conservative
an adherent or advocate of political conservatism ...
one who adheres to traditional methods or views ...
a cautious or discreet person
Progressives need stronger vocabulary for our opponents.
One feature of the lunatic talent show going on right now in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries is the struggle to be seen as the most “true conservative”. That’s absurd, because—with the possible exception of Ron Paul—the candidates clawing for that dubious designation are full of shit. They’re not conservatives.
Here is a better name for them: “the cons”. Of course, switching terms and calling “conservatives” the cons is no magic solution to the problems they present, and it’s just shorthand for a complex reality—but it’s a shorthand we need.
Here's why:
First, the word “conservative” has lost nearly all meaning in the American political context. Con policies aren’t about conserving much of anything anymore, except maybe political power. They're certainly not about conserving things like tax dollars, the environment, or constitutional rights.
Second, drawing distinctions with terms like “fiscal conservatives” and “social conservatives”—such as opponents of abortion, gay rights, or science—is often meaningless, because together, both types of “conservatives” help to drive the same overall, reckless agenda. They're all cons.
Third, even terms like “American conservatives” or “Republicans” don’t help much and are too parochial, since the policies of cons in other parts of the world are similar and can be at least as destructive as they are here.
We must never do cons the favor of calling them “conservative” again.
The fact is that champions of strategies like the needless and unpaid-for US invasion of Iraq hardly deserve to be thought of as “conservative” in the sense of “cautious” or “fiscally prudent.”
Cons in Congress have bizarrely opposed ideas that originated on their side of the aisle if President Obama showed interest in them.
Today’s cons generally don’t even deserve to be thought of as “conservative” in terms of defending traditions, since so much of what they regard as tradition is convenient myth (like the supposedly unchanged nature of marriage claimed by opponents of equality for gay and lesbian couples, or the supposed intent of the founders of the United States to create a Christian nation—despite the fact that the Bill of Rights actually starts with the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”)
On the contrary, so much of what the cons want and do is a radical departure from traditions such the ones the Founders were trying to protect or cultivate.
The word “cons” is also a good fit thanks to parallels with its other uses, for example:
• “Con” means negative, as in “pros and cons” (while we’re at it, maybe we should call progressives “pros”).
• To “con” someone is to cheat or deceive them, which is exactly what cons do when, for example, promising limited government to voters and then going on spending sprees for the military, or policing people’s private lives.
• We call convicted criminals “cons” for short, which is convenient because so many con leaders belong behind bars.
Of course, the use of the word “cons” as shorthand for “conservatives” isn’t new—think of terms like “neo-con” or “paleo-con,” which have been around for years—but we don’t use them widely enough.
The cons have forfeited their right to the word “conservative.” Referring to them generally as cons is efficient and apt. It helps strip away their claims to consistency and legitimacy. And it’s to progressives’ advantage to say so, as often and as widely as possible.