[playa_playa]

What I find somewhat amusing is the fact that terms "liberal" and "conservative" (synonymous to what we identify as being "left" or "right") are being predicated on political stances on certain controversial issues only. To a degree, I think it's disheartening. Becuase it is a certain indication that even in the vernacular, the original vocabulary of what truly denotes liberalism and conservatism is long gone; the efforts of the likes of Dewey and Socrates have been replaced by the vocabulary of the likes of Michael Moore and William Kristol.

To truly be "liberal," and of the "left," is to be embrace reform and progress. It is to be independent from the chains of traditionalism and orthodoxy. In other words, it is a language of social reform and moral progress.

Conversely, to truly be "conservative" and of the "right" is to appreciate tradition insofar as changing it would undermine the existence of society. To be on the right is to be temperate and resistant to transient political issues that may alter the original intentions of the society.

Being opposed to abortion, same-sex marriages, the draft, and what have you does not necessarily entail liberalism or conservatism. The question is, do those issues ultimately lead the society to fundametally change? Stances on these issues may paint a roadmap; but they are not an end-all-be-all sign of either liberalism or conservatism.

To give an example, Congress did not act in a conservative manner when it passed the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act veers away from the original intentions of the framers and enacts fundamental changes to the society. And some would call the issues which forms the basis of this act transient, since terrorism has not always been in our lexicon. On the other hand, it - a blatant attack on civil liberties as it is - did not act in a liberal manner either since it is an ocean's distance away from moral progress purported by the principles of classic liberalism. Yet, it is interesting to note that Congress is Republican-controlled, and some have inferred that this is conservatism at work.

Some would defend this sort of change in connotation as a simple evolution of language. I think it's a mockery of the fervent effort of classic political theorists who contemplated and through their contemplation, hoped to achieve, a society of blessed happiness.

So I hope that when a person is searching for true liberal ideals in today's world, I pray that they consult the likes of Richard Rorty, who laments the loss of the true left in his work, Achieving Our Country; and ignore the brash, purported liberals like Michael Moore. On the other hand, I hope that a person looking for true conservative ideals in today's world find the columns of George F. Will - who reflects the temperance of Socrates as a true characteristic of being a conservative; and dismiss the assertions of the likes of The Project for the New American Century, William Kristol and Rush Limbaugh as not being representatives of what conservatism really is.