I’m seeing more and more of this meme, from Bobo for example:
The Democrats have their problems too. And if anything, their problems are deeper because they are intellectual, not merely partisan. The Obama administration has sent the country off to the right. The president is creating a counter-realignment.
Voters don’t identify with the G.O.P. but the number of people who call themselves conservative is now near an all-time high.
What could be more than conservative than 60+% approval for a public option, right?
Meanwhile, Rove is pushing the “conservatives win even if they lose in NY-23” thing — the idea being that if the conservative candidate total plus the Republican candidate total exceeds 50%, then it means conservatives really won.
You know what, how about this? The teabaggers form a real third party that runs in all the elections. Their total plus the Republican total will be over 50% in a lot of races, we can all agree this means we’re a conservative country, and Democrats can actually run the country in peace.
There is nothing, nada, zilch, zero, nothing, that is bad news for conservatives. When they win elections, it proves we’re a conservative country. When they lose, it proves it. When we pass health care bills, it proves it. When we lower taxes, it proves it. When we raise taxes, it proves it. Everything proves it always.
Update. I can accept that in this particular universe, the sentence “everything is always good for conservatives” is true. What I’d like to know is if that sentence is true in any model where certain weaker statements about conservatives hold. Here’s what I’m driving at: is there a formal proof of the sentence “everything is always good for conservatives” using only the statement “Reagan is good” along with the usual first-order logical axioms and the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?
Update. Bob Somerby has more on Kristol’s similar claims about the conservative renaissance we are living in.