M. A. - "The "liberals=communists" canard means liberals are reluctant to use the name anymore. So liberals have reached back into their history to find a synonym."

This problem seems to arise at least partly because of the "either - or" mentality. The demand for a simple, black-and-white view of the world results in their mislabelling about everything.

EITHER one is for unrestrained, unfettered capitalism OR one is communist. No middle ground. One EITHER worships capital OR one is, politely, socialist, if one believes there are other values, also.

And it gets worse, if you can imagine that. EITHER one is for unfettered capitalism, Enron being the best example but Halliburton being the same type, OR one is for dictatorship and cruel, repressive political systems. That's profound - any regulation of capitalism is a "vote" for cruelty.

So help me, that's what they seem to think.

M. A. - "Progressive" is the name of the movement at the turn of the last century that started all the regulatory mess: demanding humane care for the mentally ill, regulation of the meatpacking industry, etc. Horrible stuff."

Conservatives, left alone, did not care about the mentally ill or the sick of any ilk. Almost by definition anyone who did care about the less advantaged was "progressive". Compassion was as unknown then as now to conservatives. (Did you ever notice the people who tout volunteerism DON'T. By far the vast majority of volunteers I know, and that's a few, are Democrats.)

According to conservatives, the meat industry cannot tolerate any regulation without going broke. The same for safety for workers, regulation of toxic discharges from factories, and on and on. Can't be afforded, too expensive.

The compassion is enough to bring tears to your eyes.

Arf