Before you say, "Liberal," hold on for a minute.
I've just been reading still another set of arguments about who's the most conservative of the four Republican candidates and whether President Obama is too conservative for the Kossacks and others who think we're going down the road to hell in a handcar, probably made overseas.
In addition, I've heard some members of the Republican far-right call people like Mitt Romney or even George W. Bush liberals because they don't embrace the principles of the Sarah Palin/Rick Santorum/ Rush Limbaugh wing of the fanatic fringe.
What it boils down to is that the words "liberal" and "conservative" have no meaning whatever except to the people using them. I'd like to clarify this if I can.
The most vehement opposition to the depiction of kissing, drinking and such carryings-on in the new movies coming out of Islamic Turkey comes from Muslim conservatives. Support for bride-burning and other traditional Indian customs come from Hindu conservatives. Does this mean that Palin, Limbaugh et. al. believe these things? Well, I can't be sure about Limbaugh, but I certainly don't think most American conservatives would endorse banning alcohol or loving embraces from movies, nor support forcing women who don't bear sons or oppose dictatorial mothers-in-law to immolate themselves.
Conservatives all over the world, though, have one thing in common: they want to leave things as they are. They generally oppose change. This is opposed to the reactionary who hates things as they are and wants to go back to the way they used to be, as far back as necessary to achieve their goals of what makes an ideal society. This, of course, means that if society advances, the conservative of today becomes the reactionary of tomorrow. This, in my opinion, is what's happening to the Republican Party, as well as to conservatives in Turkey, Iran and much of the Islamic world.
The opposite of wanting things to remain the same is wanting everything to change and this seems to be the reaction of liberal writers to posts such as this. Words like "troll" often appear, along with withering sarcasm against anyone who defends things as they are- with the exception of things as they are that are in agreement with the critics. To listen to these liberals, nothing coming from the other side about personal responsibility, the inherent morality of small business and the obvious fact that a really free market is generally better than a rigidly controlled one, is valid.
I feel the opposite of conservative (and liberal) is "progressive." A progressive individual supports change when there is a clear and logical reason for it, based on research and evidence as opposed to emotion. By the same token, absent this evidence, the progressive withholds judgment. Without the logic and evidence, the inevitable result of liberal "knee-jerk" reaction is hypocrisy on the left as obvious as the hypocrisy on the right. The liberal who wants to reform our antiquated prison system, but who sticks to the NIMBY hypothesis when it comes to building a true correctional facility next door is an example. So are the ones who point out the horrific tax system we have now and come up with all kinds of remedies involving higher taxes only for people who make more than they do.
At the risk of being burned at the literary stake, I say there are many good things about the message of good conservatives. There are fine aspects of the true free market. The problem is in the definition of "good" and "true." I maintain the definition depends on the use of the same logic and evidence I cited earlier.
The name-calling on both sides is the simple solution of those who don't have the energy, time or intelligence to gather the evidence painstakingly and display it logically. I have to believe that, sooner or later, it will prevail.
And Progressives will retake the United States.