The kind of government that **Liberal ** describes as liberal is an archaic use of the word. As these things have evolved, the modern form of government that most closely resembles Liberal’s outdated definition of the word liberal is rightwing conservatism; the bully-ocracy of “libertarians,” as dishonest a term as any modern political term.
Sorry; too many windows open, hit submit on the wrong one.
Anyway.
The first time I, personally, became aware of a pervasive and presumptive use of *liberal * as a pejoritave was during Bush I’s campaign, as used against Dukakis. Before that I’d thought of the word as morally neutral. But during that campaign I started to notice a presumption of guilt associated with the word: “He’s a liberal!” with a superior sneer, as if the word in itself were daming enough.
If you could somehow manage to scrape together a modicum of self-control, I’d appreciate your confining your insults to the Pit, and your ignorance about liberalism to some other message board.
Or me! Capitalism with a heart. Wanting to make sure folks had the bootstraps they’d need to pull themselves up by. Those were indeed the days. sigh 
And conservatives want to restrict rights, freedom, equality, meals for poor children, etc.
Don’t forget - “neocon” is the newest “slur.”
Though the right has plenty of name calling on its own. “Demoncrat”… “Demorat”… “Moore-on”… “pinko”… that sound like grade school playground talk… and all their lovely failed attempts, like “bleeding heart” where we just go, “Um, OK.”
And the lovely and mystifying “limousine liberal”
On the other side of the coin, we have “Bushivik” and the like…
Speaking of suspicious shifts in the political lexicon, has anyone noticed the declining use of big-D “Democratic” to refer to the Democratic Party and it’s candidates?
It used to be standard form to refer to the nominee of the Democratic Party as the “Democratic candidate,” and policies of the Democratic Party as “Democratic policies.” Of couse, the party itself is the “Democratic Party.”
Lately, you increasingly see “the Democrat candidate” and “Democrat policies.” You also see the party referred to as “the Democrat Party.”
Obviously the Republican reason for trying to foist this linguistic shift on the public mind is that the word “democratic” has positive associations, and the Republican propaganda machine is trying to deprive the Democratic Party of those positive associations.
Sadly, this bit of newspeak seems to be taking root, as lately I’ve seen the latter constructions even in some left-leaning periodicals.
(Who sends out the memos to Republican spokepersons on these linguistic games? Is there a vast right-wing conspiracy I need to worry about?)
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s an extremely sophisticated and concerted effort that uses opinion research polls and analysts to identify key phrases and topics that will resonate with the GOP’s target audience.
One of the key figures in this is a scary guy by the name of Frank Luntz. He was interviewed on PBS the other (transcript here. Here’s a short quote from the PBS introduction, which will give you some idea of Luntz’s impact.
Emphasis mine. This despite the fact that no link has been found between Iraq and 9/11. Luntz tries to justify the connection in the interview, but it’s a performance of amazing sophistry, IMO.
I’m afraid I’m a bit confused. You are well known to be an exponent of libertarianism. As most folks understand it, libertarianism and liberalism are quite different indeed. Do you now espouse liberalism in the Ted Kennedy mold? Or are you merely advocating libertarianism under another label? My impression is that the latter is correct, but if so then how would you categorize Ted Kennedy if indeed you believe yourself to represent liberalism?
I’ve already given links many times that debunk that misconception — including one in this thread. Just click back a page.
The Ban was passed by a Democratic Congress. After the ban, they lost 9 Senate seats and and 54 House seats to the Republicans.
Sorry dude, but there’s no insult in my post. You would have phrases such as “mainstream democrats can’t make up their minds about what they want” to be banned from GD because it might offend mainstream democrats? I’m not going to refrain from speaking negatively about any political movement in GD, but I will follow the rules–as I have done–and not attack any individual dopers. Disagreeing with your definition of a word is not an attack.
It is not my definition. Your insinuation is that I am redefining the word, when I am not. I’ve already given a cite. If you have a counter-cite, then provide it. Otherwise, it is you who are using your own definition.
I stand corrected. Thanks for setting the record straight.
[hijack]Lib, not sure how you’ve managed to make another thread be all about you, but just so you’re clear, I never asked you not to denigrate liberalism (which you insist on calling centrism). I only asked you not to be dishonest and nasty in your denigration, not to call liberals (which you insist on calling centrists) “zombies” and “thieves” and the like.
If you’ve sworn a stronger oath than anyone asked for, that’s obviously your right; if you’re not capable of critiquing modern liberalism without resorting to playground taunts, that’s just as obviously your problem. But I want you to be clear on the limits of what I asked you to do.
[/hijack]
Daniel
That is so laughably outrageous. Lissener, BobLibDem, and YOU are making it about me.
What you requested, as I recall, is that I do not attack your philosophy (“my philosophy”, in your words). You requested it when I attacked centrism. Naively trusting you, I honored your request, and in return you have greatly amplified both in tone and in frequency your potshots at me. If you would allow me to speak my mind, as you do yourself and as everyone else does, and restrain yourself from tailing me and posting hijacks like you just did, the problem you perceive would clear up.
I don’t have a problem with Liberal clarifying libertarianism. Clearly a lot of people don’t realize that modern and classical liberalism are related. The work of this board is to fight ignorance and that’s what he’s doing. I think nothing of correcting ahistorical comments even if the thread I find them in is dedicated to another topic. Same thing, I’m doing the job we are supposed to be here for.
My only problem with his name change is that it has less than five syllables. “He is the very model of a modern liberal” just doesn’t have the same ring. I do wonder why he would equate modern liberalism with centrism but won’t ask as this is already pretty far off topic.
Try “He is the very model of a modern old style liberal” 
If you have this back-and-forth on the perception of the words “conservative” and “liberal” in the public eye, where do the conservatives and liberals go? Either they choose to call themselves something else (which is just a name change) or there is infact a shift in ideology, with the center being pulled over more towards the Left or the Right.
Reagan’s popularity coinciding with the resurrection of the label “conservative” and the Republican control of the executive and legislature coinciding with the tainting of the word “liberal” does provide some data points to support the latter.
But, with Bush looking shaky, will the word “liberal” make a comeback? On the contrary, Kerry’s been talking about “conservative” values.
Uh… your kidding… right?
OK whatever. Seems to me that choosing a label that means something quite different to most of your countrymen than what you believe just creates needless confusion. But if it floats your boat, whatever.