Ok, I’ll chime in on that idea — Since I’m to assume that the “liberal” selection actually refers to Leftist, I was left with no real home: libertarian. I ended up choosing Conservative, and then explained in the comments why that wasn’t actually so.

I have posted ad infinitum that I think “liberal” and “conservative” have become junk terms.

I tend to agree, so I was much amused when I took your advertising survey and found that one of the choices in the pull-down menu, in addition to “liberal” and “conservative,” was “royalist.” Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Beware of the coming further vilification of the troops in the field. The anti-Viet Nam movement was founded on dishonoring the effort in all ways possible.

They dishonored the motivations, calling the war a grab for mineral rights in the area, to the fevered paranoid ravings of people afflicted with the mental and emotional sickness of those obsessed with anti-communism. Sound familiar? Blood for oil? Nasty, obsessed neocons behind it all?

Then, after a little bit of time, they moved on to dishonoring the acts of the troops in the field, so that when Mi Lai surfaced in the news, an attrocity like attrocities that happen in every war, it became the signature event of the war in most peoples’ minds. Proof of the nature of the war, to destroy and plunder and ruin the country, not to liberate it or help it in any way. Abu Ghraib anyone?

So, stay tuned for attacks on the character of the troops as the anti-war movement follows the template laid down by the anti-Viet Nam movement.

Think, Me! Think, before Type!

Duh! Wake Up, Me!

Leftist’s, who in point of historical fact are much more inclined toward authoritarian than classical liberal impulses, have been largely successful in writing some of the most pivotal meta-narratives of the last century. In doing so, in coopting so much of the content of the West’s social/political vocabulary, root and branch, they’ve also added what are essentially successful Gramscian forays into the West’s most basic institutions. That is not said to imply any inherent “bad” quality necessarily, but rather to more simply note that as an historical fact and point of reference.

Also agree entirely with John Moore, but it’s precisely the obviousness of language’s abstract nature, a kind of nominalism vis-a-vis the reality it seeks to describe (or evade if the motivation is guile and obfuscation), that prompted the initial observation.

On the labels thing: I, for one, have no problem with the use of labels per se, as long as there are generally accepted accurate definitions of what those labels mean.

We need generally accurate labels to prevent confusion and name calling. That part pretty well speaks for itself.

We need accurate labels to prevent the sort of “Hijacking” that has happened with the term “Liberal” by the Left, who are not at all Liberal. Real, by the book Liberals are more embodied by the Libertarians. Too bad those caught a bad case of “Moonbat Fever”.

Also, I don’t agree with terms like “Neo-Con”. While I agree that there are meanings associated with that term, those meanings are not at all consistent nor necessary. The Left uses the term as a slur to refer to a group of hawks that they hate, one that is controlled by a Jewish cabal for greater Zionism. The term ACTUALLY refers to those centrist and conservative leaning Democrats that have been so put off by the raving nutcases of the Left wing of the Democrats (who are currently in power in that party) that they have left, joining the opposition party who happen to be Republicans, since the ‘Pubs seem to have erected a large enough tent to accommodate them and have largely acted like they want them. However, those “Neo-Cons” are not now and never really were hard core Conservatives, they didn’t really change their views. When one “Converts” to Conservatism isn’t (or shouldn’t) be a naming issue. A Conservative is a Conservative, whether he has converted just since 9-11 or has been one his whole life. And when one is labeled a particular “flavor” of Conservative when one actually isn’t a Conservative is misleading.

Hence, I can’t label myself a “Neo-Con”. It just doesn’t apply. I was a Libertarian leaning Independent who usually voted Republican because the Democrats were so adamately opposed to the principles of true Liberty, and the more ideologically compatible Libertarians were still nutcases to an extent. They didn’t stand a chance of election to anything but local offices And they still don’t. They just aren’t electable. So why waste my vote? And then, along came 9-11, and I waved bye-bye to the Libertarians altogether, forever, burning my bridges, since they headed off on the moonbat trail. Anyway, I have NEVER aligned myself with the Democrats. And I still consider myself to be a libertarian (little “l”). Hence, I’m no Conservative. Ok, I hold some ideals that are ìConservative compatibleî, and some that aren’t compatible with the prevalent views that are held on this blog. But I’m not going to go into those now, as that serves no constructive purpose at this point and serves to detract from the much more pressing issue at hand, that being the preservation of Western Liberal Culture from the forces that are attempting to kill it and enslave us. While we may have differences ñ grave gut-level differences on issues that have become emotionally felt and heated ñ I feel that we may become allies against this greater evil facing us, and work on those other differences when the mortal danger has been neutralized. In other words, it is coalition time, it is just that under our political system the coalition has to form under the canopy of 1 particular party’s tent in order to be effective.

Well, yes, I do think that Vietnam was a quagmire, but it didn’t have to be. As such I’m still sorta bitter about it.

First, I had then and have now no qualms about us being there — it was a “Hot” campaign in the Cold War between us and Global Socialist/Communist Totalarianism. Like Iraq and Afganistan, it was a campaign in a much larger war for our very survival.

Second, I assert that campaign was actually winnable if we had the will to do so. We didn’t.

Third, I assert that the reason that we didn’t win that campaign, which turn into a quagmire, was because the Left actively hampered efforts to do so. By the Left I mean the “Barking Moonbats” of that day, egged on by the MSM of that day. Well, in that day the MSM was all there was, there were no real alternatives.

Finally, the current Iraqi/Afgani campaigns suffer from those same domestic problems. They are winnable, but are endangered by those same negative elements that eventually doomed the Vietnam campaign. Our current campaigns are quite winnable, however we must now, like then, obtain and maintain the will to do so.

Note: I refer to Global Socialist/Communist Totalitarianism instead of just Communism for a reason: What was being implemented by the “Other” side wasn’t really pure Communism: It wasn’t a “Classless/Propertyless” society. There was still an “Elite” class who dictated to the masses. That “Elite” class was allowed to “Own” things which the masses weren’t, and that runs contrary to the “Propertyless” ideal of pure Communism. Think about the Soviet Era Dachas for the political elite. Hence, I refer to it as being also Socialist, and Authoritarian/Totalitarian as well.

First, we must determine what the term “Liberal” actually means: Liberal is the term used for a person, group or ideal that promotes personal and fiscal liberty. It is that which is embodied by the reduction of government control in the citizen’s affairs to the absolute minimum necessary to ensure an orderly society.

Next, we must note what the opposite of Liberalism is, and what it is not. Remembering that Liberalism is the promotion of the ideal that the government allow the maximum amount of liberty to the citizenry, we find that the opposite of it is that ideal which makes for the least amount of liberty to the citizenry. The correct term for this is Authoritarianism. The current conception of the opposite of Liberalism is Conservatism. This is NOT correct, as the Conservative, as currently perceived, promotes personal fiscal liberty (at least as compared to those who claim to the term “Liberal” now).

Next, let us see how well those who currently claim to be “Liberals”, who are truly the Left, stack up against the definition of such. Current “Liberals” promote the increased taxation of the citizenry in order to fund projects that help their pet social agenda. This amounts to the forced income redistribution of personal wealth from the “Haves” to the “Have Nots”, by the government under force of law, and is such is most certainly NOT liberal. It is authoritarian. It is the Tyranny of the Majority. Current “Liberals” promote the forced leveling of the social “playing field”, promoting some groups perceived to be “disadvantaged” over other groups perceived to be “advantaged” by the government under the force of law, and is such is certainly NOT liberal. It is authoritarian. It is an affront to the liberty of those groups deemed “advantaged”. You can’t be truly Liberal if you suppress liberty in ANY group.

Therefore, I refuse to use the term “Liberal” when referring to the Left. The Left isn’t actually liberal at all. The Left claims to be Liberal when it actually isn’t, it is Authoritarian. Granted, it is Authoritarian which they try to paint a “Smiley Face” on to hide it’s Authoritarian nature, but it is Authoritarian all the same. Just look behind the curtain. Leftists claim that they do what they do in order to promote “Fairness”, but instead what they really want to do is promote favored classes over other classes in order to curry political favor, in order to gain political power for political power’s sake — in order to be the Authoritarians. It all boils down the “Bread and Circuses” thing: Tax the Rich — feed and entertain the downtrodden masses — they will keep voting you in — so that you can continue to be despots. Benevolent despots, but despots all the same. Doing what it takes to gain and attain power for power’s sake. That’s what they’re all about, whether they want to admit it or not. Yech!

Now, let me head off the immediate criticism that is sure to come: I am not by any means indicating that group that is currently posing as the opposite of the Leftist “Liberals” as being Liberals themselves. They aren’t really liberals, either. Hence, the opposite of Liberal isn’t Conservative. Now, some ideals held by current Conservates aren’t anti-Liberal at all. At least, not when compared with the actual definition of Liberal. But they can’t truly be called Liberals either, as they hold to much that is also authoritarian. But at least they seem to be more amenable to the principles of the true Liberal, and usually will agree that true liberty is an ideal that should ultimately be attained. For the most part, they are just being pragmatic about it. They are at least willing to listen and debate rationally. Usually. And as such I find that I can work with them towards the ultimate goal of real Liberty. So that is why I find myself in their “big tent”. It is not because of what they are now, it is the potential of what they may become.

“I have posted ad infinitum that I think “liberal” and “conservative” have become junk terms. Now I think it’s worse. They are an excuse for blindness and stupidity.”

And then your survey asks the very question.