A few accurate characteristics of many socialists does not add up to "a perfect descritpion of socialists." I agree however that they should not get away with being called "liberal" when so little about them qualifies as being liberal. The author makes an interesting observation that:
Liberals who focus all of their attention on the need to help others don't have this disease. They are only concerned with the potential good that can be done for those in need.
But will not the focussing of all of ones attention on one thing tend to open ones self up to "disease" as characterized by the article? It seems to me that an unbalanced lifestyle will lead to a weakened state and thereby leads to the narrow outlook described as the "liberal disease." The author then qualifies that:
Liberals who don't claim great knowledge or expertise in the understanding of public policy don't qualify since they don't have the ego symptom of this disease.
So then we may assume that liberals such as the bleeding heart types who always vote democratic but claim no special understanding of public policy have another sort of mind disease. Hmmm... At any rate, the described disease might be better called the authoritarian view point. It can be found among conservatives as well as the many different kinds of liberals. If left unchecked, it often leads to a condition that is completely anti-conservative as well as anti-liberal.
I wonder what disease would cause conservatives to not conserve the meaning of words. The word "liberal" has a definition which is quite attractive and persuasive, especially for young minds. What kind of suicidal political sickness would want to drive off young minds?
"I wonder what disease would cause conservatives to not conserve the meaning of words."
Yes, that was my point. Calling the Democratic Party "liberal" implies that they are the party of more freedom when the exact opposite is true.