I have read many Kos diaries that posit how the Democrats might define themselves for future elections and frame their arguments.
I would expect strong disagreements about strategy and tactics. I am surprised that this disagreement extends to core philosophy.
I must admit I am a little confused because the extremes of some of the arguments seem to take them outside my understanding of what is a liberal.
Why is this important? By having a common, shared understanding of what a liberal is becomes a fierce conviction that provides an internal measure of policies and an external statement that is clear and precise.
It also provides an idealogical base with which to challenge the theft of the Christian message by the witches of Salem that pose as pastors in the churches. A clear, simple statement that defines a liberal is not some esoteric exercise in political philosophy. It provides an evangelical message that should be evangelised loudly and clearly. It will allow us to confront, not just try and assuage, the religous fanatics of the right.
As a political tradition liberalism has varied in different countries. In the UK -- in many ways the birthplace of liberalism -- the liberal tradition in politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom. In France liberalism has been more closely associated with secularism and democracy. In the United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy to capitalism, while the liberalism of Australia tends to be much more sympathetic to capitalism but often less enthusiastic about civil liberties.
I guess my simple message is that, whilst DKos is brilliantly examining the nuts and bolts of becoming electable in the post-2004 climate, part of that debate must be a revitalised, inspiring definition of what being a liberal means in the United States today. This will inform us in all that we do and defeat the proselytising of the religous right.