Liberalism is the promotion of equal opportunities. Conservatives try to paint liberals into various frames for different purposes, so liberalism needs to be defined.

Words can be defined on the basis of what people usually mean by them. Often, a meaning is described but is not what people usually mean, so it is incorrect.

There is an evolution for the meaning of terms. Liberalism might have started out having one meaning, but over time, use of the word evolved into something else.

There are some unquestionable characteristics that liberals have applied to liberalism over time. They almost always mean promotion of social justice, which is interpreted to mean solving problems for the lower classes and the needy, which is an element of equal opportunities. Regardless of whether someone wants liberalism to mean something other than that, time has stabilized those concepts into the core purposes of liberalism.

Therefore, if conservatives say liberalism is a promotion of communism, they are contriving something that liberals do not apply to the meaning of liberalism. Of course, a few persons will connect liberalism to communism, but doing so is their own isolated concept which does not change the evolved, social meaning of liberalism.

The reason why it matters is because anytime someone tries to solve problems, they have to align upon objective reality to do so. The purpose of solving problems aligns correct liberalism upon objective reality. This process is a universal correction for human activity. All corruption is a conflict with objective reality. So it is important to align upon objective reality as a method of reducing human corruption.

What corrupters miss is that they can't use destructive means to produce constructive results. To solve problems requires constructive methods. That means contact with reality. Reality cannot be trashed to solve peoples' problems.

Totalitarian Dictatorships

Rationality as the application of objective reality to solve social problems is viewed as liberalism as indicated by the fact that journalists are called liberals by conservatives when applying rationality to objective reality, which is obviously a liberal thing to do. Rationality does what liberals are trying to do in creating social justice.

Stripping rationality out of social solutions produces totalitarian dictatorships by preventing people from solving their problems and putting all control in the hands of someone who arbitrates their lives. There is a complete absence of social structures including a government of laws with totalitarian dictatorships, since social structures require rationality aligned upon objective reality.

What this means is the totalitarian dictatorship that was associated with communism was not a product of liberalism, it was an overlay which was the opposite of the liberal purpose that socialism attempted to produce. Socialists left themselves vulnerable to a dictatorship which wasn't an inherent part of liberal socialism.

This oddity seems to be what conservatives have in mind when they ridicule liberals in an incoherent manner. Conservatives seem to be assuming that if liberals keep striving for social justice they will produce a totalitarian dictatorship as the communists had. That isn't what liberalism leads to; it's what socialists were vulnerable to in not creating strong social structures.

In other words, liberalism in the U.S. includes strong social structures and does not lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. Liberals promote strong social structures in the U.S. by demanding openness and accountability in government and the courts.

By contrast, the attempt by conservatives to diminish the effectiveness of government is what leads to totalitarian dictatorships.

The New Normal

When conservatives took over the world in 1981, they created a "new normal." The new normal was a disconnect from objective reality including government laws. Reagan called it "morning in America."

Conservatives assume that disconnection from reality is a higher standard—assuming that objective reality is garbage in the way of their concept of progress. Progress to them is uninhibited impositions being arbitrated by themselves.

Corrupters consider themselves to be the center of the universe, and if they could impose and arbitrate freely, it would solve everyone's problems. That's why aligning upon objective reality is an extremely important social standard.

Political and social realities must deal with subjective concerns, which is not as provable of a realm as science but can be pinned down by clarifying surrounding realities. So if conservatives disagree with my claims, they should clarify and explain. But conservatives avoid clarifications, because they are always trying to overwhelm to win arguments. If I do the explaining, and they do the muddling, then my description is more apt to be correct than theirs. Conservatives would typically make a bunch of claims as the opposite of mine by listing fake examples. How about the tax give-away which poured 1.5 trillion tax dollars down the drain to stimulate the economy, which didn't occur. Everyone has a right to be wrong, they imply. Being disconnected from reality promotes wrongs. Contact with reality eliminates being wrong.

The appearance of liberalism is shifting toward green and fake technology. But the appearance cannot change the evolved purpose of improving social justice by solving problems for the victims of injustice. Green has become a subversion of liberalism, as the lower classes pay the heaviest price for the fakery.

Before 1981, liberals were describing their purpose as creating equal opportunities. Then liberals went silent, at least in Washington, in 1981, as conservatives took over politics and redescribed liberalism in terms of corruption. The conservative purpose was to undue "eighty years of liberalism gone awry." Liberalism is still pushed to the side of the politics controlled by conservatives.

An example of the conflict was "affirmative action." It meant extra effort was to be applied in correcting imbalances, such as increasing the number of minorities at universities. The outcry by conservatives shows the nature of the conflict. Someone with better grades does not get accepted where there is affirmative action. The pretense that the story begins after injustices shape the result is standard conservative misrepresentation, as if correcting were not relevant to the purpose, and as if there were nothing to be corrected after conservatives determine results.

Of course, conservatives would want to define their standard in positive terms, but they tend not to define. Instead, they promote, which is not the same thing. They speak in opposites trying to conceal a war that they fight against enemies and portray it as the solution to something, such as opposition to "tax and spend," while they pour tax dollars down the drain to keep them from benefiting the lower classes.

The federal debt was $800 billion dollars when Reagan took office (and put an end to liberalism going awry) saying he wasn't going to saddle his grandchildren with that much dept. Conservatives then increased it by a factor of ten to $8 trillion. So when conservatives accuse liberals of "tax and spend" they are speaking in opposites trying to project their scheme onto liberals. The endless tax give-aways by conservatives don't lower taxes, they add interest on the debt created by the tax give-aways.