Why do people hate Liberals?

[Toro]

A better question is, why don't they?

 

[Intense]

Progressivism and Liberalism

The Progressive assault on the limited constitutionalism of the Founders set the stage for modern liberalism and the rise of big government over the past century. Here are three must-reads and some basic Q&As to get a handle on Progressivism and Liberalism. When you're ready for more, read the primary sources yourself and explore Progressivism and Liberalism in greater depth.
Progressivism and Liberalism

Progressivism and Liberalism

Done with the basics? Here are the key primary sources on Progressivism and Liberalism. We've reprinted them with an introduction highlighting the key themes in each document. When you're ready for more, check out all our publications on Progressivism and Liberalism and then dive into the annotated bibliography.

Woodrow Wilson on Socialism and Democracy (1887)

Wilson, then a professor of political science, maintains that there are no principled limits to what government may do.
Woodrow Wilson on Administration (1887)

Professor Wilson makes a revolutionary argument for a professional centralized administration, thereby setting the stage for the administrative state.
Charles Merriam Explains Progressive Political Science (1903)

Merriam’s survey of political science at the turn of the century establishes beyond a doubt that Progressivism arises not in response to changing historical conditions but as a principled rejection of the Founding
John Dewey and the Progressive Conception of Freedom (1908)

Nowhere are the full implications of the Progressive redefinition of freedom drawn out more clearly than in this excerpt.
Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism (1910)

Soon-to-be Progressive Party presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt calls for a Progressive revolution in politics, economics, and civil society and a radical expansion of governmental power.
Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?” (1912)

In this presidential campaign speech, Wilson frankly describes his principles for a revolutionary reform of America rooted in a rejection of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Woodrow Wilson’s “War Message to Congress” (1917)

A concise summary of the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy to reshape the world: “The world must be made safe for democracy.”
Primary Sources

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
About Heritage Foundation

 

[Dot Com]

Heritage Foundation= Obamneycare

 

[Wolfsister77]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

 

[koshergrl]

I hate liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.

 

[Pogo]

I hate liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.

That's a nice drama meltdown and all, but it's got nothing to do with political philosophies, which is, at least ostensibly, the topic. Or was.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al. In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning. The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives. And both are brutally honest in their conclusions. I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al) have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view. I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda. And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

 

[AVG-JOE]

Progressivism and Liberalism

The Progressive assault on the limited constitutionalism of the Founders set the stage for modern liberalism and the rise of big government over the past century. Here are three must-reads and some basic Q&As to get a handle on Progressivism and Liberalism. When you're ready for more, read the primary sources yourself and explore Progressivism and Liberalism in greater depth.
Progressivism and Liberalism

Progressivism and Liberalism

Done with the basics? Here are the key primary sources on Progressivism and Liberalism. We've reprinted them with an introduction highlighting the key themes in each document. When you're ready for more, check out all our publications on Progressivism and Liberalism and then dive into the annotated bibliography.

Woodrow Wilson on Socialism and Democracy (1887)

Wilson, then a professor of political science, maintains that there are no principled limits to what government may do.
Woodrow Wilson on Administration (1887)

Professor Wilson makes a revolutionary argument for a professional centralized administration, thereby setting the stage for the administrative state.
Charles Merriam Explains Progressive Political Science (1903)

Merriam’s survey of political science at the turn of the century establishes beyond a doubt that Progressivism arises not in response to changing historical conditions but as a principled rejection of the Founding
John Dewey and the Progressive Conception of Freedom (1908)

Nowhere are the full implications of the Progressive redefinition of freedom drawn out more clearly than in this excerpt.
Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism (1910)

Soon-to-be Progressive Party presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt calls for a Progressive revolution in politics, economics, and civil society and a radical expansion of governmental power.
Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?” (1912)

In this presidential campaign speech, Wilson frankly describes his principles for a revolutionary reform of America rooted in a rejection of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Woodrow Wilson’s “War Message to Congress” (1917)

A concise summary of the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy to reshape the world: “The world must be made safe for democracy.”
Primary Sources

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
About Heritage Foundation

What are 'traditional American values'?

There's no such thing - It's not like cohabitation, atheism and homosexuality didn't occur in early American history. And it's not like todays corporate welfare queens didn't have a fine example of public risk / private profit in the American Railroad industry.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an opinion wrong?

Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
Step two is to accept the election results and move on.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al. In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning. The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives. And both are brutally honest in their conclusions. I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al) have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view. I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda. And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

When you've already obfuscated and distorted the definitions of the terms, you can reach any conclusion you want. Color me underwhelmed.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I hate liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.

Pretty much sums up the black and white conservative ideology.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an opinion wrong?

Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
Step two is to accept the election results and move on.

In your progressive fantasyworld, maybe.

But not in the real world. Sorry, there are values in the world, they do mean something, and there is such a thing as *right* and *wrong*. Regardless of how you try to homogenize all behavior into one depraved soup.

And no, we don't have to accept the election results, and we don't have to move on. In fact, we're obligated to speak out and draw attention to corruption, dishonesty, and the destruction of all that (most) Americans value.

So you move on. Move on to Cuba, or Egypt, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

 

[koshergrl]

I hate liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.

Pretty much sums up the black and white conservative ideology.

Yup. And a beautiful thing it is. Values. An abhorrance of depravity, murder and all the activities that lead to those things.

Gosh, just awful. Crawl back under your slimy rock, scum.

 

[Toro]

I hate liberals and progressives because of pukes like daws and peeballs, who are currently stroking themselves to the thought of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt, and posting things like "I don't give a shit!" and other equally vile stuff about those deaths, as we speak. I have found they are an accurate representation of most liberals.

Pretty much sums up the black and white conservative ideology.

"Black" conservatives????

Hahaha!

Good one!

 

[Foxfyre]

Progressivism and Liberalism

The Progressive assault on the limited constitutionalism of the Founders set the stage for modern liberalism and the rise of big government over the past century. Here are three must-reads and some basic Q&As to get a handle on Progressivism and Liberalism. When you're ready for more, read the primary sources yourself and explore Progressivism and Liberalism in greater depth.
Progressivism and Liberalism

Progressivism and Liberalism

Done with the basics? Here are the key primary sources on Progressivism and Liberalism. We've reprinted them with an introduction highlighting the key themes in each document. When you're ready for more, check out all our publications on Progressivism and Liberalism and then dive into the annotated bibliography.

Woodrow Wilson on Socialism and Democracy (1887)

Wilson, then a professor of political science, maintains that there are no principled limits to what government may do.
Woodrow Wilson on Administration (1887)

Professor Wilson makes a revolutionary argument for a professional centralized administration, thereby setting the stage for the administrative state.
Charles Merriam Explains Progressive Political Science (1903)

Merriam’s survey of political science at the turn of the century establishes beyond a doubt that Progressivism arises not in response to changing historical conditions but as a principled rejection of the Founding
John Dewey and the Progressive Conception of Freedom (1908)

Nowhere are the full implications of the Progressive redefinition of freedom drawn out more clearly than in this excerpt.
Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism (1910)

Soon-to-be Progressive Party presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt calls for a Progressive revolution in politics, economics, and civil society and a radical expansion of governmental power.
Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?” (1912)

In this presidential campaign speech, Wilson frankly describes his principles for a revolutionary reform of America rooted in a rejection of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Woodrow Wilson’s “War Message to Congress” (1917)

A concise summary of the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy to reshape the world: “The world must be made safe for democracy.”
Primary Sources

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
About Heritage Foundation

What are 'traditional American values'?

There's no such thing - It's not like cohabitation, atheism and homosexuality didn't occur in early American history. And it's not like todays corporate welfare queens didn't have a fine example of public risk / private profit in the American Railroad industry.

Yes there IS such a thing as traditional American values: Respect for the unalienable rights of others, marriage as the norm for society, family, Church, helping out your neighbor, working for what you receive, tell the truth, don't cheat at cards, in your marriage, or in your business dealings, be responsible and accountable and accept the consequences for the choices you make, don't expect others to clean up your messes, don't covet what your neighbor has but believe that you can aspire to have as much, love your country and the flag that symbolizes it, and appreciate the blood and treasure that so many have expended to give you the freedom to live your life honorably and free with unlimited choice to seek or create whatever opportunities are available to us. All this has stood the test of time and has served us very well.

You'll note that traditional American values do not include resenting others for what they have, demanding that others live the way that some think they should have to live, demanding that people be destroyed if they use the wrong phrase or word or metaphor, blaming or accusing others for bad choices made, not holding people accountable for the consequences of choices they make, entitlement mentality, or that government exists to provide cradle to grave security and/or demand that others provide us with what we need.

There are many excellent reasons for not embracing liberalism as it is defined and is demonstrated in the USA in modern times.

 

[AVG-JOE]

He meant "You didn't build that!"

Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]

Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive? Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure? Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?

That his intent was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?

And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.

Can you please provide a link to a credible source where Obama defined that as 'his intent'?

Why is it conservatives think that support for the community at large MUST come at the expense of support for the individual?

 

[koshergrl]

Are you implying that nothing exists until Obama mouths the words defining it?

Wow, you really are his creature.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al. In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning. The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives. And both are brutally honest in their conclusions. I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al) have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view. I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda. And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too. I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.

In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?

And your POV on how Liberals argue is the exact same thing as Conservatives do with the finger pointing , labeling, name calling, etc. They also refuse to look beyond their own opinions and see the validity of their opponents.

I respect your opinion but you are very biased. Most of your recent posting have been to criticize Liberals rather harshly but refusing to acknowledge bad behavior by the Conservatives. That's fine if it's what you believe but I'm not going to take your opinion on Liberals as seriously because of that.

It's the same reason I won't take the Heritage Foundations words on Liberalism and Progressivism as fact either.

They are a Conservative think tank. You don't have to apologize for using them or for believing what you believe but it is not a very fair and balanced viewpoint and therefore I'm less inclined to take it as anything more than a Conservative and biased viewpoint on Liberals and why you think their ideology is flawed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an opinion wrong?

Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
Step two is to accept the election results and move on.

An opinion can be subjective and relatively inconsequential such as it is my opinion that I look better wearing royal blue than I do wearing orange. The only way to evaluate my opinion is in how many people who observe me wearing those colors agree or disagree with my opinion.

But an opinion about the virtues or lack thereof in social or economic policy can almost always be evaluated objectively by hard data and more subjectively as to the satisfaction people have in their own lives. We KNOW roughly, for instance, how much money has been spent on the war on poverty beginning with the Great Society initiatives of the LBJ Administration. Heritage, CATO, and Brookings - conservative, libertarian, and liberal - have all done some pretty exhaustive research on that and they all arrive at pretty close to the same numbers give or take a few billion.

And it helps us make informed opinions about it rather than just defending something because it sounds noble and not gives a rat's ass about whether it is actually accomplishing what the title suggests.

And we can look at the results today and evaluate whether there are bigger or smaller deficits, acceleration of the national debt, how many people are on food stamps now compared to then? How many children live in poverty now compared to then? How many people receive government subsidies now compared to then? How many people live in traditional two-parent families now compared to then? Because records have been kept, every economic and social indicator is measurable, and honest people can make an informed opinion on whether all that money has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. And whether positives, and there have been some, outweigh the negatives, and there have been some.

I very much appreciate groups like Heritage, CATO, Brookings, et al, who do the heavy lifting to pull the data together to allow us to evaluate it and form informed opinions about the policy and/or initiatives that we choose to support or choose to resist.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al. In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning. The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives. And both are brutally honest in their conclusions. I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al) have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view. I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda. And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too. I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.

In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?

And your POV on how Liberals argue is the exact same thing as Conservatives do with the finger pointing , labeling, name calling, etc. They also refuse to look beyond their own opinions and see the validity of their opponents.

I respect your opinion but you are very biased. Most of your recent posting have been to criticize Liberals rather harshly but refusing to acknowledge bad behavior by the Conservatives. That's fine if it's what you believe but I'm not going to take your opinion on Liberals as seriously because of that.

It's the same reason I won't take the Heritage Foundations words on Liberalism and Progressivism as fact either.

They are a Conservative think tank. You don't have to apologize for using them or for believing what you believe but it is not a very fair and balanced viewpoint and therefore I'm less inclined to take it as anything more than a Conservative and biased viewpoint on Liberals and why you think their ideology is flawed.

What Foxy's using (and it's by NO means limited to her) is an elaborate strawman. First you redefine "Liberal" into an odd conflation of negative traits and insist that that's now the new definition, then you trot out a poll showing the results of that distortion when the public is asked about it. Again it's an old tactic of superficial rhetoric designed to denigrate the adversary. In effect trying to get away with "libtard" without actually saying it.

George H.W. Bush used the same tactic in his 1988 election campaign. Rash Limbag uses it every day; demonize and polarize. As long as you don't really think about what's going on logically, it works.