That it's been demonized instead argues that view is a definite minority.
Not really, but as I said, it is the minority viewpoint, it does happen to be a viewpoint a big chunk of the especially enthusiastic right holds though, I've heard lots and lots of pundits and radio personalities gripe about it, heck, Ann Coulter devoted like an entire chapter to it in one book. Why would that stop us from wanting to smear it now that we think it's been ruined?
That's like saying, "someone dinged my car; I think I'll set it on fire for the insurance money. "
It's a good example of why I wouldn't trust the likes of Coulter to "rehabilitate" any term though.
She seriously needs to eat more; that's neither here nor there to her politics, but I can't believe she's healthy being that emaciated.That said, I still hold that the right does not have the power in itself to demonize "liberal" or any other word; the left accepted the indictment when they ran away from the word the way conservatives have never done with THAT word.
Agreed, obviously. The only term I can think of that the right edges away from these days is 'Christian Conservative' since Reed and Robertson kinda claimed that one and gave it a bad rap, of course we still use and those who don't usually just flip it to 'Conservative Christian'. One has to be realistic, the right didn't demonize the word, anymore than the allies did 'fascism'. Not going for a nazi=liberal reference there, just that events and day to day spin generate the backdrop, not right-wing conspiracies to change a word's meaning. IT didn't help that most liberals on being 'accused' of being liberal say things like 'I'm not liberal' which just makes the public think the word is rightfully bad. I'm pretty sure if conservatives started looking uncomfortable or nervous and proclaiming 'I'm not conservative' the word would get bad too.
Don't even get me started on those two jokers, who've aptly demonstrated they were always about politics and merely used religion as a vehicle for it. Reed virtually ruined the Christian Coalition as a religious activist organization by offering their call list to the highest right wing bidder, and Robertsons pedigree is being the son of a former Democratic House member; apart from the one he FOUNDED I'm aware of no seminary he's ever attended (and I HAVE looked. ) I honestly believe that inside they are ravening wolves. The moral of the story is don't take everything that comes from the nearest pulpit as gospel (and yes, that applies to the Jeremiah Wrights as well, though I personally think he got caught up in his own rhetoric more than anything, but that's just one more reason to keep politics and religion distinct. )
Calling liberal policies by another name is simply avoiding the issue; if the policies can stand on merit (as I believe they can) there's no shame in calling them "liberal, " "progressive" or ";kluadeian. " It should be about substance, not form. The last time any Dem came close to embracing "liberal" was Dukakis in '88, but he was from such a far left state, and such an anemic candidate ripe for the soulless Atwater attack machine, that it apparently doomed the word "liberal" for all time.
Yes, Dukakis is still considered God's gift to the GOP.
It helped immensely that Atwater had no restraint or shame in how he went after the man. Not that he was alone; I believe it was Pat Buchanan who asked him, as a debate "moderator, " how he'd treat a man who raped and murdered his wife. Classy.
Hence we have the bizarre spectacle of George Bush urging the Iraq war to "defend liberal democracy" and two CMB threads in as many months wondering WTF happened to the word "liberal" in America. What happened was its advocates did a sorry job defending it then tried to blame the right for attacking it too successfully, even when those attacks often consisted of no more than the word alone said in a scornful tone.
Well, 'damned liberals' is such an easy word to mutter, just rolls off the tongue.
But realistically at this stage, after so little defense, the word is probably better retired for a generation or two until the image of hippies isn't automatically conjured in most minds by saying the word. Of course 'progressive' is a really bad choice too. We'd advise something strongly implying the deep left belief in social justice and social equality, or the importance of organizing communities, of getting communities to work together for the greater communal good. Unfortunately 'Social Equalists' or 'community-ists' is a little long and unwieldy, if only there were some way to shorten them, they'd be perfect

I like "progressive" because I associate it with some true giants of American political thought, and also because it could help defuse the culture wars. Everyone remembers Bryan vs. Darrow in the Scopes trial, but most people ignore the fact Bryan and Darrow were actually good friends and long time allies dating from a generation earlier when they were both labor activists, the one as the three time Democratic Presidential nominee and the other as a labor lawyer. And of course the founders of the Progressive Party were Republicans like TR and Robert La Follette who were just as disgusted by rampant corporate monopolies and other abuses as I am. There are, after all, several terms that carry the community and social justice oriented connotations you reference, but "populist" has become synonymous with demagoguery, and I certainly don't expect any American leftist to successfully promote communism any time soon.
Really, I still think socialism better than communism anyway, because including elements of both capitalism and communism helps mitigate the worst excesses of both.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
If you could ban some words from political discourse, which would you ban?
- 13/03/2010 06:35:25 AM
1313 Views
all of them.
- 13/03/2010 04:42:02 PM
554 Views
I'm sure the one-fingered salute would turn up more frequently, then.
- 14/03/2010 02:31:34 PM
495 Views
Two: Bipartisan and progressive.
- 13/03/2010 05:14:36 PM
517 Views
"progressive" was created to get around the "liberal" label the right uses
- 13/03/2010 06:00:40 PM
533 Views
Does the right really have the power to make a word dirty?
- 13/03/2010 06:27:46 PM
548 Views
considering that "liberal" has taken the place of "communist" for "something bad" i'd say yes
- 13/03/2010 07:07:21 PM
485 Views
There's a flawed premise in there though
- 13/03/2010 10:43:58 PM
560 Views
Re: There's a flawed premise in there though
- 14/03/2010 09:34:58 AM
597 Views
Re: There's a flawed premise in there though
- 14/03/2010 02:56:45 PM
549 Views
If that's the case you should try to reclaim the word, not demonize it.
- 15/03/2010 08:14:11 AM
608 Views
It probably will be down the road
- 15/03/2010 04:59:58 PM
626 Views
Good...?
- 15/03/2010 09:17:22 PM
672 Views
- 15/03/2010 09:17:22 PM
672 Views
Re: Good...?
- 15/03/2010 10:20:53 PM
698 Views
- 15/03/2010 10:20:53 PM
698 Views
Re: Good...?
- 29/03/2010 04:15:16 PM
602 Views
- 29/03/2010 04:15:16 PM
602 Views
Joel and Isaac prepare to hijack another thread
- 30/03/2010 01:15:40 AM
734 Views
- 30/03/2010 01:15:40 AM
734 Views
As long as I get top billing.
- 03/04/2010 11:54:38 AM
685 Views
- 03/04/2010 11:54:38 AM
685 Views
Re: As long as I get top billing.
- 03/04/2010 12:50:54 PM
633 Views
- 03/04/2010 12:50:54 PM
633 Views
Re: As long as I get top billing.
- 04/04/2010 01:33:27 PM
554 Views
- 04/04/2010 01:33:27 PM
554 Views
I woulkd say the left made the word liberal dirty
- 15/03/2010 05:15:24 PM
481 Views
it must be a terrible terrible burden on you to have all the answers to everything...
*NM*
- 15/03/2010 11:08:04 PM
321 Views
*NM*
- 15/03/2010 11:08:04 PM
321 Views
just as being stupid must be a burden for you *NM*
- 16/03/2010 02:06:43 PM
243 Views
what? no sandy vagina comment? you're slipping.... *NM*
- 16/03/2010 02:51:19 PM
275 Views
How's that paranoia treating you?
- 16/03/2010 12:53:31 AM
517 Views
how is that head in sand treating you?
- 16/03/2010 02:19:54 PM
523 Views
Re: how is that head in sand treating you?
- 16/03/2010 09:07:09 PM
670 Views
Which fringe group do you believe I belong to?
- 16/03/2010 10:23:53 PM
424 Views
if all of this is true....
- 16/03/2010 11:17:19 PM
524 Views
Because strong partisanship and actual extremism are two very different things, I'd say.
*NM*
- 16/03/2010 11:27:02 PM
266 Views
*NM*
- 16/03/2010 11:27:02 PM
266 Views
I am a militant moderate
- 18/03/2010 01:45:40 PM
464 Views
Just because an idea is new DOESN'T mean it constitutes progress, agreed.
- 15/03/2010 08:03:14 AM
575 Views
hope and change
*NM*
- 14/03/2010 03:32:34 PM
391 Views
*NM*
- 14/03/2010 03:32:34 PM
391 Views
None; if the other side frames an issue better than you, that's your fault, not theirs.
- 15/03/2010 07:55:57 AM
608 Views
Words/phrases that I would abolish:
- 15/03/2010 02:41:51 PM
646 Views
Re: Words/phrases that I would abolish:
- 15/03/2010 04:27:21 PM
627 Views
leave to a liberal to want to ban words they don't like *NM*
- 15/03/2010 05:10:19 PM
263 Views
Re: leave to a liberal to want to ban words they don't like
- 15/03/2010 05:38:24 PM
501 Views
That was weak
- 15/03/2010 05:48:34 PM
489 Views
at least it mirrored your original comment. *NM*
- 15/03/2010 05:53:34 PM
285 Views
to bad it didn't mirror reality
- 15/03/2010 08:33:18 PM
447 Views
you misspoke
- 16/03/2010 12:36:23 AM
586 Views
that is often true but I don't think it is true now
- 16/03/2010 04:12:18 PM
636 Views
Re: that is often true but I don't think it is true now
- 16/03/2010 09:34:42 PM
679 Views
Al Franken is a joke right?
- 16/03/2010 10:31:41 PM
485 Views
Re: Al Franken is a joke right?
- 17/03/2010 05:34:25 PM
528 Views

Heh. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. *edit*