Neo, you did not answer my central question, to wit:
So, which is it: are the liberals "inside" the consensus, or "outside" it?
Otherwise put: how can you equate liberalism with extremism in one post, and in another define extremism as being outside a general liberal/conservative "consensus"?
Now, for a few "new" points:
I would bet I know more conservatives than you do, and read more conservative publications. I am making an empirical observation.
By the same token, I could argue that I know more (self-described)liberals than you do, and read more (self-described) liberal publications. which would put me in a better position than you to make empirical observations about them.
The key word here, which you left out, is self-described. You yourself noted the problems with self-description (although you didn't mention the special pitfall of self-congratulatory self-description).
In theory, and in practice, for example, a reactionary can call himself/herself a conservative, while remaining a reactionary.
And please note: you evidently accept self-described conservatives' self-congratulatory definitions of conservativism, as well as their generally derogatory definitions of liberalism. Hey -- turn about fair play!
No, the buzzwords do NOT have "legitimate analytic meaning," at least, not in the hands of a partisan.
More often than not, buzzwords serve only to obscure the real issues, rather than to illuminate them.
Joan |
