> I agree with you about the history of liberalism and
> the reason it has the content it does now. But it does
> have that content now.
[snip]
> In ordinary parlance, liberals in America suppose
> social liberalism, a welfare state, and a mixed economy.
On 7/3/07, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... Do you think we should give up that
> term -- socialism -- and find an expression that no
> one has sullied -- until _it_ gets dirty?
Andie, observing this exchange, I'm not sure I understand your position here. On the one hand, we should use the term "liberalism" because of what it expresses to Americans today. But then why _shouldn't_ we pragmatically abandon the term "socialism", when in the same context its received meaning to most people is, as you put it, "one-party dictatorship, cults of personality, mass murder, secret political police and torture.... etc."
On what basis would you retain the former because of its local associations with what you value, and not reject the latter by corollary? Or do you think socialism isn't quite as maligned as that?
Ben