Horowitz on Liberals and Neo-Coms

Jewish World Review ^ | May 1, 2003 | David Horowitz

[Oldie]

How to identify the political left? Current usage refers to everyone left of center as "liberal." Yet what are currently identified liberals liberal about except hard drugs and sex? In regard to everything else, they are determined to intervene, regulate and control your life, or redistribute your income. Obviously, when terror-hugging radicals like Ramsey Clark and Communist hacks like Angela Davis are referred to as "liberals" - as they routinely are - the obfuscation works to their advantage and against the interests of veracity and democracy. The term "liberal" should be reserved for those who occupy the center of the political spectrum; those to the left should be referred to as leftists, which is what they are.

[Oldie]

Horowitz is right. Remember, Hayek always described himself as a "classical liberal," he did not like the term "libertarian". How did intolerant and illiberal socialists and neo-coms ever end up with the moniker "liberal"?

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

How did intolerant and illiberal socialists and neo-coms ever end up with the moniker "liberal"?

The same way a nice center-right conservative like me became a right-wing reactionary.

[WhaChuLookinAt]

They "liberally" take assets of producers and "liberally" give them to the non-producers - after making a "liberal" donation to themselves, of course.

[PA Engineer]

Bump

[L`enn]

In addition, liberals (or as Horowitz would have it, lefitsts) of today are actually conservative as they fight to maintain the status quo (welfare state, abortion, UN authority over world affairs, the failed school systems). The real radicals of today are what are often-times called neo-cons as they look at the issues confronting the world and confront them with out of the box solutions (welfare-to-work, pre-emption, tax cuts to spur the economy). I beleive we are in the midst of the once a century flip-flops of liberal-conservative labels.

[facedown]

Bump to the both of you!

[marktwain]

How did intolerant and illiberal socialists and neo-coms ever end up with the moniker "liberal"?

The same way they have gotten everything else. They stole it. (Through the means of the OldDominantLiberalMedia, by constantly referring to leftists as "liberal", back when liberal was a positive instead of perjorative term.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

They stole it

'zactly.

[Texas Eagle]

We need to go back to what Liberals were initially called: Meathead

[Tribune7]

According to Merriam Webster, Ronald Reagan is a liberal :-)

Liberalism

[Oldie]

Exactly!

[dix]

Horowitz nails it again. Thank God for David Horowitz

[rdb3]

In addition, liberals (or as Horowitz would have it, lefitsts) of today are actually conservative as they fight to maintain the status quo (welfare state, abortion, UN authority over world affairs, the failed school systems). The real radicals of today are what are often-times called neo-cons as they look at the issues confronting the world and confront them with out of the box solutions (welfare-to-work, pre-emption, tax cuts to spur the economy).

Finally! Someone else sees this. I knew I wasn't the only one.

And today was a good day...