* Sigh *
Of course anything said against the slanderous use of "liberal" around here brings forth ArfinGreebly's "High Road" responses.
You will note, if you look a bit, that I don't employ the term "liberal."
I've even explained why.
I do, however, use the term "socialist" when referring to any of the various flavors of totalitarianism that place the benefit and power of the state or collective above the benefit and liberty of the individual.
I have even, on occasion, made ironic use of the terms "socialism" and "fascism" to emphasize that they are both totalitarian and have no truck with personal liberty.
I don't employ the term "liberal" because it has been co-opted and no longer "means what you think it means."
It is no secret that the collective-uber-alles groups have, over the years, adopted monikers like "liberal" and "progressive" and "social Democrat" to avoid the stigma attendant on referring to themselves as communists and socialists.
I once described myself as liberal. Once the meaning changed, I had to stop doing that because the "understanding" it evoked was at odds with what I meant.
When reading what someone writes (
especially on teh webz) I take some pains to derive, from context, what he means by the terms he uses. My responsive remarks are hopefully calibrated for that context.
Some words, however, like "liberal," are simply magnets for misunderstanding, and so I try to use a word that better conveys my meaning.
And for those who don't "get" my ironic use of "socialism" in the above context, it's used in its double-edged application as
a) the word that described the warm, fuzzy Swedish Utopia of the '50s and '60s as it was perceived over here, and
b) the word that describes the actuality of totalitarian tyranny as practiced in the majority of regimes that claim that title.
It pains me that I am perceived as liberal-bashing to any degree.
But then, I have an older understanding of the word.
I am loathe to apologize for my use of irony.
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
