It depends how you mean “conservative.” The Tea Party’s brand has not so much been burnished as beshat upon.
The two major parties are just shells to be occupied by whatever constitutes the breadth of mainstream political ideology. We are not going to be a one-party state.
There is no substitute for moving the country left through persuasion and education. Waiting for demographics to change just cedes the field to people like me.
But that’s the beauty of it. Conservatism itself is like teflon because there’s no concerted effort to discredit it. Democrats and liberals would rather take on particular expressions of conservatism rather than take on the movement as a whole.
I think part of it is the need to be a big tent. Republicans have shrunken their tent in recent years and Democrats have taken advantage. The downside is that you can’t demonize conservatism without losing all the conservative voters who vote Democrat.
I think the Dems could move a lot further left without losing them and the leaders know it. That’s not why they don’t. (The necessity of campaign financing is why they don’t.)
Moving left and demonizing conservatives aren’t the same thing. The price Republicans paid for making liberal a bad word was that there are no more liberals in the GOP.
No, but they’re both worth doing! 
The upside is that the Dems got them, and the process continues.
And the Dems would like to keep them. Which has its own pros and cons, one of the cons being that when Republicans can often cobble together conservative majorities even while the Democrats control Congress. Most famously when Reagan was able to get a lot of conservative legislation out of the Democratic House with the help of the Boll Weevils.
Plus what happened to the ACA, since Democrats had to put something together that appealed to the conservatives and moderates in the party. When Ben Nelson has veto power over a health care bill, that means the bill will reflect Ben Nelson’s priorities.
So, this conservative brand is like an ethereal form of power, has no party nor agenda, it offers no candidates, elects no legislators. Yet by some bizarre form of political gravity, it nonetheless shapes the course of events, simply by the sheer power of its Being.
We talked about this. Tequila and bongwater is not for the novice. It is a lot easier to tell truth from hallucination if you actually have some experience with hallucination.
Stick to Dr Pepper for now. Six months, maybe Coors. We’ll see.
We’re talking about a term here. Conservatism simply does not carry the same baggage as liberalism, as a term. Which means that candidates can point to their conservatism as a positive thing in all but the bluest districts.
Something doesn’t have to have definite form to have an effect.
If demonizing “conservative” proves to be a nearly intractable challenge, then the left simply needs to find ways to frame their goals in terms that make sense to quasi-conservative voters. Instead of attempting a smear campaign on those other guys, the left should attempt a smear effect (as in graphics manipulation) on the boundary between “conservative” and “liberal/progressive”. Work on that until it is no longer possible to distinguish a position with a simple label, so that people have to actually engage their brains (assuming you have not already eaten them) when approaching an issue. Because, in reality, that is how things are, not clear-cut but nuanced, sometimes gordian, and often even counter-intuitive.
There are some ways to do that, but there are also issues where there’s just no way to square that circle.
You know, you didn’t have to steal Occupy’s playbook, if you had just asked them, they would have given it to you.
The Tea party is a lot like Occupy, but they actually got people elected, who then proceeded to put the movement in the doghouse.
Having billionaire backers helps in getting people elected.
It never got 80 hard right legislators elected before. What changed wasn’t GOP candidates having billionaire backers. They’ve always had that.
Can you point to a single instance where a Tea Partier got elected to a seat where the Democratic candidate was competetive? Seems to me that in blood red districts, they were able to outflank an establishment candidate on the right and steal a nomination, which in many districts is tantamount to winning the general election.
Allen West and Bobby Schilling. Both aren’t there anymore though. If we count the Senate, Marco Rubio won in a purple state, and Pat Toomey in a blue state.
You’re not totally wrong though, because 2010 so far has been the only election where the Tea Party made gains. They lost some ground in 2012 and I suspect they’ll lose more in 2014, although the GOP will probably see net gains in 2014. It’s just that those net gains will probably be K street candidates.
Again, that is exactly what we need to change.
Don’t get you here, adaher. On the one hand, you offer us conservatism as a compelling and dynamic force, nearly mystical in its (unobservable) power. And then, its just a semantic nuance, just a “term”.
Well, what’s it gonna be, hoss?
The problem is that the numbers don’t match a conservative smear campaign. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx
People who self identify as liberals has gone up slowly and consistently over the past 20 years.
75-80% of the country isn’t liberal and therefore considers liberals to be the outliers of the three groups. The numbers aren’t there for a change in perception yet.
However, what has gotten smaller is the number of self-identifying moderates. And we’re starting to see moderates being used as a slur by both conservatives and liberals more often. If partisanship grew to where moderates were only 20% of the country, it would become the new “slur”.