The article neglexcts the history of the term "liberal" in political history.

Liberals opposed government efforts to aid workers and the poor. Labor parties arose in the 19th century in response to the deplorable conditions of the working class. Liberals opposed all efforts to respond. Conservatives, e.g., in Bismarck's Germany, led in the provision of government benefits such as old age pensions, to counter the growing tide of socialism among the workers.

Liberalism historically stood for freedom (of merhents, mostly) from government control of commerce and trade. The idea extended to freedom from government control of private activities of citizens. But it is crucial to remember that until the mid 19th century only a small fraction of national residents enjoyed basic citizenship rights such as the right to vote. Liberals as the defenders of property, largely opposed the extension of the franchise.

In the 20th century some political thinkers, including John Dewey, called for a new kind of liberalism that shed its affiliation with property and applied scientific thinking and planning to social problems. This was not liberalism per se, but a "new" or redefined liberalism.

In the politics of some of our mid 20th century political leaders like Hubert Humphrey this notion of liberalism took hold. But the very use of terms like "classical liberalism" and "neo-liberalism" show that the older sense still prevails.

The rsult is that the term today stands for both an old idea and its opposite. It is no longer useful as a meaningful term of politics.

"Progressive" has its own problems, of course. But it stands in today as a way of distinguishing social liberalism from anti-social liberalism.

Perhaps what is needed is a new political vocabulary capable of making the distinctions we need to make in response to today's problems.

This letter is wonderful. Remember that Maggie Thatcher famously said "there is no such thing as society". How wrong she was. Society was right there under her feet.

Problem is, the folks who need this information have been innoculated against it. They know socialism, or is it nazism, when they see it.

Part of the problem is the legacy of slavery. America never was much of a "society" and the emerging society after the civil rights era is still experiencing growing pains.

With bigots like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh having an influence on about 20% of the society, and controlling one of the two political parties, there is a ton of work to do.

I think this is the best possible outcome.

Those in red states that want the public option will tend to move to bluer states, further isolating the GOP while building up the Dem consensus in the blue states.

Those who don't move will scream like crazy about having to pay an extortionate rate for insurance that those living elsewhere get for much less and with less hassle when it comes to collect.

The GOP legislatures and governers will have to work very hard to opt out, and may chicken out, making them look really really stupid. Flip floppers!!

How much better than this does it get?