Today: Iraq

[Chaerophon]

On the first point, re: classical liberals; fair enough.

As far as second-generation "reform" liberals, e.g. John Rawls, Charles Taylor et al, I think that you're missing the point. There is a definite distinction to be made between a philosophy promoting equality of opportunity, as is the case in modern reform liberalism and one which promotes equality of condition, as socialism tends to do. A mere concern for social welfare does not a commy make. Or even a social democrat, for that matter. Reform liberals and even some moderate social democrats (a la Bernstein) still recognize the importance of merit as an arbiter of economic success. Neo-Marxists tend not to plug such concerns into their equation (too much of a stumbling block, I guess). Now admittedly, the distinction between Social Democrats and Reform Liberals may at times appear blurry (witness some aspects of the modern NDP in Canada, e.g. their recent courting of Lloyd Axworthy, etc.) but, if anything, this is an example of the Socialists moving TOWARDS liberalism and not the other way around.

As a side note, if you really want to take such a tack, your argument becomes a double-edged sword, as the modern American "conservative" ethos, then, cannot really be named as such. Since (generally) the Republican conservative tradition is composed of "classical liberals" and the modern Democratic party has adopted a reform liberal approach, the title "conservative" is inappropriately used to label what you claim to be the one "true" branch of liberalism. In your reality, the title of "conservative", then, should be applied to the more Burkean tradition of the "Old Whigs", which is better represented, interestingly enough, by the Canadian Red Tory tradition (all but died with the death of the Conservative Party of Canada), and whom you would most likely deem to be decidedly socialist!