I don't buy into this semantic arguement that always gets brought up here -- that because there is a disconnect between the original dictionary words "liberal" and "conservative", then the common, contemporary usage of the words are illegitimate. Words evolve. It's not always a good thing that words evolve -- sometimes they evolve at the cost of clear communication. Still, they do evolve -- and making too much of the old meaning "conservative" and "liberal", while in some contexts may be interesting, usually it's just a red herring.

We're all quite aware that the philosophical differences between the two are real, even if disconnected from the original reasons for the name "conservative" and "liberal".

The bigger gap (bigger that the gap between dictionary definition and actual philosophy) is between the philosophical underpinnings of "conservative" and "liberal" and the political manifestations they take, adn the compromises one must (or thinks they must) make in order to come as close as they can to politically (by their vote) expressing their philosophys.

Because of the disconnect, liberals voted for Clinton, though he was not, in 1992, running as a liberal. He was what liberals thought was their only choice. Likewise, most conservatives (myself excluded) voted for Bush.

Those choices don't mean that "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless. They mean that western politics aren't purely one or the other.