It's really pretty amazing to see the way that a consensus is forming, one that crosses the political spectrum, that the Bush administration has been an historic disaster. I was at a lunch this past weekend with a very, very conservative young law student, and even she could only muster a half-hearted defense of the administration and seemed to almost apologize for her support of it.

That's all well and good, but the next battle will be over how to understand the Bush failure. You're already seeing conservatives rushing to distance themselves from the administration and chalk up its manifest failtures to mere incompetence. But while that's part of the story, it's not most of it.

Enter Rick Perlstein and The Big Con to fill in the story. Rick's written two books (the latter of which is forthcoming) documenting the rise of the modern conservative movement, from Goldwater through Nixon. He's now writing a blog over at Campaign for America Future, in which he documents the ways in which the failures of the Bush administration are the failures of conservatism as an ideology and governing approach. Check out this opening post on E Coli Conservatives.

Comments (19)

1. Nah, nah, nahhhh, nah. Nah, nah, nahhh, nah. Hey, hey hey. Goodbye.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 04/19/2007 @ 1:30pm

2. Of course more articles and analysis like this will be forthcoming in the almost 90% certain sweep in 2008 by the Democrats...

   but it bodes a question.

   When the Republicans won the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994...and a DEMOCRATIC President declared "The era of Big Government is over!"...or when they held Congress in 2000 and Bush came in...

   and the RIGHT-wing pundits declared "This is the final end of post-60s liberalism".

   Were THEY right, Mr Hayes?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 1:32pm

3. Conservative=Fascism. The Bush Crime Family has shown this to be true.

   Posted by douginslc at 04/19/2007 @ 1:43pm

4. TO CHRISTOPHER HAYES

   If you think George Bush represents true conservatism, you need to go back to school. True Conservatives stand for those aspects of the American experience that the Founding Fathers enacted, ie Private Property, The Rule of Law, Individual Rights and a Common American Identity. Bush is lucky if he adheres to one of those. Christopher, please do not besmirch true conservatism by associating us with Bush just so you can make a distinction between it and your silly socialist notions.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/19/2007 @ 2:28pm

5. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/19/2007 @ 2:28pm

   Good luck getting Joe and Jane Average to undersand that nuance. The Dems will hold Bush up as the conservative experiment failure for the next 20 years.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 04/19/2007 @ 2:57pm

6. in the 2000 election, it might be good to remember that conservatives voiced a great deal of concern that Bush would not be a true conservative, but another moderate-liberal like his father.

   Bush has satisfied conservatives through the taxcuts, judicial appointments, and his strong stand militarily against terrorism. However most conservatives would not consider Bush to be a true conservative.

   It is also laughable that anyone would consider Nixon a conservative. He was a Rockefeller Liberal Republican. He gave us the EPA, OSHA, wage and price controls. Hardly a conservative.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/19/2007 @ 2:57pm

7. Individual Rights

   like the choice to carry a fetus to term, right Chip?

   this common identity jive, where is that in the constitution? I think it went out the window when the US stole half of Mexico.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 04/19/2007 @ 3:02pm

8. JR, Why don't you suggest to your Congressman that we give it back.

   And the choice to kill a fetus, thats the beauty behing the American experiment? THAT really makes us great

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/19/2007 @ 3:17pm

9. In response to Chip Thornton's criticism of the link between Bush and conservatism, BlueTexan composed a very interesting and telling post:

   Good luck getting Joe and Jane Average to undersand that nuance. The Dems will hold Bush up as the conservative experiment failure for the next 20 years.

   Posted by BLUETEXAN 04/19/2007 @ 2:57pm

   Note that he isn't actually contesting the point, but rather suggesting that the common people won't understand the difference between Bush and conservatism. Just for starters, I would disagree; the fact that many people who are conservative also don't look Bush seems to suggest that they can compare and contrast their own ideals with those that Bush displays.

   More fundamentally, though, I really don't see how this really does or should spell the demise of the conservative movement. During this administration, certain ideals have either been wholly ignored or have been implemented extremely poorly. Neither of these is sufficient to actually indict conservative principles themselves. Unless conservatism somehow automatically entails "implementing a possibly unjustified war really badly, " I fail to see how criticism of the Bush administration amounts to a serious criticism of the conservative movement, rather than a statement that the conservative movement needs to actually live up to the ideals it espouses.

   Posted by Thrawn at 04/19/2007 @ 4:15pm

10. ". The Dems will hold Bush up as the conservative experiment failure for the next 20 years."

    Yes they will, which makes them liars..

    Bush never has been a conservative and never will be..

    Either Chris is writing political hash as a party hack, or he doesn't understand the difference bewteen Bush and a real conservative, or he is stupid, or could it be all of the mentioned?

    A true consewrvative wins elections in a landslide...Reagan...dems, in order to win have to lie and run as a conservative leaning candidate...to run as one here would like will get them the same results as was stuffed up the ass of all loons, kooks, and lefy libs in Conneticut...major defeat....and thats in the East..home of all libs.

    If Repubs find a good solid conservative the dems will have a hard time holding anything muchless sweeping up, unless you mean the mess after the elections. It doesn't mean the dems can't win, but it does say volumes about their wins...

    The dems have given no one a reason to vote for them as of yet, even their own cut and runners and impeach at all cost crowd are getting clowned...and why not? Because they are only needed around elections as the country is no where near them politicaly..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2007 @ 4:18pm

11. "JR, Why don't you suggest to your Congressman that we give it back. "

    They are giving it back, or are taking it back...and it will soon resemble the rest of Mexico..poverty, crime, corruption ,incompetence,infra structure collapse as thre wealth moves away, and as a result we will start to see Calmexans immigrating to N Dakota, Minnesosta, and Wisconsin...in about 50 years..just give it more time and all will work out..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2007 @ 4:22pm

12. Posted by THRAWN 04/19/2007 @ 4:15pm

    And for the record, I think Bush is an excellent example of what happens when a REAL conservative is given the keys to the nation. So I am actually contesting your point.

    THRAWN, you give the average voter too much credit in make these political observations. However, if enough conservative commentators start pushing the "Bush isn't a real conservative" line and that goes out in the GOP talking points for long enough, the sheep will soon start repeating it and eventually believe it. Just like they do with all the other GOP talking points.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 04/19/2007 @ 4:25pm

13. If the Left wishes to engage in the same wishful thinking as the Right did in 1994 and 2000....so be it, but consider this

    Imagine----

    A Republican Veep resigns in disgrace. The President, also a Republican, is forced to resign on the eve of impeachment over the WORST Constitutional and corruption scandal in living memory.

    The conventional wisdom?...the public will never trust Republicans again, or if they do, it'll be somebody much more liberal than the last GOP Prez....

    Four years later, the Republicans nominate a man that the Media and the Democrats consider "a far right nut" (and a "geezer"), over a moderate Southern governor.

    BUT, due to "stagflation", "malaise", an expanding Soviet sphere of influence, and hostages being held by a Third World country and America helpless to do anything about it....

    Ronald Reagan---50.7% and 489 electoral votes.

    "Jimmy" Carter--- 41.0% and 49 electoral votes.

    and Reagan re-elected in 1984...

    And Bush-41 elected on continueing his legacy in 1988(what later was disasterously false) "no new taxes" (lips read)

    And once again later, in 1992, with a savvy young Democrat elected President after 12 years of Republican Presidents....once again the cries rang out of the "death of conservatism"....and then?

    No point in going on, is there?

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 4:30pm

14. Posted by BLUETEXAN 04/19/2007 @ 4:25pm

    And for the record, I think Bush is an excellent example of what happens when a REAL conservative is given the keys to the nation. So I am actually contesting your point.

    Ah, OK, fair enough. At that point, we can engage one another directly.

    There are some ways in which Bush is clearly conservative; he's religiously conservative, and at least throws some social conservative bones at the religious right. However, I think there are a number of ways in which he doesn't really represent conservatism.

    Whenever people keep saying "Bush is actually HIKING taxes" or "Bush seems to actually SUPPORT nation-building," they're pointing out ways in which he's not sticking to his platform. That's interesting, because his platform was conservative. It was based on ideas like limited government and the rule of law, both of which he has shown questionable loyalty to.

    Look, I know Bush has had some serious issues, foremost among these is the disasterously-implemented war in Iraq. That's not enough to indict conservatism as a whole, though. What you'd have to do in order to do that, in order to show that these failures spring from conservatism itself and not from him in particular, would be to explain why conservative principles themselves entail the kind of bad outcomes we've seen.

    THRAWN, you give the average voter too much credit in make these political observations. However, if enough conservative commentators start pushing the "Bush isn't a real conservative" line and that goes out in the GOP talking points for long enough, the sheep will soon start repeating it and eventually believe it. Just like they do with all the other GOP talking points.

    I mean, yes, there is definitely an extent to which talking points and commentators from both political parties influence their respective bases. I don't think it's nearly as pervasive as you seem to believe, though; despite waves of propaganda depicting Ronald Reagan as "senile," large swaths of the population (including Democratic voters) elected him twice over. What's also important is that he didn't just "appeal to his speechifying ability," but asked them a very simple empirical question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/19/2007 @ 4:48pm

15. And the choice to kill a fetus, thats the beauty behing the American experiment? THAT really makes us great

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    Freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with. You want to live in a theocracy? Then move to Saudi Arabia.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 5:12pm

16. They are giving it back, or are taking it back...and it will soon resemble the rest of Mexico..poverty, crime, corruption ,incompetence,infra structure collapse..." Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Sounds more like the US after allowing fools like the old lying coward to run the show. Grotesque maldistribution of wealth, no middle class, no tax base to support an advanced society...

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 5:16pm

17. The NeoConservatives calling themselves conservative has never hidden their truly radical agenda. It is only that now, some ten to fifteen years later that their radicalism is finally being portrayed as what it really is.

    Posted by rosswinn at 04/19/2007 @ 6:25pm

18. Dr. Bush's traveling medicine show started selling his Compassionate Conservative Elixir down there in Texas, and by the turn of the century, millions of folk around the nation had consumed the stuff. Most ignored the nasty aftertaste, because the label was red white and blue, and had a lotta nice soundin' words on it. And while the concoction didn't do anything more than reduce the size of our wallets, the good doctor said we were feeling better, so we must have been.

    Analysis of the secret ingredients, however, showed that the elixir was conservative in name only, and was actually just fascist snake oil. Some 70 percent of those who took it came to realize that feeling better did not mean the same thing as having the shits, no matter what the good doctor said.

    The other 30 percent clenched their sphincters and put on a brave face.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/20/2007 @ 2:50pm

19. ...showed that the elixir was conservative in name only, and was actually just fascist snake oil.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 04/20/2007 @ 2:50pm

    Doc, isn't that the argument of MAASCH, FREIHEIT, and others? That Bush really wasn't a conservative? Ergo, Mr Hayes' celebration of the demise of conservatism is a bit premature???

    Posted by Mask at 04/21/2007 @ 06:49am