like this. However, that sense is based on a drum-beat related to the one that Eric wrote about above: not propaganda, but the emergence of one not-quite-proven wrong after another. Together, they strip Bush of the benefit of the doubt, even if those accusations themselves would not have been believed if not for the fact that Bush's credibility has already been diminished by past accusations. As Bush has become less popular, many of his most likely defenders have also decided that trying to defend him, even to the extent that he deserves it, isn't worth it.

Bush's genuine shortcomings have given traction to related claims that point to him being an unparalleled disaster, when he is really more of a disappointment who should be opposed in many of his efforts. Isn't his popularity within ten points of Nixon's just before his resignation? I think that the public disapproval of Bush has been stretched beyond what the facts justify. It has become more like a runaway snowball than a drum-beat.

According to the author, the sarcasm was coming from the historians who said they thought he WASN'T one of the worst presidents in our history. You left that part out.

The fact that some of the self-selected "professional historians" responded sarcastically to the unscientific poll reflects on their professionality, not on whether the numbers were skewed against Bush. Your original comment on the historians seemed to depend on the assumption that there is something ridiculous about the idea of "professional historians" being a part of a "drum-beat of propaganda," but knowing that some of these fine professionals turned in jokes as their responses, I think that in making your assumption, you are at risk of overrating the professionalism with which they answered this survey.

You also personalize, by saying they don't LIKE Bush. They were rating his presidency, not his likability.

I don't think I suggested that they were rating his personal likability. I referred to them as historians who dislike Bush as a shorter substitute for "historians who rated Bush's presidency as a failure" and "some of the people who rate Bush's presidency as a failure." I was going to use the word "oppose," originally, but I thought it would read as referring only to people who were actively challenging Bush. I think that what I wrote would be easy enough to understand, for those who want to.

I wouldn't call what left wing blogs call propandizing, either. Partizanship, yes, propaganda, no.

On Tuesday, you quoted the following broad definition of propaganda, in order to argue that conservative characterizations of the "liberals" constitutes propaganda: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Almost any argument made on a large scale and intended to have some kind of effect would satisfy this definition, but if this is the definition you use, I do not know how you can claim that the left-wing blogs do not produce propaganda. It could depend on your definition of "systematic," but the activity of the liberal blogs is no less "systematic" than conservative use of the word "liberal" has been. As for the rest of your third paragraph, there is very little produced by the mainstream media that I would be comfortable calling propaganda, but they do report words and actions, amounting to propaganda (under your definition), from organizations and individuals opposed to Bush.

Karl

"I think that the public disapproval of Bush has been stretched beyond what the facts justify."

Please note the fact that many of the facts have not been allowed to come out (Google: George W. Bush "executive privilege"). I would say that has had a good deal to do with his slide in the polls.

But I would posit that the main reason for his slide has nothing to do with lefty propaganda pushing Bush "lied to get us into Iraq" or "fixed intelligence." It's that there were no WMDs, and so most Americans have no idea why we are still there. I don't know why we are still there - I've heard no credible explanation.

Regarding propoganda: propaganda is all about shaping people's opinions rather than merely communicating ideas or facts. Propagandizing requires sublety and sophistication. The game is to provoke emotional, not rational, responses without giving the game away. You need volume, too - the ability to reach BIG numbers of people. The best format for propoganda is the "unbiased" new report. What Judith Miller did in the NY Times with her WMD reporting is almost classic. (For interesting background on propagandists par excellance, Google: CIA "Mighty Wurlitzer") Fox News took it to a whole new level, but it appears that their over-enthusiasm gave the game away and they have been somewhat discredited and their effectiveness diminished.

Anyway, singling out the left for propagandizing misses the other half of the equation entirely: left-wing blogs have taken it upon themselves to counterbalance the spin/propaganda that they perceive coming from government, corporately owned media, but most importantly, the once fearsome GOP "noise machine" that used to reduce congressional Democrats to masses of quivering jelly.