[Jaysun]

This is a great evaluation of the left. However, I have a question about one part:

"Modern liberalism is a leftist and nihilistic rebellion against the inherently unequal nature of the human condition. If we conservatives named this ideology for what it is, we would have a fair chance to defeat it or at least stem its advance."

The writer obviously acknowledges that the term "liberal" has been twisted from it's original meaning, but is he suggesting that a winning strategy includes redefining "liberal" into it's original meaning? If so, I think it's the wrong approach. The term "liberal" changed during the Vietnam era, and the negative connotations now associated with the word are thanks to the radical nuts of the day.

Wouldn't it be easier, and wouldn't we increase our chances of success, if we simply left that alone for now? It seems to me that it would be difficult and time consuming to shift the meaning of "liberal" back into it's original form. Why not come up with a new term to describe people that would fit into the traditional meaning of liberalism and continue ostracizing the modern day nuts as "liberals"?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The term "liberal" changed during the Vietnam era, and the negative connotations now associated with the word are thanks to the radical nuts of the day.

Oh I think it goes back much further to Wilsonian liberalism. There were many social justice type movements in the 20's which became associated with liberalism/progressivism. Socialism/Communism could not flourish here under its own name here in the 40-50's so it went underground and appeared under the guise of liberalism in the 60's.

It's futile to even try and take back a term once the commies have dirtied it. ;-)