[Holly_P]

The word "socialism" rightly carries a stigma that most of my liberal friends don't even associate with liberalism. They don't see all the welfare programs as socialism but just as programs to "help" the poor. Yet welfareism and the nanny state defines socialism.

They also refuse to see that every dollar they receive from Pell grants and other government give aways are paid for by people who actually pay taxes.

I am a student and not yet paying my own way in life but I am well aware and thankful for my family members who are willing and able to pay my way. Also with the full knowledge that they expect nothing in return except for my success in life.

Yes, I am on a form of welfare too but it's the generous, loving and voluntary kind and doesn't cost the tax payers a cent.

I am fortunate indeed.

[ClaireSolt]

This is okay as far as it goes. However, it omits two things. First, liberal in the 1960's came to mean some new things, like disdain for organized religion, and an anything goes repudiation of traditional morality. Marx invented the dialetic of materialism on which class warfare is based. That conflicts with the traditional rags to riches social mobility which made America so unique. By adopting both, an amibtious and amoral self-appointed elite emerged and has managed to keep those who don't know the rules oppressed to their advantage.

[grace522]

You give me hope for the future of our country. Thanks.

[finnigan2]

"Peretz and his fellow contributors misdiagnose the condition of liberalism because what they are assessing isn’t liberalism at all, but a variant of socialism masquerading under the banner of liberalism."

- Damn, just as I was getting use to people like Peretz and other leftoid MSM types still "not getting it", along comes Mr. Bradley R. Gitz to tell them where they've been going wrong. Maybe if we keep real quiet, they won't take any notice.