In American politics, there is a left wing and there is a right wing.  The left are known as liberals; the right as conservatives.  This implies, of course, that the left wing is free, 'liberated' and open to change, while the right wing prefers to 'conserve' or keep things as they are.  To a certain extent this is true.  As a conservative, I would prefer conservative leaders to understand the long-term consequences of a proposed change before plunging head-first into yet another 'progressive' debacle.  Liberals, on the other hand, tend to prefer making changes to heal a short-term rift, while causing greater future difficulties which they will then also patch-up; and the cycle goes on.

But what really is the definition of a liberal?  I'm not talking about textbook definitions that use circular logic; calling a liberal a lefty or a lefty a liberal.  There are in fact two real definitions of 'liberal'.  There's liberal, lower case--a person or party advocating progressive reform (without much concern of future aftershocks--take welfare and affirmative action as examples).  But there's also the overarching Liberal, capital 'L'.  Perhaps in this case a dictionary definition would be helpful; according to dictionary.com, a Liberal is a person or party advocating, "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties."

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?  But what does it mean?  Let's take it piece by piece.  Leaving aside the 'philosophy' part of it--we don't have any Marcus Aurelius-like philosopher statesmen anymore--the first part dictates an adherence to the principles of individual freedom.  To me, anyway, this is encapsulated in the first amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech (there should be a much-used right to silence inserted there as well--it might help in the long run).  It's clear that there are restrictions on our freedom of speech these days.  The leftists love to claim that those restrictions have been put in place by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration.  The facts, as usual, are strikingly different.  It wasn't the conservatives who decided single-handedly that any public displays of Christian belief during the December 'Holiday Season' were wrong and that to wish someone a 'Merry Christmas' is no longer politically correct.  It sure as hell wasn't the right-wingers who stormed into America's court-rooms and tore down the founding principles of our judicial system--the Ten Commandments--because they too were judged un-PC.  And it wasn't the conservatives, who, in a stunning move to preserve individual freedom, decided that the government can take our land whenever they feel like it and turn it into a shopping mall.

The further emphasis on parliamentary systems of government is also not found among what is popularly called the Liberal Establishment.  Take Nancy Pelosi for example.  She has said, and I paraphrase, that if/when the Democrats win the House, and she becomes Speaker, she will initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  Who, I wonder, would that leave in charge?  Oh, right, the junta of Pelosi and company.  Does that strike you as respect for parliamentary systems of government?

This, of course, goes hand-in-hand with "non-violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions," which is exactly what the left is into.  Let's not forget the 'peaceful' protests of the 1960s and 70s, when the corruption of American youth really began.  Peacenik pacifists firebombing army recruitment headquarters on college campuses to achieve an end to the Vietnam War is a great example of 'non-violence'.  Naturally, these days these same people won't even call the thing a war.  It's just a conflict, unsanctioned and wrong; which explains the excellent treatment our vets got when they returned from the hell that was Vietnam. 

And now we come to the penultimate point, "unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor."  These reds like to tell us how to think, what to say and how to act.  They claim to be tolerant.  They certainly were tolerant of Slick Willy's sexual escapades, saying it was a private matter.  When the Supreme Court abolished anti-sodomy laws, they (rightly) cheered it as an advance for civil rights.  Yet they immediately attack any Republican that they don't like and call them gay or some other such tolerant thing.  Take J. Edgar Hoover.  Certainly there were abuses of civil rights during Hoover's reign as Director of the FBI.  But do they talk about that?  No, they bring up his alleged cross-dressing and homosexual behavior--because that's enough to make him unsavory in their minds.  Forget gay rights and tolerance.  And let's not forget how they all jumped on Mark Foley, who, unlike Clinton, never touched any of the 'kids' he's accused of molesting.  Restrictionism--that is the philosophy of the modern left.  And so, the left's disregard for the final point of "individual rights" becomes clear.

How then did the left come to be called liberal?  It's simple.  Just like Muhammad Ali claimed he was the best, the left laid claim to liberalism.  They hijacked it.  They took the word that defines the very essence of democratic society and perverted it, turned it against the people and used it as a sword to fight for everything that's wrong with today's America.  Even though saying it in public wouldn't get us right-wingers very far, we are the true Liberals.  I am a Liberal, and the above is why.