Very enlightening article. I don't think they just want to resurrect the old America, though. I think they see leaner times a-coming and want to make sure that they are in position to grab a larger slice of a shrinking pie. They exhort the values of an older America that only exists in memory while they impose austerity on the rest of us. 

You might expand on your statement:

...They are playing a long game to resurrect the America that existed when the progressive movement was just a figment of Bob La Follette’s imagination...

LaFollette's imagination included outlawing child labor, Native American and African-American rights, women's suffrage, direct election of US Senators, a federal minimum wage, workman's compensation, consumer rights and opposition to use of government office for political patronage.

The GOP  is not aiming to 'resurrect' pre-LaFollette America.

They have a very short game plan. It never extends beyond the next election.

It's why they don't make long range deals on the budget, entitlements or the deficit. It's why they work wedge issues like gay rights, immigration and abortion until they are dead as issues or impossible to reach agreement upon.

Everything they say, everything they do, every policy they block or propose is in the pursuit of the one sole mission: re-election. Today's GOP has no experience in using government for anything else.

Interesting article, Michael, but I confess there's a middle piece missing.

Why should this strategy work? Where's the "mechanism of action"?

Surely it's not enough to go down in ignominious defeat for ideas apparently few like or find credible, read the names of those who voted against you around the country, and then, somehow, later your ideas gain mass appeal and are adopted as the common wisdom.

Doesn't the content of those ideas and how they address historical circumstances have something to do with their eventual victory?

I think you're right that conservatives believe that, deep down, everyone knows they're right...but that doesn't mean they're right about that. See Karl Rove on election night (and many, many Republicans from Mitt on down) as a short game counter example.

So I can agree that this might be the strategists' deep strategy, but it's unclear to me why this strategy would work...unless you're going to say that every dog has its day if he barks loudly and long enough.*

But maybe I'm asking a question a bit outside the scope of your post.

*I imagine we could find plenty of examples of political activists who tried something like this--who tirelessly championed under-dog ideas--Henry Wallace?-- but never saw their ideas gain acceptance.

I like this.

I mean there is a bigger picture out there and I do see Heritage going for the long run.

Heritage and others are attempting to STEM the tide as it were.

The Wisconsin Progressive only went so far.

In the end the Capitalists won.

And yet, the capitalists are stuck in the mire of plebeian democracy.

Shut off the vote for numbers of people.

Shut off the access to lobbyists who have concern for the lower classes.

Shut off the access to pensions for cryin out loud

Shut off access to years served.

Will it work?

I think that there are tens of millions of folks in this country who would stem the tide.

And they will lose.

But the plebeians will ultimately prevail.

As a number of commenters have pointed out, the short time aim is to keep one's seat in a politically sacred position.

But short term, they might win but will ultimately lose.

Governor Walker is a good example.

I am interested in the short term results because I am so old I cannot purchase green bananas and justify the expense.

I am interested in seeing Walker thrown out of office for this temporal reason.

But the Walkers will lose in the end.

That is all I got right now. ha

I think the difference between La Follette (whom I revered in my adolescence) and the current conservative backroom bosses is that La Follette and other progressives were moving toward a new political coalition, meaning searching for new groups of voters to mobilize.

The contemporary Conservative Movement rose to power over several decades by doing the same thing. But the people you're worried about are out of new sources of votes, and don't seem to be cultivating any. In fact, the current shenanigans are weakening their grip on some key elements of their coalition.

LaFollette seemed crazy but was ultimately vindicated because he was seeking to build a coalition of people who were currently shut out of national political influence but could potentially be built into a powerful electoral combination. Policies La Follette wanted were totally DOA in DC at first, because no one else who wanted those things had a seat at the table. But by appealing to a coalition of farmers, factory workers, etc., etc., La Follette eventually created new seats at the table and made the mainstream Republicans who represented Wall Street, etc., listen.

Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and their successors, did much the same thing, building a powerful new Republican coalition by mobilizing new groups of voters whose allegiance was up for grabs: white evangelicals, the Dixiecrats, and white-ethnic suburbanites (the so-called "Reagan Democrats.") You don't need to reach out to moderates to rise to power; you can build a new coalition that moves the country hard to the right or left. But you do need to identify and mobilize a new source of voters.

La Follette and Goldwater are (not coincidentally) like pioneers, moving into fresh territory and building, or like entrepreneurs beginning a start-up in a new, quickly evolving industry. But the rules that apply to city-building in the New West will not work in Philadelphia, and the strategies that make a tech startup blossom would be disastrous in a mature industry, like auto manufacturing or soft drinks. Visionary strategies work when they draw on new or previously neglected resources: new territory, new markets, new constituencies.

The current GOP is sticking with its old coalition, which is no longer enough to compete for the Presidency (even against a vulnerable incumbent) or to get more than a narrow grip on one house of Congress. Demographic trends are against them. But they're actively antagonizing the new voter blocs they desperately need. And the default shenanigans threaten to lose them one of their most important constituencies, the business community. They're not just looking at short-term defeats. They've got no long-term strategy at all.

Great article, Michael. I agree that there is a long term strategy of the Conservative Movement that is operable and that it has been extremely effective, maybe more so at the state level than anywhere else. I also think that some of their tactics may be running out of steam,---we'll have to see in 2014 if their tea party act has gone overboard insofar as the House of Representatives is concerned (a Democratically leaning PAC is beginning to run ads against tea party reps in their own districts, some swing states are not polling well for them, etc). 

In terms of the insurgency itself, Ryan's oped in WSJ today is a sign that the other part of the business community, as Doc noted, may be exiting tactics like shutting down the government with a ruse like defunding Obamacare; I think many in the business community understand how even more deeply offensive the insurgents have become to the voting blocks of minorities, women, plus anyone who is fair minded, and how this plays against a successful Republican party down the road.

I like the comparison you have drawn. And getting giddy over a few setbacks for the Conservatives is doing so at our own peril.

It appears the GOP's short term strategy is working, Who do you hear now talking about immigration reform in a time of financial instability except; dumb Democrats trying to convince American workers, it would be good for the American working class, to share the smaller piece of the pie, they are about to receive.

Another Republican talking point based on facts. To much regulation destroyed Western Electric and Bell  one of the great employers in American history. Best pension plan, best healthcare plan, destroyed by regulators. 

Obama care will not be self supporting if the rest of our jobs leaves the country.

Obama care = the cart before the horse 

The Republicans and anyone with any sense knows,  The course were on; where EVERYONE  should work for the government, is a false hope as evident by the shutdown.   

Republican long term goal:  Fight the Welfare state. Stop paying folks to have more kids so they can collect more welfare.

"Get to work, you working slaves, so you can support the lazy ones, who know how to game the system "  

"Say what? You want me to pay more taxes because someone else can't.... or Won't?"  

When did America change from the old value of industriousness to slackers? 

Puhlezze .. I don't want to hear the crying liberals, tell me about my responsibilities. 

Protectionism protected American workers.  The liberals are fighting a losing battle in trying to convince the downtrodden American workers, that allowing 12 million more workers will be good for those of us trying to grab for whatever jobs are available. Those opposed to amnesty better vote Republican for if ever the left comes to power they'll force amnesty down our throats.

Protectionism: Protect the job you have, because no one else really gives a crap; they only give lip service.

The movement has already begun, the freeloading days are over. Hopefully for the long term. The new way is unsustainable, the old ways of frugality, perseverance and industriousness, always worked in the past maybe not perfect; but better than a welfare state.