Interesting thing about conservatism and conservatives. As written, seldom practiced, conservatism preaches the merits of an invisible federal government with very little power. Of course, it is against human nature that those in government would or could ever abide by this precept.

This ain't gonna happen if Hillary gets the nomination.

I don't know as I agree that Conservative ideas failed because they were "radical;" I think a lot of them failed because they were just plain stupid. And it's not like a whole lot of people didn't point that out at the time.

Supply-side economics is a classic example. When the idea was pushed out in the late 70s/early 80s, it's counter-intuitive nature seemed, well, stupid. Why would the supply-side people "invest more" rather than pocket their new, higher takings? And as it turned out, it was stupid; all we got was exploding debt and a huge income divergence.

A lot of similar Conservative and neoConservative ideas were equally stupid at the outset--pre-emptive war, cutting infrastructure funding, installing ideologues rather than qualified applicants, etc.--and failed accordingly. But they didn't fail because they were radical; they failed because they were stupid.

But like Anrig, I'm baffled as to why more Democrats don't point this stuff out. We tried supply-side economics for 20 years; it failed utterly. What argument is more powerful than, ya know, experimental evidence?

I've gotta agree on two different points. First with Anrig's last sentence.

"If the case against the dominant belief system of recent years is presented clearly and forcefully, many Americans who used to think of themselves as conservative will realize that they now have more in common with progressives."

So very true, and something I write about all the time on my blog. But I don't see how this in itself makes modern conservatism a failure, at least not in a message sense. If anything it makes the case that the American public is largely more progressive than what so-called conservatives want everyone to believe. Therefore, it becomes a message problem for the Democrats and progressives, not a policy failure or even an ideological one. I suppose I'm less concerned with the failures of movement conservatism as I am with the failures of progressives being able to formulate their issues to the public.

Secondly, I agree with Howard Ford above that conservatives are anything but small government and fiscally responsible. What possibly is an example from Bush's two terms that can constitute as small government or fiscally responsible-- the two supposed bedrock issues conservatives believe in. Again, this goes back to my message problem. The GOP is the first to attack Obama for spending plans while sitting idly by when George Bush took the largest surplus in history and turned it into the largest deficit in history.

It's my understanding that modern conservatism still claims to itself fiscal responsibility and small government. There's just not one ounce of credibility to that given the last 8 years of George Bush. Democrats should do more to remind the public of that than any "good" ideas from Republicans.

Krugman's economics are the other side of the same pie as the conservatives. He's a growth-is-good, globalization is good ideologue, too, though much easier to take because he isn't mean like the neocons. However, he often seems divorced from human reality, not to mention human beings. His aggressive advocacy for Clinton's health care policy seems to ignore everything and everyone BUT the narrow focus of the mandate. He doesn't even take into consideration the interchange between president and congress in getting policy transformed into reality, let alone consider whether Hillary is the right person to be leading.

It really is time to consider who might be flexible in facing upcoming problems: who will be able, as they say, to think outside the box.

We need people who aren't on one side of the same pie, especially if the pie has, excuse the lousy metaphor, a glass-topped wall down the middle. We need someone willing to stand outside the pie and take what's good in it, but not be confined to it.

1) Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the RealUglyOnes were "the party of ideas." He was wrong. They only had one idea: use corporate marketing techniques to sell the failed policies that were proven failures long before Moynihan, or Bill Buckley for that matter, were born.

$100 bucks to the first example of a new RealUglyCon idea since 1970.

2) Anyone who thinks the Republican program of "Blame Americans First," blaming us for not trying hard enough to become rich, or not having enough connections to avoid consequences, is an idiot. They rig the system, then charge you interest and management fees for playing.

3) "Entre" means between or 'in the middle'. "Preneur" means 'taker', from the verb prendre, to take. The exact English translation of 'entrepreneur' is middle-man. And I thought that was what the MBAs were trying to squeeze out of the production flow.

Personal Note:
I had a boss once, a Republican, who, when introduced to a new analyst who was "a Harvard MBA", said, as he shook his hand, "Well, that's two strikes against you."
He was the last Republican I had any respect for.

Remember, only two kinds of people vote Republican. Millionaires and suckers.

First great responses from everyone! I hope Genghis notices this in relation yo his call from better posting.

I am very much interested in the sociological mindset that has lead many of my friends and family members to continually elect candidates with failed policies. I grew up and still currently live in the south where the large conservative voting block influences the outcome of presidential elections. It amazes me to no end how many of the people whom I care about, who care about their community, who care about fiscal restraint, who care about their own rights as parents, children and family members can ever vote for someone like GWB or even Ronald Reagan for that matter. I am not sure about a specific cause and I do believe as many of you have pointed out that this is the result of the progressives not being affective enough at getting out their message but I also believe that the game is in many ways rigged against that message. I urge my friends and family on a weekly basis to read articles outside of the mainstream media. It is amazing how much this little change can add to your perspective. That added with personal experience can result in a pretty good framework for talking points to many of these types of voter's. But frankly I think many of these people vote for conservatives purely based on tradition. It's what their parents do and they have always known what's best, right? I don't think its just this but it's one factor of many which I think plays into the voter's minds when they vote for continued failed policies. However if one where to outline the goals or outcomes for what best represents fiscal conservatism or the conservative movement on a card with a check box that was left unchecked it would visualize those failed policies. I don't have all the numbers for the failures of this administration and our its policies when it comes to living up to the outlined goals of a ideal government but I can not imagine any measurement which would not state that President Bush and all of his policies, which many of his base supporters would define as a conservative government style, have been miserable failures. I think the numbers speak for themselves!
But is anybody listening or would they rather talk about the more superficial aspects of this race and our society in general?

Well, if the argument is to be made, it has to be made in a way that is easily understood and palatable by the general population. We need sound bites. Simple "yeah, I agree" lines that easily make it into the media and play well with Joe public who doesn't study and obsess over these things like we do.

That's your job Gregg. That's the job of all of us floating in these liberal spheres of influence. Instead of encouraging others to make the case, make it yourself. Make it simple and clear. Make it portable so others can pick up and use it too. Give me some slogans and talking points and we'll get them out there. Give me justification for single payer insurance I can relate to someone in 25 words. Give me the response questions that will flumox and perplex the conservative position. For example, when Sean Hanity yaps over my TV that "we have enemies that hate us for our freedoms" we need someone retorting "what freedoms are those, Sean, and how do you know this?" Make them answer the rational question - because they can't and sound foolish when they try.

Give me the support and culture I need to ask conservatives "why do you hate Americans?"

Thanks, American Dreamer! Here's the Amazon link to my book:

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Have-No-Clothes-Right-Wing/dp/0470044365

It's filled with useful ammunition to beat up conservatives with.--Greg

I question whether it is possible to win a war of ideas in a nation where most treat ideas as dangerous, alien things.

That said, it's a battle well worth fighting.

And it's useful in this particular instance we are now facing to note that John McCain believes - as much as he believes anything, I suspect - that the real solution to the problems of Bush's America is more of the same policies that produced those problems in the first place.

Not unlike taking cyanide as a cure for arsenic poisoning...

Yes Yes and more Yes

You know, Obama might have gone down to that explanation because he doesn't see most people as conservative, so he reaches the whole distance when asked for a conservative idea.

It might also be that, as with most people, he's let conservative become a literal synonym to "bad," rather than a functional synonym.

The conservative movement's hostility toward government, and its agenda of ideas intended to weaken government, explains why Republicans in power have failed at governing.

You would be well-advised to pay attention to the grandfather of spammers, Richard Viguerie, to David Keene, and even to Bob Barr. All three have now renounced the Bush Administration and written off the last 7 1/2 years, not as a failure of conservatism, but instead, a failure of politicians elected as conservatives to act faithfully while holding elective office. Of the 3 mentioned above, Barr is the only one who may have had a small change of heart, but I believe the verdict is still out on that decision. Vigeurie and Keene did not dissent against Bush until the inevitability of outcome in the 2006 midterm elections became inescapably clear. These two are also still capable of moving the right in directions that they desire, claiming it to be the true path of core conservative theory.

They play a strategy ripped straight out of a Marxist dialectics playbook, using half-truths, mistruths, and when those prove to be ineffective, 100% lies. They are not in fact, real conservatives, but new-rightys wrapped in conservatism's hide that they skinned from the already sickened beast in the late 70's.

The NewRight does not possess any real underlying foundations to their philosophy. They do no desire a smaller government when it comes to draconian border fences and agencies to guard them, or the infrastructure required to keep a significant number of American citizens incarcerated. They do not believe in a balanced budget. Even as they decry the liberal tendencies to tax and spend, they walk-away from the reality: The GOP Gone Wild in D.C. proved that conservatism in power's fiscal restraint is to just spend without end. Contemporary Conservative are really against the societal provisioning of faith, hope and charity to those the vicissitudes of life has flung face-down into the dirt. This is what fuels their passion to decrease the government.

It's not about accepting responsibility for these evil clowns. Their only motivation is the acquisition of power as an ends, and all means are justified. Claiming personal responsibility lay at the bedrock of their beliefs is just a tactic that provides them many opportunities to vitriolically attack single moms in misdirection sleight of hands while dealing out cards in a game of 3-card monty.

Because you think the only alternative to dog-eat-dog laissez-faire capitalism is communism?

No wonder people accuse conservatives of having no imagination.

Either of the two Democratic candidates would stave off the examples you provide (Social Security privatization. Supply-side economics. Politicizing the top levels of agencies with anti-government ideologues. Undercutting public health, safety, and environmental protections. etc.)
Only problem is only one can be elected in November, and that candidate is Hillary Clinton. The article mentions FoxNews: both candidates have given interviews there recently and the difference is striking for all to see. Clinton pushed back against the tough questioning of O'Reilly, with poise, humour and mettle. Josh is proud not to have watched it, but he's wrong to take this political elitist tonality this late in the campaign. Meanwhile, Obama stammers through his softball interview. Forget about all Obama's baggage and the stuff still to come out in the GE. Just on his command of the issues: is is just not there yet. Give him time, otherwise he will be burned for 2012 or 2016. TPM and the progressive blogosphere need to pull back from the blind support of Obama.

But sometimes, beating people up is the point. I've noticed that many wingers rely on sheer aggressiveness to succeed. Notice when these people are being interviewed or debated. Everything about their tone of voice, choice of words, speech cadence, body language speaks of aggression. Their positions are bullshit, but they tend to come off as winning because they try to intimidate. Reason and logic often don't come off well in comparison, at least on an emotional level. That's why bullies tend to be successful,
Not only do we need good sound bites and talking points, but they have to be delivered with fury and rage. We have to make clear we have nothing but contempt for the far right (because they're contemptible) and that we despise them (because they're despicable).
Most of all, we have to make clear we have no fear of them.
And don't worry about the far right's feelings; they always will hate us.They love themselves, and themselves only.

How can I print an article from you web site.

And another thing, I'm voting for the nomination of Hillary Clinton because unlike most Obama supporters I'm old enough to remember what a vote for a Clinton can deliver. I also am old enough to recognize that Obama is just using Bill Clinton's strategy of being the outsider looking in, which Hillary has been around too long to claim. Plus I am sick of what the other side has been doing to my country and I'll be damned if I'm going to get on some forgive-and-forget Kumbayyah band wagon when what I really want is these criminals held accountable for the damage they've done to the US, made to stand trial, and thrown in prison for all things Bush.