[DoctorBretonDen]

Why do so many Americans hate liberals?

Realizing the inexact nature of the term "liberal" and the variance in meaning when self applied versus when used as a label -- in addition to the 20th century 'newspeak' co-opting of the term -- I'll offer some thoughts.

Classically the term liberal referred to someone who believes in the axiomatic virtue of human liberty, self determination, and personal achievement -- grounded fundamentally in practice by the necessity of equal treatment of all under the law. In contrast, the contemporary liberal is a collectivist who believes egalitarianism can and must be promoted by inherently unequal government policies -- not egalitarian treatment -- but egalitarian ends.

Nowhere is the difference between the reasoning of the older liberalism and that of neoliberalism clearer and easier to demonstrate than in their treatment of the problem of equality. The liberals of the eighteenth century, guided by the ideas of natural law and of the Enlightenment, demanded for everyone equality of political and civil rights because they assumed that all men are equal. God created all men equal, endowing them with fundamentally the same capabilities and talents, breathing into all of them the breath of His spirit. All distinctions between men are only artificial, the product of social, human—that is to say, transitory—institutions. What is imperishable in man—his spirit—is undoubtedly the same in rich and poor, noble and commoner, white and colored.

Nothing, however, is as ill-founded as the assertion of the alleged equality of all members of the human race. Men are altogether unequal. Even between brothers there exist the most marked differences in physical and mental attributes. Nature never repeats itself in its creations; it produces nothing by the dozen, nor are its products standardized. Each man who leaves her workshop bears the imprint of the individual, the unique, the never-to-recur. Men are not equal, and the demand for equality under the law can by no means be grounded in the contention that equal treatment is due to equals.
Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism In The Classical Tradition," p. 27
An excellent illustration of the point can be seen in the concept of The Height Tax, NYTimes 2007.

A foundational tenet of today's liberalism is that treatment of non-equals unequally -- though indistinguishable in their basic humanity and dignity -- for the purpose of causing them to become equal by some pluralist metric is permissible, desirable, and even obligatory.

This is not to say that the majority -- or even a significant number -- of Americans opposed to today's distorted understanding of the term liberal have such a clear ideological opposition. I fear it is due in large part to the ignorant misguided populism described by ablarc.

Regarding the 'war on words' article above, I hold out some hope that in trying to combat the republican sophistry regarding their slur like use of the term liberal, some socialistic types might go back and read some early works defining the irreducible ideals of classical liberalism and see the error of their ways. But sadly, the likelihood that today's liberals will rebrand themselves as progressives and distance themselves from the term leaving it deemed a toxic label by both sides of the contemporary mainstream is far more likely. With this turn the complete destruction of the enlightenment's core principles will be complete.