It’s all very well to assert:
Many have observed that movement politics most clearly defines itself not by what it yearns to conserve but by what it longs to destroy–”statist” social programs; “socialized medicine”; “big labor”; “activist” Supreme Court justices, the “media elite”; “tenured radicals” on university faculties; “experts” in and out of government.
But what he misses here is that these objections are often made as holding actions rather than calls for sudden abolition. When conservatives denounce “socialized medicine” they’re attempt to keep from being newly imposed a radical change in a major sector of the economy which affects all of our common welfare, not attempting to abolish something which has become a standard social and economic assumption. Similarly, cries against “activist judges” are generally attempts to keep seeing more legislation from the bench.

As such, Tanenhaus’s overall approach strikes me as somewhat dishonest.

Finally, a minor side note. You say, “I will stop taking Limbaugh seriously when the movement stops doing so.” You’re of course entitled to do this if you so please, but it would seem to leave you totally open to people attempting to hang comments from Daily Kos or Al Franken or what have you about your neck with claims of, “I’ll stop taking them seriously when the progressive movement stops taking them seriously.” Intentionally taking the people who are known to be more populist and less reasonable within a large group as indicative of the group as a whole may work as a rhetorical ploy, but you might want to consider whether you want it used against you before you use it against others.

Of course, Obama just commandeered 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. While it is a particularly Republican thing, it is in general an American thing to wage war ad infinitum.

“Liberal” and “conservative” within the American context doesn’t differ all that much. Americanism is overarching. Democrats are to the right of Austria’s conservatives. Not having health insurance or mandated minimum vacation, paid maternity leave etc. would be viewed as contemporaneous with “Manchester Liberalism”.

I’d distinguish American vs. EuroCanadian. San Francisco is a EuroCanadian city. So is Seattle. Basically, there are two Americas. The differences within this country are far more pronounced than in Western Europe. Needless to say, you want to live in the EuroCanadian counties of the US.

True. Remember, though, that all political figures in a republic or democracy fail their constituency.

When I read a claim like this, I’m tempted to quote Bagdad Bob: “I regret to inform you that you are now too far from reality.” For all the talk about “laissez-faire restored” when you look at the policy changes over the past generation what you find is (1) Airline and trucking deregulation (by Carter), (2) NAFTA (by Clinton), and (3) Welfare Reform (also by Clinton). That’s about it.

This is true. But it does not follow from this that the policies of the Republican party can be said to favor families and small businesses. Just because a constituency supports a party does not mean that the party supports that constituency.

True, and very much true of their political antagonists. Let’s complete the point. This something that traditionalist conservative Rod Dreher writes of frequently:

The American Left, especially on cultural issues, is firmly and deeply determined to impose their ideology, often in ways very, very, very undemocratic and I would argue harmful to the exchanges of the public square. This is especially true with regard to abortion and “gay marriage,” but we see it in a whole host of other issues.

Dreher has a good column on this here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_wont_end_the_culture_war.html

See also Ross Douthat, who writes very insightfully on this point, for example here:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/02/the_end_of_the_culture_war.php

An equally tendentious (but equally accurate) statement could be made about your political bedfellows (whether you want to call them “liberals” or not). “The left is defined by what it wants to destroy: traditional marriage, educational choice, industries that emit carbon, the original meaning of the US Constitution, and any restriction on killing human fetuses or experimenting upon them.”