Recently, Andrew Gideon posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Please. Such positions are ignorantly Fascistic, not liberal. Trying
to sell us on the idea that record deficits are of no concern is
liberal. Fiscal irresponsibility is liberal. So, if the party
embraces those that hold such views, one merely has to decide where
they stand on such points. I don't find the choice all that hard to
make.

Interesting. I've been under the belief that "liberal" referred to
the freedom with which one read the Constitution and related
documents. A "conservative" reading limits government to what's
described, a "liberal" reading permit government to do whatever the
reader thinks the authors would have intended had they written the
documents in the current era.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have evolved and warped a lot since
those definitions. The politic has pretty much rendered them meaningless
labels used as quick-references for "the other guy". I tend to look at
their behaviors and ignore their rhetoric to determine such things.

So what you're calling "liberal" above (a lack of fiscal
responsibility) I'd simply call "stupid" at best (at worse:
dishonest, robbing future funds to buy today's elections).

No argument, here. It *is* stupid, short-sighted, and dishonest.

Hmm...I suppose that this makes the tariffs not liberal but stupid (or
worse) by my own definition.

However, even using your definition, we've still a pretty liberal
administration in office today: tax breaks combined with war spending?
Deficits rising without consideration of consequences?

What's a good conservative to do?

It's called a "clean sweep" over the next two years. Oust every nitwit
that thinks such policies are a good idea, regardless of their party
affiliations. Anything short of that is merely supporting the status quo.

Neil