(Regarding the potential counterpart term “Rightist”, I don’t use that one because unlike the Left, the Right is not philosophically monolithic. I therefore use the term “conservatism” and “conservatives” to designate that side, as conservatism IS monolithic.)

But *outside* that context — outside America, and among the more intellectual sort — the term retains much of its original Enlightenment meaning, thereby reinforcing the Left’s false claim to that heritage. That falsehood is a major stumbling block to America’s political life; it is a big part of why the Left is still taken seriously, instead of booted out of serious political discussion.

Someday, we’ll be able to identify Americanism as “liberalism” once more, but for now I just want to get it out of the Left’s shadow.

Will they? It certainly won’t happen automatically, through pure suffering. (This is the point that Burgess made.)

The Russians certainly haven’t found the cheese yet.

Like mice in a maze, the American people will take some wrong turns, but they will eventually find the cheese.

Of course, what matters most about a word (which is just a symbol) is knowing which concept it symbolizes. Whichever word one chooses, a writer can avoid some misunderstandings simply by defining his term if it is unusual. The definition needn’t always be full and formal. It can be a simple sketch, a “that-is” statement.

E.g., If, in writing for a general audience, I call President Obama a statist, then I can say:

“. . . a statist — that is, someone who believes that government is superior to individual rights, especially the basic rights to life, liberty and property — . . .”

I am not recommending that particular formulation, but only suggesting that there are writing techniques available for dealing with the problem of the ambiguity or vacuity of many political terms, for a particular audience.

Ideally, I’d call them statists but few outside of the better circles would have the faintest idea to whom I’m referring.

But I have to ask that you consider not calling them “liberals” wherever possible. That is not what they are. The term is too completely destroyed in mainstream use to be salvaged in general discourse, but their appropriation of it is key to their goal of destroying the Enlightenment by discrediting it from within (with the full and eager assistance of the conservatives).

They are Leftists, or socialists, or fascists, or progressivists, or even siblings to the conservatives. But they are most certainly not liberals.

The first step to reclaiming the Enlightenment is to forcibly divorce that salutary movement from its Leftist usurpers at every point — starting here.

They might already think all that. Some fear that Obama is intentionally destroying the stock market in order to get Americans to put themselves into government hands instead of depending on private investment for their security.

One of the problems of learning “lessons” from history (ancient or recent) is that the lessons (the conclusions) depend on at least these two factors:

1. The evidence examined — is it true, is it complete, is it properly understood?

2. The philosophical and methodological context for the identification of the facts of history and for the evaluation of those facts.

If the economy further collapses under the Bush-Obama administration, then the lesson learned might be: “We didn’t go far enough!” or “The ideas were right, but the personnel were wrong, so let’s keep the ideas and find more ruthless or more competent personnel.”

Ideas cause history, but ideas don’t exist in isolation. To learn a lesson from history, one must have the philosophical context set in place first and one must have the appropriate, objective evidence at hand and one must know how to evaluate it.

That is the job of objective historians who are also intellectual activists.

I agree with her view that “active mind” and “passive mind” are more objective terms/ideas because they identify the essential characteristic involved: reason is a process — an action, not a state of being.

2. Concerning “dogma,” my position — based on etymology, conventional usage, and the usage of my favorite philosophers — is that dogma is not the refusal to think but rather a consequence of the refusal to think.

Dogmatism is the belief (-ism) that one should accept the teachings of an alleged authority (the Bible, the Church, the Party, the guru) without evidence and without proof. (The term/idea dogma in Greek means “the thing seeming best,” that is, an opinion, “teaching,” or decree) So, dogma is a consequence of a desire not to think and the desire that others accept doctrines and not think about them.

While it will be painful, it will also teach the American people a lesson. They ignored the possibility of Obama’s socialist tendencies in the last election. After seeing what will happen under socialism, I doubt most of them will ignore socialism again.

“Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”

So the “moderates” like Brooks have chosen to wear an epistemological “Kick Me” sign, and then they act surprised when they discover the Left’s boot print on their rears.