Emily Bazelon, I love you. I truly love your work and respect your journalism so I am starting my pleading crusade with you. It may seem a silly or superficial crusade to some; to others it may seem a pat argument at first glance; but I disagree wholeheartedly on both counts. Your otherwise wonderful article about the “unexpected” rightward march of the Roberts court seems an appropriate place to address this issue. This is especially true considering the article asks how liberals and moderates were so misled. Here goes…

I am sick and tired of even stellar journalists continuing to use false political labels, seemingly without first evaluating them. It drives me insane to continually hear what is plainly authoritarian ideology labeled as "conservatism" ("arch-conservatism" as this article uses in quoting Adam Cohen is even more inaccurate). Frankly, I find it sloppy journalism born of a fear to be branded as biased.

This is not simply a plea for "re-branding" in some goofy attempt to re-wire people's perceptions. It is a plea made not as a silly political strategy of the left or center; it is made because "conservative" is so profoundly inaccurate in both the political sense of the term and its common usage. Using the “conservative” label inaccurately is a blanket acceptance of the rhetoric and PR campaigns of politicians and public figures. Just because someone describes himself or herself a certain way doesn't make it so. When a Klan member says, "I'm not a racist; I'm just defending my heritage," do journalists then refer to the KKK as an organization of Southern Heritage Advocacy?

“Conservative” in its common use implies modesty, humility, caution, and upholding tradition. “Conservative” in its political definition asserts limited government interference, deference of the Federal government to local and state governments, deference to tradition, and reverence for individual rights and responsibility. So, when journalists can tell me what is conservative about ignoring decades of Court precedent, restricting the Constitutional right of individual free speech, restricting individual equity rights in the workplace, restricting the rights of women to control their bodies, and restricting the rights of local school boards to determine their own policies - when you can do that, I'll accept the "conservative" label. Until then, however, let's try for something approaching accuracy, like "authoritarian conservatism" or just plain old "authoritarianism" because contemporary “conservatism” plainly advocates that State or Corporate authority trumps the rights of the individual. There is absolutely nothing conservative in that philosophy, period. Perhaps “authoritarian” seems a bit too impolite or shrill, huh? Well, "racist" is impolite, too, but it's a much more accurate (and honest) description of the Klan than “Southern Heritage Advocate.”

And the examples above of authoritarianism are only what our "conservative" Supreme Court has brought, of course. As for this "conservative" administration... What is "conservative" about spying on your own citizens, restricting habeas corpus rights (even for citizens), ignoring international law, violating human rights treaties, restricting freedom of sexuality, advocating death for criminal action, advocating prison for recreational drug use, and violently enforcing our will across the globe through our "defense" department? That is not and never has been "conservative" - not political conservatism or any other definition of the word.

So, just because some moderates and lefties have bought into this false label and may associate authoritarianism with conservatism, that doesn't mean the label is accurate, honest, or even useful. I beg journalists to abandon politeness in favor of accuracy and honesty. After all, isn't a deferential politeness by the mainstream media what got us into Iraq and sentenced us to eight years of authoritarian rule in the first place?