Great article by "Gene in Mass" on Newsvine.com...here is the article below and the link at the bottom...
Like many Americans, I spent Independence Day enjoying good food, time with my friends (my family is too far away to spend the day with), and fireworks. From my home in Worcester, Massachusetts, I can observe the Fourth of July display at the College of the Holy Cross without even leaving the comfort of my back porch so it's become something of an annual tradition. While observing the stunning pyrotechnics, I began to ponder the political history of our nation, particularly in the context of the current presidential election.
One can hardly read a political discussion forum without encountering comments of vitriol and blind anger towards those who dare to wear the badge of "liberal". So dirty has the word become that even liberals have stopped using it, favoring the more positive spin associated with the moniker "progressive." Naturally, changing the name we call ourselves has done nothing to stop the attacks hurled at us, and we could hardly expect otherwise. A rose by any other name, after all, still smells as sweet. But the question ought not to be "Why didn't changing our name help us," but rather, "Why are we afraid to embrace our beliefs and to wear them proudly?"
Detractors will often cry that liberalism will ruin the country; that we are pacifists bent on seeing our nation destroyed; that we would rather throw our lot in with terrorists and thugs than see America succeed. Yet, we all should comfort ourselves in the knowledge that this sort of diatribe is purely the concoction of the far right and has no basis in historical fact. Everyone who graduated high school could, if they so desired, list some of the greatest achievements liberalism has offered us, but out of habit, they choose not to do so. We liberals must not allow them to forget that our country would not be the beacon of hope for the world that it is today without the liberals of our past
Pro-war conservatives like to tell us that spreading democracy to the Middle East is our solemn duty, and that the citizens there will thank us for it one day. But could we expect our democracy to spread beyond our borders if slavery had not been abolished? Would the world take our "one voice, one vote" concept seriously if women and African Americans had not been granted the right to vote? Could we truly claim to have the answer to the racial strife that still plagues Iraq if we had not integrated our schools, ended racial discrimination in our laws, and abolished the bizarre "separate, but equal" doctrine? These advances in our social laws were all vehemently opposed by conservatives, yet they are the very advances that have made this country great, not just for those granted "greatness" by accident of birth, but for all those others who, left up to conservatives, would never have a chance to touch upon it.
Religious conservatives, oddly the most venom-filled of the group, often make the claim that liberals want to limit their freedom to worship how they choose, yet this argument displays woeful ignorance of our nation's history. In fact, if the more religious among the citizens of the American colonies had their way, there's every possibility we would not have fought the Revolution that guaranteed the very freedom they now take for granted. Some 15-20% of American colonists remained loyal to the British crown, and the largest percentage of that group were members of the Anglican Church, who were so beset by fear of Catholicism, they hailed King George and feared that a religiously free state would allow Catholic dominance to spread.(source) Further, many Quakers refused to join the revolutionary cause, choosing to remain neutral (Gottlieb, 2005.) While it's true that there were also many religious leaders and followers who felt Revolution was a path ordained by God, it is from the religious that some of the greatest dissent could be found. (Ferling, John, "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic (2003)). Indeed, without the progressive mindset, without the belief that the status quo is not something to be maintained purely for tradition's sake, the liberties we have come to enjoy in our great society might never have come to fruition.
Social conservatives, themselves commonly identified as religious conservatives, are simultaneously the simplest and most difficult people to understand. They are fiercely patriotic, and their religion is the backbone of their lives. They are men and women of strong faith and often possess an unyielding work ethic. And certainly, their positions against issues such as abortion and gay marriage come from deeply-held beliefs that define the core of their being. But the justification for these beliefs cannot be found in law. In fact, it is these very conservatives who have, at various points throughout American history, turned their backs on the document that first outlined the liberties we, as citizens of the United States, must demand from our government: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all mean are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable human rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yes, for all their complaining that liberals are unpatriotic, it is the conservative movement that has consistently stood in opposition to the idea that all citizens should enjoy the same liberties, the same opportunity to find happiness. From segregation to interracial marriage, from women's rights to gay rights, from voting rights to property rights, conservatives have always stood as roadblocks, demanding that we deny freedom to all those with whom they disagree. These are the people who believe freedom of religion only applies to those who share their religious views, as demonstrated by their unrelenting efforts to codify their beliefs into our national law. It is the liberals, in blocking efforts to allow one religion's doctrine to be imposed upon all our citizens, that have truly guarded our freedoms.
Fiscal conservatives have long held the belief that sound economic policy derives entirely from a supply-side system in which the wealthiest corporations and individuals are granted the greatest tax relief, in the hope that this relief will translate into higher productivity and greater profits, which will then "trickle down" to the masses. The masses, in turn, will spend this money, thereby enhancing the financial position of all players of the game. They fail to realize that supply-side economics has largely failed to deliver on its promise (Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principals of Economics (2007)). Not only did Reagan promise us that the tax cuts he pushed through would actually pay for themselves (which turned out to be untrue), but the most recent incarnation of supply-side economics, offered by President Bush, has yielded higher unemployment and reduced productivity, the very opposite of the intended affect. On the other hand, the liberal economic policies at the heart of Roosevelt's New Deal hauled our nation out of a depression caused by the great concentration of wealth that occurred in the 1920's. More recently, Bill Clinton's economic policies gave us a GNP fully one-fourth of the entire world's output, 4% unemployment (lowest in 40 years) and 15 million new jobs. (source)
Despite all this, I would never argue that conservatives have done nothing to enhance our country. After all, Ross Perot is conservative, and he brought us Bill Clinton.
http://gbixler.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/05/1640343-why-did-liberal-become-a-curse-word
