What the words mean and how they're used (and by whom) are all different things.
The easiest to contrast are progresives and conservtives, becasue the former embrace change and reform, while the latter are concerned with preserving tradition and resist change.

Cassical liberals are closest to libertarians, in that they want to protect their personal liberties and prefer a laissez faire government.

Social liberals (generally,the way the term 'liberal' is used today) believe that government should intervene to promote equality of opportunity and that true liberty is not possible without social justice.

'Liberal; and 'progressive' are not mutually exclusive, they just accent different things.

All the definitions change over time according to what movments they become asociated with historically and how they are associated in the context of current politics. .
When used perjoratively, the meanings are deliberately altered.

All this leads to so much confusion and misuse, that I just prefer 'Left' and 'Right”.
At least, then, we all know what we're talking about.

What the words mean and how they're used (and by whom) are all different things.
The easiest to contrast are progresives and conservtives, becasue the former embrace change and reform, while the latter are concerned with preserving tradition and resist change.

Cassical liberals are closest to libertarians, in that they want to protect their personal liberties and prefer a laissez faire government.

Social liberals (generally,the way the term 'liberal' is used today) believe that government should intervene to promote equality of opportunity and that true liberty is not possible without social justice.

'Liberal; and 'progressive' are not mutually exclusive, they just accent different things.

All the definitions change over time according to what movments they become asociated with historically and how they are associated in the context of current politics. .
When used perjoratively, the meanings are deliberately altered.

All this leads to so much confusion and misuse, that I just prefer 'Left' and 'Right”.
At least, then, we all know what we're talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/weekinreview/…

Over the past several years, the actual meaning of 'evangelism' has drifted somewhat, and is now often viewd with perjorative derision by less religous people, and has taken on a hint of wild-eyed zealotry.

For me, I've always viewed the term “progressive” with some suspicion, as if people who use the term WANT to be liberal, but don't want to be CALLED liberal.

Create your own country-for-one. But no help for you!
I don't want my tax dollars to go toward sustaining your life style.

Education. Do we serve some higher purpose by letting our population fall behind in the world market of ideas, technology, finance? A comprehensive system of education helps us stay competitive. Right now there is a huge market for healthcare workers (see above). Where are the people that take care of us going to come from if not from the range of community colleges, tech programs? We import doctors from around the world to supply our need. What happens when suddenly those past supplier countries start to hire doctors away from us?

Currently our military seems to be the only choice where young people have a shot at having education and healthcare guaranteed for them. (Actually not so much). A greater range of choices needs to be made available where people don't have to risk death, dismemberment and brain injury to enjoy these benefits. There are likely great numbers of American youth that would love a shot at serving and learning if it didn't involve killing or being killed.

I think that the two labels have gotten so twisted away from their historical significance as to become useless slanders. Today's nominal conservative is not Goldwater. Its John McCain. Eight years ago, he was Maverick; today he is nominated by the most traditionally “conservative” political party to run the country.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/01/nation/…

Rather than attacking C's or L's, I would like to see a concerted effort to stop the practice of labeling and mislabeling. .

It's a ploy that has worked for conservaives for years, and it's nothing if not a dirty trick. I agree with the above comments indicating that no one even knows what the labels mean, but that's just it'!!
It allows denigration without the need to think, explain or be accountable.

I've notced a shift lately. There is no more Left or Left Wing, there is only the FAR LEFT, or the RADICAL LEFT, and those labels are used for any person or any opinion left of Bill Kristol or Rush Limbaugh.

It's easier to ignore it, but I think people using labeling should be called on it and be asked to explain their label usage. I've done it a few times, and it's obvious they don't know what they mean. They just mumble about Michael Moore and Dalily Kos.
At least they should know others are on to them.

There are several groups who would like for healthcare paid for with higher taxes on others. Immigrant groups, black organizations, and surprisingly, homosexuals.

Second, severals groups like government employees and lawyers would love to be able to control healthcare. Such groups would love to control what procedures are funded adequately and which aren't Academic researchers believe (wrongly) that nationalized healthcare with generate more research dollars

On education, minority groups would love more money for the least qualified high school graduates Universities would love the government to subsidize all college students so that they can raise tuition. The community college, HBCU, and open admissions universities would love more college money. Of course, no one is discussing which degrees the U.S. needs ore of or who to ensure that more students do not fail out of college considering that the current rate is above 50%.

I don't even think that most pundits or politicians could define the terms “liberal” or “conservative.” They simply parrot the talking points their of their respective side. It kind of reminds me of that talk radio host who recently went on the Chris Matthews Show to defend the suggestion that Obama's foreign policies are similar to the appeasement commited by Neville Chamberlain during the 1930's, and then–for the life of him–couldn't explain what Neville Chamberlain did that constituted appeasement.

But in this case, the conservative movement has come to represent a very dangerous ideological platform. Warrantless spying, endless war, limitless spending, torture, etc.

To be honest, I think the job of demonizing the word conservative is already well underway. The word neocon is practically radioactive at this point, and it doesn't take much to realize that neocon viewpoints are pretty much mainstream in the Republican party.

But what about the long run? What will be left to compromise on? No sooner will an idea come into play than it will become a L or C word, and progress at resolving the underlying issue will become much, much more dificult unless one side controlled a majority. Example? Look at global warming now, its a real issue, but it has become an “L” word, so is scoffed at by a fair number of people who should otherwise know better if they opened their eyes.

And, if the Ds did control things that solidly (admittedly much harder for Ds the Rs)… Well, then would we see reasonably fair governance? Or, merely the flip side of the last eight or so years…

It's been proved true numerous times, however, that nice guys finish last.
Even so, I'm not sure that this group will ever be ready to abandon their self-image

Attacking conservatives is done by proxies like the NAACP who claim that Republicans want to put blacks back in the field picking cotton or the AARP who claim that Republicans want the elderly to eat dog food.