There, you've diagnosed it right there: "conservative" isn't as widely derided as "liberal" because conservatives refuse to be ashamed of it just because the opposition says they should be. They DO proudly associate themselves with the word rather than fleeing it as most Democrats do "liberal. " It's a bad position from which to start, because when you begin by trying to rebrand positions you KNOW are liberal as something else you're conceding that the other side is right to oppose them AND being dishonest into the bargain.


Yes, the left let the right out rhetoric them again; once again, whose fault is that? And they haven't even all learned their lesson; "liberals" are nearly as likely as conservatives to call late term abortions "partial birth abortions. "

In a word, no, because I think there needs to be an accounting for the Family Values Partys devaluing families, and because valuing families is very much a part of effective politics, IMHO. Families are one of the few "demographics" to which pretty much everyone belongs, but the people who invoke the term routinely do so as a means of defining themselves in opposition to "anti-family" forces. Seriously, who is genuinely anti-family? Even the most strident critics of traditional nuclear families care about their parents, their siblings, etc. That "family values" candidates and advocates are routinely exposed as repressed/closeted hypocrites is just icing on the cake.

It's a phrase that means many things to many people. It does not, in itself, involve anyone taking an active ongoing role in creation beyond the first instance of existence (something I recognize so implicitly that I got into a lot of trouble when I first encountered the term on the old CMB, because a lot of its advocates seem to think it demands a constant tinkerer. ) It's also a good example of another reason I don't want to ban words or phrases: We are all better served by confronting the shades of meaning the phrase can have than by ignoring them completely. No matter far you do or don't take the concept of a Designer, the theorys unverifiable nature is enough to exclude it from science class (though not necessarily from public education altogether. ) People need to understand that to have any hope of understanding science, and that so many DON'T is the source of many tiresomely pointless debates.

I think it needs to stay, both so that people make clear they DO support those who put it all on the line for their freedom despite opposing how soldiers are used, and because there have been well documented cases in US history where people have condemned soldiers as much victims of politicians failures as anyone else was. Spitting on a soldier because of a war is like spitting on a meteorologist because of the weather.

"Fair and balanced" was always a joke, a denial of the obvious, so let that reminder of dishonesty endure to highlight it. Meanwhile, we need to move beyond the idea that presenting shrill minorities from both sides in any way represents the majority.

But, no, I don't believe in any censorship beyond self censorship. There's only one word I think should never be used because of its legacy, but even there I believe it should be a personal choice, although I also think anyone using it without quotes is demonstrating a failure in judgment at the very least.