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?

That's why you never see it called by its real name: because fascism, while accurate, is the nuclear term of political discourse. It being nuclear, it can never be used, even when it the most accurate term for Buschism.

Dustino,

I completely agree with your comments. The meaning of "conservative", and the "conservative" label have been very misused. At this point I can call myself a liberal, a progressive, a moderate, a libertarian ..... anything but a conservative! .... even though I agree with most of the underlying ideals of true conservatism.

The media, and all of us, could help the situation by using more accurate labels ... and by questioning, and contradicting, the inaccurate use of the word "conservative".

If you had bothered to scrutinze your own tirade you would have found the answer to very dishonest rethorical question.

Conservative” in its political definition asserts limited government interference, deference of the Federal government to local and state governments.

Trying to put labels on people who don't agree with you won't fool anyone it just make you seem angry and unable to defend you arguments based on the facts of the issue

When the media became puppets instead of journalists. It happened slowly over time, as the media companies realized that people were stupid and happy to hear about Paris Hilton as oppossed to the budget or trade deficit. They found that they could make more money by doing less investigative research.

We have a fascist government. And the people who vote conservative are too stupid to recognize that the people they vote for are not upholding the constitution or preserving their freedoms.

To understand this country, you need to understand who has the power. It is the money people at the Fed and the BIS. They create money out of thin air- and people everywhere are slaves to money. Every key business, like oil, the media, chemicals and medicines. Is controlled by these people. As long as they get theirs, they couldn't care less about you or your freedoms.

Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex back in the 50's. See how right he was, America is always involved in a war, always killing it's own people so their war machine can make money. And the fascists can gain control over more territory.

please elaborate, JJD2... Where is this court deferring to state or local governments, failing to interfere in individuals' lives, deferring to precedent, or respecting the rights and responsibilies of the indivual? One could make a case that gutting Brown v. Board upholds a principle of limited government, though it ignores prior precedent and is hostile to local and state's rights (not to mention hostile to Constitutional guarantees of equality). Tell me how creating a tortured principle that says "illegal drug use advocacy" is not protected speech in public schools (even when invoked by a nonsensical "Bong Hits for Jesus" banner unfurled OUTSIDE of school) is a conservative principle in any, way, shape, or form. Tell me how defense of ongoing employer wage prejudice upholds the right of the individual OR their right to access to the courts? Tell me how disallowing habeas corpus claims for a person sentenced to death BECAUSE they followed the instructions of their judge upholds the rights of the individual (or even a basic regard for liberty, in general)?

The Conservative movement has never actually stood for these ideals. They have used them rhetorically, but when the rubber meets the road - be it on religion, on taxation, on sexual politics, on politics in general, on business regulation, on the balance of individual rights vs.those of corporations - conservatives spewing the most wonderful rhetoric about individual rights and small government have ALWAYS advocated and passed laws that are anything but what rhetorically they claim to be.

You made your bed. Lie in it

degsme says, "you made your bed. Lie in it"

If you are referring to the author (me), I didn't "make my bed" with conservatism. I don't and never have identified myself as a conservative. However, I feel that mislabling authoritarianism as conservatism contributes to an uninformed citizenry and a misrepresentation of policy and ideology.

If I had a say in it, I would never have gotten "into bed" with these people. IMO, if people understood the true ideology of the politicians and judges, none of them would have been elected.

In many ways the media is at fault for not questioning these individuals or applying special scrutiny to them.

The real story of Bush being elected, was the incredible job they did of covering up his years of drug abuse, his childish ways at Yale, or the problems he had serving in the national guard. They couldn't find any dirt- they couldn't find anything at all. so thorough we're Bush's handlers in obfuscating the truth about him. That should have made everyone curious- no records at all? They must have been hiding something!

These people don't believe in limited government or peace or prosperity. They are not conservatives and to call them that is a distortion of the truth.

Authortarian government is NOT American. It is the very antithesis of the principals this country was founded on. We are being betrayed by the institutions we rely on to keep us safe and free.

The labeling that goes on in politics is meant to "frame" a position. It was perfected by Frank Luntz in his effort to define the Republican "message" (never mind delivering, it's all message). The problem is that the media, in its laziness ate it up. What's funny now is that the same Republicans are complaining about being "labeled."

<link>

conservativism has always been authoritarian.

So why call us "lefties", a certainly inaccurate label also.

When those calling themselves principled conservatives failed to openly and clearly denounce the current group and its unprincipled practices. Bush and his crowd did not transform themselves into what we see today overnight. They're the same as they ever were. The record shows it; clearly and undeniably shows it again and again. Winning is a heady tonic. Doubtless, many thought to themselves what they were loath to say out loud. But he won twice. That's right folks; twice. Name the conservatives that actively campaigned against George Bush in his second term? Name one conservative that stood and renounced the candidate, his administration, their tactics, and policies before the Iraq war, the economy, and public opinion began heading south. Principled conservatives who simply remained silent are in many ways more culpable than the those True Believers that "rushed like lions towards the slaughter" of our constitution, economy, civil rights, and reputation.

That I hear from moderate followers of Islam. It's not enough to remain silent. The dissenting voice has far more credibility and traction in a room full of radicals. Why are you not screaming it from the rooftops! This is a failure of nerve, conscience, and conviction. There is no one with more influence and power to effect change than the insider. Silence in this context is taken for approval. The media is by definition an "outsider".