Within the United States, a journalist would be accused of attack politics if he labeled a liberal politician, well, a liberal. Here, even politicians who aren't particularly conservative seek to cloak themselves in conservatism. Politicians who are very liberal distance themselves as far as possible from liberalism.

Jonah Goldberg touches upon this phenomenon in his column today. "Aargh!" wails a frustrated Goldberg. "That's what I say every single time I hear would-be Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko described as a "liberal" and the Moscow-backed Ukrainian prime minister called a "conservative."

Outside the United States, the labels journalists use to describe leaders, movements, and governments don't seem to have anything to do with the actual meanings of those words. Conservative is applied to as diverse a collection of groups as "conservative" Communists seeking to regain power in the Soviet Union, the "conservative" clerics in Iran, or the underground "conservative" National Socialists in Germany. In other words, whenever something is bad it's necessarily conservative.

Liberal, on the other hand, is applied just as readily to socialists in France as it is to reformers in the former Soviet Union seeking to make the economy more free. In other words, liberal has no stable definition when applied to political leaders, groups, and governments beyond our borders. Normally, liberal is used to denote the good guys just as conservative is used to denote the bad guys.

The indiscriminant use of such labels tells us more about those using them than about the folks tagged with such labels.

Dan, you really need to get a history lesson on the word liberal. The use and misuse of this word has recently reached crisis levels, with nearly nobody understand what it really means. The Economist recently ran an article on this which provides a short history of the word. Liberal signifies a political stance favoring less government intervention vis-a-vis society. Confusion erupts however when this worldview is applied to different issues.

Ironically, in the US Republicans are the liberals in economics while Democrats are the liberals in social issues.

In most countries the parites are know by their stance on economics, so in the rest of the world the right wing is known as liberal. NO ONE EVER CALLS FRENCH SOCIALISTS LIBERALS. In Europe liberalism is the idea that government should keep its nose out of the economy, not something french Socialists like to do.

So Liberalism is nothing more than small-government libertarianism, something that the Republican party used to stand for. Now the Republicans are still liberal in economics, but like to use the heavy hand of government in social policy.

Somehow the meaning of the word Liberal has been hijacked by social conersvatives and made to mean a Socialist Libertarian (Democratic Party). This is a misnomer. Democrats are far from liberal on economics, they favor state intervention.

And of course the reformers in Ukraine are known as liberals. To be liberal is to be pro-democracy, pro-civil society, and pro-free market economics. By this standard both American parties are liberal. It's only on social issues that the two parties differ, and that's where they get their names. But economics make up the bulk of government policy, and it would be more approprate to label both American parties liberal.
It amazes me how stupid conervative commontators can be by hating the "tax and spend liberals"! Big government liberal is an oxymoron. BY DEFINITION LIBERAL MEANS SMALL GOVERNMENT!!.

Your history lesson needs a history lesson.

Might I recommend any text by Hayek (I enjoyed "Constitution of Liberty," but I'm told "Road to Serfdom" is better), and Kirk's "Conservative Mind."

Perhaps then we can discuss the relation between classical liberalism and conservatism (and we'll leave the French to themselves).

'It amazes me how stupid conervative commontators [sic] can be by hating the "tax and spend liberals"! Big government liberal is an oxymoron. BY DEFINITION LIBERAL MEANS SMALL GOVERNMENT!!.' -Apu, fountain of wisdom

It amazes me how stupid, and self-righteous, American "liberals" are. According to your statement here, Apu, no American liberal is at all "liberal", since they believe in government intervention in society for whatever reason. (They are hardly against government intervention in the social issues, as you say: look at ideological public school curricula, hate crime laws, anti-smoking regulation, arts funding, commands to wear seat-belt, condom distribution in high schools, etc.)

We need to distinguish between the philosophical and the common political use of the word 'liberal'. Burke/Kirk/Hayek-styles of conservatism (not Republicans, and not neocons) have a relationship to philosophical liberalism (e.g., liberatarianism and classical liberalism), but aren't merely the same (again, see Kirk and Hayek). While current American political liberalism isn't "liberal" in the philosophical sense _at all_; in fact, it leans rather toward the fascistic economically and culturally (since it is not laisse faire in either: note the cases of the SUV and of gay 'marriage').

And if you don't understand this, Apu, you need a lesson in the history of political philosophy, and not just from the Economist.

Actually no. All you conservatives are just using the wrong word. Why can't you admit that. Just call "liberals" socialists. IT'd work so much better. THe whole point is that the common use is wrong.

And nearly all the examples of "liberal" social interventions are actually public health measures that only a conservative who wants to use the heavy, inefficient hand of government to control the private lives of free citizens would oppose.

Apu:

You simply need to read more books.

I don't know who "APuy" is, but he makes even less sense than Apu does.

I've read that sentence several times now, and I think that from now on you need to go to the writing center before turning anything in for us to read.

Thanks for sticking to substance there shorty. Somehow I have to assume that since you decided to pick a fight on my writing style, you've resigned yourself to loosing the one about liberalism.

What are you talking about, dude? I clearly distinguished two senses of liberalism (a very basic and common distinction in the philosophical literature on liberalism), making sense of our use of the word, and all you can say is that "the common use is wrong." Wait: the normal use of the word (99.999999% of the times it is used) is incorrect!? I can say the same about the word 'vulgar', but it's a lost battle.

And I fail to see how my wearing or not wearing a seatbelt is a _public_ health measure.

Finally, I wasn't picking on your writing "style" but on your inability to make sense with words, which is what your friend "APuy" had difficulty with.

It took you 24 hours to come up with THAT retort. Ha.