[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.

[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

[dix]

Horowitz nails it again. Thank God for David Horowitz