Just Another Political Post.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you are going to ignore ordinary usage, then you ought to realize that the notion 'conservative' as it is applied to many Republicans today is . . .
[right][snapback]89780[/snapback][/right]

Go back and re-read my statement. I didn't address the issue of just what a Republican actually is in terms of liberal/conservative (or on any other axis). I simply pointed out that the common association of 'conservative' and 'Republican' combined with the behavior of the Republicans over the past decade or so will cause the odium addressed at the Republicans (and actually at the extreme right of that party) to become attached at the label *they* have assumed, i.e., 'conservative'.

Liberalism . . . is a set of beliefs based on different interpretation of the same principles, namely: liberty, equality, progress, individualism, property, democracy, etc.  Some liberals value individual liberty in a way that entails equality of opportunity among a society's members and envision progress in such terms.  Others believe the goal of progress to be best fulfilled by a less intrusive state, and this too is an interpretation of equality in terms of 'equality of right'. 

OK, how does your statement differ from, "The essence of being a liberal is to leave as much choice to the individual as possible." Ultimately freedom is choice, and in your list of principles, (liberty, equality, progress, individualism, property, democracy, etc.) what form of 'liberal' is in favor of *reducing* the individual freedom in any of those principles?

What I don't agree with is your blanket contention that liberalism 'is and has always been' one particular thing.

If you disagree with my statement, why do you present an equivalent statement in rebuttal? Is it that I didn't use two pages to express a one line concept? I did not say that "in specific and fixed detail a liberal is, and only is, blah, blah, blah." That is what you specifically inferred and then ascribed to me. No thank you, that is your dog's breakfast -- you keep it. I proposed a general principle, not a specific incarnation of that principle. And, further, it is the principle that is supported by all definitions of 'liberal' (as opposed to 'Liberal') that I have found in my search through a number of dictionaries. The authority here is not me, but the usage of the word in the English language.

Do different liberals differ in just what and to what extent should be liberalized? Unless they are robots or clones, of course they do. Does any liberal want to *reduce* liberties? Does any liberal want a static situation? Not in my understanding, not in your statement. So, if a liberal does not want the status quo, and does not want to reduce liberties, what is left. And since liberties are freedoms are choices, then how is my *general principle* wrong?

--Pete