But I do have a thought or two about the meaning of words and the timidity of the left.
For the first 30 years of the 20th century,what we today call liberals, called themselves progressives. "To progress" was considered a very good thing so instead of leftists calling themselves, socialists or govern mentalists, they called themselves progressives. There was even a progressive political party.
But by the early 1930s labeling themselves progressives was no longer considered a good thing to do. Progressives had revealed what they were. So the term progressive no longer described a party wanting to progress. It was a party that wanted government to take charge of all aspects of life with them in charge of government.
When progressive becoming a dirty word, they changed their identifying name to Liberal. Liberals after all were people who favored liberty.. and who could oppose that. Now some 75 years later liberals are no longer is seen as those favoring liberty. They are seen as those who will take control of ever aspect of life and run our lives as they see fit.
So now liberal is a bad word. Only 17 percent of the public will consent to being called a liberal. Yet nearly half of our voters vote as if they were liberal.
So in the few years the left has started to rename themselves as progressives. In the last 75 years the word progressive had returned to its original meaning. With the INTERNET and talk radio, I don't think it will take 75 years for Progressive to assume the same meaning liberal has assumed today.
To me the most telling thing about the left is they know they must disguise their true intentions to gain power. Today's meaning of liberal will not sell with voters. So they change the name. They know what they espouse is not acceptable to the majority of voters. So they must disguise their real plans.
The most important thing in political debate with liberals is not to refute their accusations. The most important thing is to get them to reveal to the voters what they would really like to do if they had the power.
I do have some concern about the belief that liberals are timid. Bill and Hillary Clinton came into office expecting and predicting they would move the nation more to the left than had FDR. They both believed they could nationalize medicine. They became timid when the American people rejected their socialist plans.
Were Hillary or Bill ever to get the presidency with the kind of congressional leads enjoyed by FDR, they would be less timid than Mike Tyson at an ear biting contest.
I think we have to look at what "liberals" are timid about. They are self-important to the max, but they are timid about risking exposure outside the PR consensus. They are real lions as long as they think that institutional journalism is behind them, but what institutional journalism doesn't support "liberals" dare not do. And journalists are simply celebrities within the celebrity culture of "liberalism."That is why Clinton was so bashful about responding militarily to challenge in Mogadishu; in military affairs journalism would have been with Clinton "win or draw." And really, only "win." And a military expedition has bottom-line characteristics - objectives to meet or not meet, and casualty lists.
Thanks for responding to my rant - it was a rant and I knew it as it unfolded. But it seemed that the words were flowing, and I hoped for significant insight to come from it. Or at least a reasonably compact portrayal of ideas I've had for a long time. And it that I thought it was at least somewhat of a success.
One motive in my thinking is that I agree with Peggy Noonan that Hillary Clinton is a bully. And that I think that the two main characteristics of a bully are arrogance and cowardice. And I think I see both of those things in the one slogan, "you never want to argue with someone who buys ink by the carload." That's arrogant of the journalist vis a vie the general public; vis a vie other journalists that same slogan implies timidity.