You have it closest, IMO, in stating that they're confused. While I agree that liberals tend to support all those things listed in the essay, I think most of them don't have any guiding principles at all, how else could they endlessly support contradictory positions?
And if they didn't have a nice sounding buzz word like "liberal" to hide behind, but instead had to call themselves what they really are, supporters of socialism, then it might be less popular to be a "liberal." There's a basic dishonesty in the language which most are unaware of, I think.
Most "liberals" don't come to their conclusions on their own. Every morning, the New York Times or Washington Post tells them what to think and what to say. As a liberal, all one has to do is repeat the words (and send them in as letters to the editor of your local paper) -- and even plagiarize them as though they are one's own. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make any sense -- as long as they keep repeating them, because repetition will give them a ring of familiarity, if not truth. Tomorrow, the next demagogue will give them their marching orders. All they have to do is obey the new mantra of the day -- and stick together because they are nothing if they try to stand alone, as individuals.
They never need to have original ideas; all they have to do is be against what some thoughtful person is for. That makes them just as important.
You have it closest, IMO, in stating that they're confused. While I agree that liberals tend to support all those things listed in the essay, I think most of them don't have any guiding principles at all, how else could they endlessly support contradictory positions?
I think "liberal" is a person who automatically opposes anything a conservative proposes or stands for. Since they flip flop so often, like JFK, I can find no other reason for their negative disposition.