I've always been fascinated about the use of the word "liberal" to describe persons of a certain political persuasion and how these very same people turned "liberal" into a dirty word.
Nobody wants to be called a "liberal" these days. It's akin to calling someone a "communist." Liberals now call themselves "progressives" largely because they've tainted the term "liberal" forever. Can a liberal change his spots?
Look at how well "Liberal" Ned Lamont did in the very liberal state of Connecticut in the 2006 Senate race. Look at how far shadowy liberals like George Soros try to conceal their influence over the Democratic Party.
Consider the demise of liberal talk radio when Air America went bankrupt or the continuing readership drop at the country's biggest liberal newspapers. Take a look at how poorly anti-American films by Hollywood's liberal elites have fared at the box office this year. Even Michael Moore's much-ballyhooed "Sicko" failed to attract an audience.
Take a look at how hard Hillary Clinton is trying to pretend she's not a "liberal" in every sense of the word. Can you blame her? Look what happened to the last few "liberal" candidates the Democratic Party nominated for president: Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern.
That's quite a track record of failure the Democratic Party has followed. And the party will no doubt nominate another "liberal" to run in 2008.
On the other hand, "Conservative" has not been turned into a pejorative word despite the best efforts of liberals. But what is the difference between "conservative" and "Republican"?
Tom Barrett, who operates a Web site called ConservativeTruth.org, takes up the perennial question of conservative vs. liberal in an essay called "What is a Conservative?" (Hint: Think Ronald Reagan.)
It's fairly easy to define the liberal political philosophy: "Liberals believe that government should control every aspect of our lives," Barrett says. "And they know the best way to do that is to steal our money."
But it goes deeper than taxes and government regulations.
"The most pressing issue in this nation is its moral decline," Barrett concludes. "Yes, defense and taxes are important. But if we have a moral president, he can be convinced to defend the nation and save us from the taxes that are destroying our nation economically and causing the once-strong dollar to decline against world currencies. If we have a president without morals (as we did with Bill Clinton), we can look forward to four years of America losing itself even further."
Interesting stuff. The Democratic Party is about to nominate another liberal, a Clinton no less. Not to mention giving Bill Clinton the keys to the White House as "first husband." And you wonder why the Democrats have lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections?
Barrett's column goes on to discuss the dilemma conservatives face with the current crop of Republican presidential candidates.
You can read Barrett's full column at www.webcommentary.com