: I’ve been trying to figure out a new label for myself. I still know I’m liberal (human rights… the need for regulation… health care… you know the drill). But I don’t much like my fellow liberals these days — the ones who are getting PR — and what they’ve done to liberalism (politically correct orthodoxy… an absence of support for human rights in Iraq and Iran… support for Palestinian terrorism… you know that drill, too). I’m not conservative. I’m not libertarian. I’m a man without a label. Some in my boat would try to say that we’re classic liberals before liberals ruined liberalism. But I don’t think so. I think there’s a new practicality and realism to this school of liberal politics and also a new openness (yes, I can support the war without voting for Bush). So I’ll argue that this is a new generation. It’s not neolib or postlib (already some weird definitions to those labels). It’s liberal 3.0 because, just like Microsoft, it takes three tries to get it right.
Now go read Roger L. Simon, who has been arguing that the old labels don’t work anymore and here’s why:
What has replaced it is a kind of moving consensus, which may, in its own way, be more democratic and is also highly pragmatic. For example, at the moment, the accepted view in the Blogosphere appears to be in favor of (to pick two disparate issues) intervention in Iraq and gay marriage. Is this liberal or conservative? More importantly, does anybody care?