Excellent journalism. Very well structured with historical events in conjunction with their evoking political doctrines and strategies. It is written from a "Conservative on Conservatism" perspective. It flows through time and is detailed and thorough. It "explains" philosophical conflicts between the various positions on the Conservative - Liberal continuum (as applicable to clarify tension) with only minor lapses into characterizations of those positions as "proper or improper" using "key" words. In considering balance, context, and fairness, I evaluated the article primarily with respect to the Conservative v Conservative continuum (an internal debate) since the article is addressing a percieved Conservative problem. However, ... More »

It seems to be republican musings about their political history and current strategy. It ignores the political attraction of what used to be the respectable Republican party, they were fiscally responsible and they acted conservatively when they were at their best. The neo-cons have made them follow radical policies to demolish government and give great power to those who are "elite" because they are rich contributors. Destroying the rule of law and launching invasions for oil are not conservative either.

Very intriguing article;what 1964 was for conservatives, 2004 might--I repeat, MIGHT--be for liberals.

This article by George Packer is remarkable for many things, but to me, the most remarkable was the amount of sourcing from the conservative movement-Pat Buchanan, David Brooks, Ed Rollins, and many more. And this sourcing was was from interviews given to Mr. Packer from these people,who, for the most part, are on the other side of the fence on many issues. This will be a "must " read for some time to come for people wishing to understand some of the important dynamics of the upcoming '08 elections.

WOW. Six more truckloads, just like that, please.

A very good and thorough story. We are truely a deeply divided and troubled country.

A must read for anyone interested not just in politics but in governing.

Thought provoking and historical analysis of the last 40 years of the Republican party and why it is where it is. One tenet of the article is that they are better at winning elections than governing. It you hate government, then you probably won't work very hard at making it competent. Then you get Katrina. Whhen th country faces major problems, they look to government for solutions. That's an ideological problem for the Republican party today. Very well-sourced and researched article.

This opinion piece has minmal journalistic merit. Anyone who considers Richard Nixon a conservative President has to be considered ignorant, at best. Wage-price controls? The EPA; Affirmative action? He is ignorant about President Bush's agenda, which included NCLB, Medicare D, immigration reform, ..., none of which are "conservative". There are innumerable contradictions from one place to another in the piece. Someone should have edited the piece before publication, at least to remove those inconsistencies.