What makes a liberal “liberal”?

America

It seems to me that those who self-identify as “liberal” are about as liberal as Rachel Dolezal is “black”. I have studied the word and cannot find any measure by which self-described liberals are “liberal”.

Classical liberalism was practiced by those who championed liberty. Today's liberals are the avowed enemies of liberty. They strive to impose their will on others. They ban words and symbols that they deem offensive while using the vile and offensive words and symbols in pursuit of their perceived devils. They use the bludgeon of government to foist ill-conceived schemes on the public despite the fact that every such attempt has ended in ruin. They do not trust the individual to manage their own lives in their own best interests nor trust the electorate to govern themselves. Ultimately, they attempt to disarm citizens, to deprive them of the means to defend themselves from assaults on their liberty.

The Democratic Party is the sanctuary of liberals and the GOP is its foil. In truth, however, both parties work in concert to advance the agenda of the modern liberal. The Democrats actively mount assaults on liberty and the Republicans pretend to defend against them, seemingly to demonstrate the futility of resistance.

Thus, if liberals aren't the champions of liberty, how do they see themselves as “liberal”?

Let's examine liberality. Charity is an ancient practice. I'm sure that if prehistoric times weren't so prehistorical, we would find evidence of early man sharing any surplus that they may have been fortunate enough to gather or hunt with others in need. Officially, we can trace charity as a cultural institution to the Hebrew practice of tzedakah. (I'm sure there are other examples, possibly earlier, and someone will comment to enlighten us.) I have read that conservatives are more liberal in their charitable giving than liberals. However, such claims have seemed to me self-serving. The most trustworthy report I can find was published by a group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technologies (MIT) who proved statistically that there is little difference in liberality between liberals and conservatives. Thus, liberals have no more claim to call themselves liberal than their arch foes.

Some liberals and their apologists have attempted to redefine liberalism as “believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change...” They even got their new definition memorialized in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. There's nothing wrong with reinventing words. Americans are famous for doing it. Take a look at the word “frog”. In most cases, the new definition relates to a new use or a new meaning. For example, new technologies require new definitions. However, redefining “liberal” in this way is merely a canard disguising old and tired social and political changes that have been attempted repeatedly and failed. They are like the Christians that Mark Twain described in his “Letters From Earth”

“He prays for help, and favor, and protection, every day; and does it with hopefulness and confidence, too, although no prayer of his has ever been answered. The daily affront, the daily defeat, do not discourage him, he goes on praying just the same. There is almost something fine about his perseverance.”

---

More importantly, this new definition of “liberal” flies in the face of everything America was created to prevent. The founders of the nation created a blueprint to limit government from growing in size and scope to prevent such social and political engineering. They immortalized their vision in the Constitution. Liberals have to reinvent the definition of words so they can reinterpret the Constitution and circumvent its protections. Thus, it comes as no surprise that liberals redefine their own identity.

So, what shall we call “liberals”? How about “socialists”? That's what they are. Are they ashamed of it? Or are they afraid that We the People might rise up and defeat them if we really understood who they are?