The bizarre invective of people like Limbaugh and Coulter who have tried to invert and deform a perfectly good word -- Liberal -- into some kind of political epithet roughly equivalent to "pinko faggot commie bastard wuss" is a curious form of hate speech. As such, it violates the tradition of liberal thought, which is by definition slanted toward tolerance.

But it seems to me that when reactionary and rabid hatred is aimed at those of liberal persuasion, what we are seeing is a strange perversion. The paradox is that the freedoms these angry voices inist they are defending include the freedom to hate, the freedom to deny freedom, the freedom to slander, and the freedom to oppress. They also seem to invoke the freedom to rationalize slaughter of others physically or, more slowly, economically, on the basis that self-defense real or imaginary justifies everything.

A liberal who seeks to go and find out, for example, what it is that makes Muslim fanatics so certain they should blow themselves up in order to take a few Shiites or Sunni or Englishmen or Americans with them, is considered to be treacherous in the extreme -- even though long experience often teaches us that people who are understood can change more readily than people who are shut out or pigenoholed withouut communication.


A liberal who seeks a path to end war is defined as a traitor to those who seek only to pursue war to its bloody end of conquest. This despite the many lessons of the high cost of enmity and the painful sequelae to conquest.

The opposite of Liberal, by the way, is not "Conservative" in the English language, however distorted this may become in political theater. It is "illiberal".

"narrow-minded about cherished opinions "
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Ironically enough, Wikipedia redirects "illiberal" to "Authoritarianism" and remarks:

"Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical.

In an authoritarian form of government, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many matters that other political philosophies would see as erosion of civil liberties and freedom. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security.

At least one author, John Duckitt, suggests a specific link exists between authoritarianism and collectivism.[1] In both cases individual rights and goals are subjugated to group goals, expectations and conformities.[2]"

A