we sort of have two sub species.
I was going to comment on your original post but didn't. What I was going to say is that you are simplistically bifurcating something way more complex than that. You are lumping, together, for example, fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, two quite different concepts. As someone with a libertarian framework, I'm with the fiscal conservatives but can't abide the social conservatives.
The reason I use the dictionary definition for liberal is that it describes exactly what a liberal is. Someone who is comfortable with change, science and logic.
That's me to a "t", yet I don't identify with the liberals. I agree with them on gay rights, war, "happy holidays," and evolution, but utterly oppose PPACA and all their other big-government, authoritarian monstrosities.
Simplistic definitions and simplistic bifurcation are beneath someone who professes to be on the side of logic. They are suitable only for lining up sides and shooting spitballs, not for thoughtful analysis. Ideas have color and texture and shape, not binary monotones. |
