Previous post:

Next post:

Conservative Rebranding: Change the Name

by Keith Koffler on December 10, 2012, 7:47 am

I’ve written a piece in Politico today that calls on conservatives to change their name. Why? It’s a PR disaster.

It sounds like grandpa sitting rigidly in his worn chair at the dining room complaining that someone slightly altered his customary soup.

In newspaper reports from overseas, every brutish bad guy is a “conservative,” every enlightened reformer a “liberal.” When, in some forlorn foreign land, the nasty old guard pushes back against the forces of democracy, it’s said to be the “conservatives” trying to hang onto power. Even the most doctrinaire of the Soviet Communists were known as the “conservatives.”

And I know exactly what new name conservatives should take. It might surprise you. So – and here I’m being my own PR guy, I know – read the piece to find out!

Hope you enjoy it.

{ 37 comments }

cincycinco December 10, 2012 at 8:34 am

My thesarus offers “Old School” as a possible alternative. Is it now too “Old School” to try to sell it to the kids as “Kicking your politics Old School”? Probably, I’m just not hip to the jive. Somehow, I always thought it more important to be right than trendy…

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter with the current Republicans. Seeing as how Boehner removed all the ACTUAL conservatives from any committee assignment of importantance, ratified Obama’s language of “closing loopholes” as a code word for preventing the citizens from keeping part of their property, and verified that “the rich” need to be pilliaged more, what SHOULD be re-branded is the Republican party.

“Do you want to lean left, but don’t feel worthy of Obama worship yet? Want to do your part for the transforming of America, but the ‘rents don’t like you supporting the Best President Ever? Would you like to ease the country more comfortably into dicatorship in a way that would make it look like a challenge to The One, but actually give him a whipping boy? Then the new, hip Republican Party is for you!

Don’t worry about progress! Just between us, we’ll give Obama everything he wants – and more! Taxes? No problem, we’ll get those rich! Powers? Now we do have to keep this fiction up for those straight laced fuddy duddy Grandpa old white guy types, but YOU’LL know that we, too, serve the True King with our every submission and our every “stumble”! There are those regressives that need someone to blame – let them blame US! That’s what we’re here for!

Our “leader”, Speaker Boehner, has a PROVEN track record of service to the Annoited One! Just watch him cry away on cue, and imagine that the conservative power is cascading away with his tears! Yes, Obama has no better freind in Government than John B – Just watch how the John B sails, taking the blame safely away from the hallowed Democrats with no danger of EVER growing a spine himself!

Support TODAY’S Republicans. Just think of them as Democrat Lite, with a twist!”

Susan December 10, 2012 at 10:36 am

Well said, cincycinco.

Just2old December 10, 2012 at 8:48 am

Good article Keith. How about a not-so-fresh start and call ourselves Whigs?

Scottso December 10, 2012 at 10:40 am

funny!

cincycinco December 10, 2012 at 12:49 pm

What would we call them? “Royalist” seems too tepid for Obama, seeing as how a king has to be chosen by God, and so must acknowledge something greater than himself.

Obama’s TelePrompTer skills have not extended to making his body language look “natural” when attempting any sort of obeisance to any deity, casuing one to believe it’s just political posturing with him, nothing more.

Is there a “Calaphist” party? Or should we just cut to the chase and call it “The Party of the God Emperor Obama”?

Where DO socialist think their “right to rule” comes from, anyway? You obviously can’t say “God given right”, and “fairness” keeps you from saying “right by natural superiority” (we’re all equal, yes?). Obama doesn’t seem too interested in representing the opinions of at least 47% of his “constituents”, and there was a LOT of questionable vote tallies, ruling out “Representative Democracy Right”,; he has ignored the Constitution so fully and repeatedly it cant be Constitutional right; and it would be total anthemia to socialist everywhere to use something quantifiable “sucess”; so what, then, IS their justification?

Find THAT, and you can name their party appropriately. “Democrat” is clearly wrong, as it is rooted in “Democracy”, something Obama has shown a open disdain for, both here and abroad – so they need a “rebranding” as well.

Langley Spook December 10, 2012 at 3:24 pm

*Like* button.

RickW December 10, 2012 at 8:54 am

I like the concept and the historical info was interesting but……..Such a name change is going to cost me some $$$ personally. What am I to do with my collection of shirts like “My dog bites Liberals!” or “Liberals S$#k!”?

Melvin December 10, 2012 at 8:56 am

Good idea – but liberal is a terrible selection.

Need a much better word.

Shofar December 10, 2012 at 8:58 am

Good article Keith.

The left’s re-adoption of the “Progressive” mantel came in 2007 when Hillary Clinton was asked during the CNN/YouTube debates if she was a “liberal.” Her response, I believe, is what led to the re-branding of the left as Progressives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc)

The Clintons are the ultimate political animals, and know how to sell fertilizer to a manure farmer. They are perhaps two of the most dangerous political forces in this country. Though Obama may have been able to fool a small segment of the voting population into voting for him, he cannot change who he is to fit into the suit he is wearing. It is obviously two sizes to big for him, thus his inability to lead. The Clintons however are, as one pundit put it, political chameleons, who change design to fit whatever is needed.

They are like Robert Patrick’s T-1000 in T2: Judgement Day. You think they are frozen out and dead, then suddenly they thaw and regain strength. You think they look like one thing, then suddenly they look totally different. Beware of SkyNet, or in this case, BillaryNet.

Guillermo Grande December 10, 2012 at 9:33 am

Hey Shofar. I thought progressive came from the progressive tax plan; i.e., tax the rich. This as opposed to regressive where everyone pays regardless of wealth. If so Hillary quite accurately described herself and her party. The issue may be the stupidity of the voter who think progressive means iterative progress.

Julie Brueckheimer December 10, 2012 at 9:41 am

Excellent article. How about merging with the Libertarians and calling ourselves . . . Libertarians?

The Original December 10, 2012 at 10:06 am

That wouldn’t do any good with those who of us think that Libertarians are just the right side of anarchy.

Star December 10, 2012 at 10:01 am

Traditionalists, Retros, Thoughtfuls, Smarties, Fiscals…

Scottso December 10, 2012 at 11:13 am

How about “We the People”?

DeniseVB December 10, 2012 at 10:13 am

I’m not a fan of political labels since they all come with their whacky nutjob wings that the media likes to paint us all with that broad brush.

If I had to pick one, it would probably be libertarian, at least the John Stossel and Greg Gutfeld wing could convince me :D

The Original December 10, 2012 at 11:35 am

Stossel type of libertarian is what gave my state legalized marijuana. Now we all have to pirgure out how to protect ourselves from even more idiots. Schools are now in a huge quandry since even though it is legal you cannot possess marijuana until you are 21. A huge mess right now.

DeniseVB December 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Like alcohol ? I don’t have a problem with that, plus it’s a new tax base and gets it out of the hands of drug dealers which are the connections to the harder drugs. There will still be some who abuse it and minors will always find a way to get their hands on it.

Susan December 10, 2012 at 10:31 am

Interesting article, Keith. Disagree on rebranding conservatism. Conservatives didn’t lose this last election, the Republican party did. True, the Republican party tries to rebrand itself and swing further left every time they lose an election, but the problem is not with the conservatives. The problem is with the progressives (aka statists) who have infiltrated the Republican party and perversed the conservative brand. While he is a good man and has a beautiful family, Gov Romney was not and never has been a conservative. Reagan has been the only true conservative president in my lifetime. Nixon, GHW Bush, and GW Bush were all statists operating under a cloak of conservatism.

What we conservatives need to do is reclaim the Republican party and send the statists packing. If we fail in that endeavor, maybe it’s time to start our own party and let the Republicans go the way of the Whigs. My preference is Constitutionalists. In my opinion, fealty to the Constitution is what drives real conservatives.

Scottso December 10, 2012 at 10:43 am

1) Keith, great article. I think one of your best. It hard a bit of history, a bit of sarcasm, a bit of irony, and it was thoughtful.

2) Susan, exactly…it’s the Constitution that unites us. It is the rule of law that binds us together, that says, ‘We are all one people made of specifically for individuals and their freedom’.

Just2old December 10, 2012 at 10:58 am

OK, how about Constitutionalists?

Scottso December 10, 2012 at 11:14 am

how about “We the People”. Or if you wanna be more funky, “We Da People”.

Quintus Arrius December 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm

works for me..

Julie Brueckheimer December 10, 2012 at 12:28 pm

I like that one: The Constitution Party.

L.Sanfod December 10, 2012 at 11:25 am

How about “Haters”? Hate the immigrants, women’s rights, the poor and hard working middle class,social justice, the right to vote for people other than white and the right to love and freedom of religion.

How about “Regressatives”? Those who want to take back “their” country from the “others”. The others being anyone who does not look like them or believe in their zealot driven religious and social agenda.

Star December 10, 2012 at 11:37 am

That’s silly. I can’t take these fulminating posts seriously any more.

The Original December 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm

People like these misinformed or maybe just narrow minded people who do not choose to learn really drive me crazy. They just parrot whatever their “leaders” say. Nothing more.

Susan December 10, 2012 at 11:56 am

Another Marx disciple. Our “rights” are not granted by man; our rights come from our Creator. Whatever “rights” man can give you, he can very easily take away once you surrender yourself to man’s rule.

The Original December 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm

Talk about misinformed. Do you get out much or do you sit in your parent’s basement and read mostly the KosKids or DUmmies websites?

Sheesh! Here is a suggestion for you . . . buy a clue if you have any money.

Quintus Arrius December 10, 2012 at 12:17 pm

A rabbi, a Jihadist, and a gay man walk into a bar.
Guess which one walks out…

Langley Spook December 10, 2012 at 3:33 pm

Let me guess “L.Sanfod” you are still employed by the Obama campaign (see Keith’s latest article) and you’re at ‘Obama propaganda HQ’ on your break, so you figure for fun you’ll ‘troll’ some of these icky Conservative websites, post ignorant comments and try to cause trouble?
Am I close? -lol

gracepmc December 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm

How about President Revenge and the Revanchists for your side.

Quintus Arrius December 10, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Abe Lincoln cautioned aganst changing the Constitution on a whim, believed as a nation we needed to uphold the rule of law, and fought for reason to replace the passion of the original Revolution.
Lincolnists?

cincycinco December 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Only problem with that is that Lincoln did a dandy job suspending Habeus Corpus (in the North!) by Presidential decree, and DEFINITELY settled those pesky “State’s Rights” issue in favor of Federal Supremacy coming from the barrel of a gun, so I don’t know that’s the best choice…

Jeff1000 December 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm

After the past four years Keith, I just can’t stomach the term “liberal”, but I get your point about fighting fire with fire. I think you’re on to something.

GotFreedom December 10, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Good article; appreciate the historical perspective but nope, no, no. . .not gonna change calling myself a Conservative! Conservatives had to hold their noses and accept the “establishment” candidate this past election; heck we are always the ones who have to “bend” and give up concessions on our morals and principles and I’m just not going to do it anymore! I “went along to get along” this last election and voted for a less than conservative candidate (Romney) and what did it get me? I have decided to embrace being a Conservative now more than ever and anyone who doesn’t like it (that means all the un-informed BHO voters/recipients of Santa BHO’s welfare state), tough tomatoes!

Langley Spook December 10, 2012 at 3:35 pm

well said.

zGwU August 1, 2013 at 3:19 pm

111018 808483This really is a appropriate weblog for would like to uncover out about this subject. You realize a good deal its almost challenging to argue along (not that I personally would want