Commenting on Morgan talking about definition of "liberal", I spouted...
Yeah, it is true that "liberal" and "conservative" have gotten so crossed up in meaning to the point where they're practically meaningless without a big dob of context.
On the one hand we have modern-day "conservatives" who want to conserve the once liberal principles on which this country was founded -- by a bunch of Christians who decided to put differences in their sects aside and let Churches play their roles in producing moral, God-fearing people while the government was there to enforce the basic rules of natural law as constrained by the State and Federal Constitutions and while they were at it to accept people from all races and creeds as long as they came and played by our rules. (yeah, I know ... it was started in the midst of slavery and it took 70 or so years to finally squash that... but it's the initial ideals we want preserved, not the initial practices -- and Jefferson and Washington would agree.)
On the other hand we have modern-day "liberals" who shed the term "progressive" after the horrors that movement produced in the first 30 or so years of the 20th Century -- who are still driving hard to have their secular-humanist moral codes encoded in and enforced by the state, where essentially the State is "Society" is the Church ... Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato (“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”)
Yeah, google that phrase and see what you come up with.
There is no truth except for what we say it is. It is truly Summa Nulla ... The High Point of Nothing. (from ZBS's "The Adventures of Ruby")