The American Prospect is one of those liberal publications so earnest in its desire to “do good” that making sport of their cluelessness hardly seems fair. Indeed, one could use a football analogy and penalize the perpetrator 15 yards, flagging him for unsportsmanlike conduct and piling on.

Don’t worry…we’re not gonna let that stop us.

The Prospect is running a contest to see if any of its readers can define liberalism in 30 words or less. No, I’m not joking:

We want you to submit a single sentence of no more than 30 words; click here to send an email to our editors. Please include your name and hometown (or, if you’d prefer that we withhold your name if we post your entry, let us know that instead). WeÂ’ll post some of our favorite entries as they come in, so bookmark this page and check back regularly.

The prize? Again, I’m going to have to quote directly because folks, you just can’t make this stuff up:

The Prospect staff will choose a winner by February 11, and he or she will receive a free one-year subscription to the Prospect, a copy of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s The Vital Center, an invitation to join our staff for a night out at our favorite haunt, and Robert Reich’s voice on the home answering machine.

“Robert Reich’s voice on the home answering machine?” I don’t know about you, but it may be amusing to try and think what message the former anti-capitalist, anti-business, pro high tax Secretary of the Treasury would leave on my answering machine:

“Hi! I’m Robert Reich and you’ve reached the residence of Superhawk. At the tone please leave your name, telephone number, IRS Identification number, and the amount you’ve paid in taxes for each of the last 8 years. Superhawk will get back to you. If I think you haven’t paid your fair share in taxes…so will the IRS…”

Scary prospect, that.

At any rate, how do American Prospect readers define liberalism? Some early entries:

Liberals believe in providing economic opportunity and security for all Americans, protecting the freedom and dignity of all people, and using AmericaÂ’s power to make the world a better place.—Matt Roder, Chicago

Yes, I know. Matt is a Repbulican. Unfortunately, he lives in Chicago where Republicans are as rare as Limonium bahamense and people are injected with an anti-Republican serum at birth.

Equality for all, privilege for none.—Mark OÂ’Connor

Now that’s more like it. Short, sweet, and incoherent. Liberalism is a mish-mash of moralistic mush defined by terms like “equality” and “privilege” that have no real meaning except when used to either prove one’s own moral superiority or tag the oppositon as elitist scumbags. P.J. O’Rourke said it best:

The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things – war and hunger and date rape – liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things… It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

Here’s another:

Liberals stand for opportunity for the little guy and gal; for investing in America’s future and demanding a return on our common investment.—Matthew Arnold, Kenosha, WI

This guy is definitely not a modern American liberal. He’s much, much, too practical for wanting a return on investment. Then again, would a conservative write something so forced and inane as “opportunity for the little guy and gal?”

Finally, this fellow indulges himself in the full panoply of liberal looniness:

Democrats stand for a level playing field: opportunity and education; good health and good jobs; personal safety and financial security; tolerance and freedom; and a government accountable to the people.—Sam Pratt, Hudson, NY

To dissect such moonbattery would tax the faculties of Socrates. If the government guarantees a “level playing field” how can it, at the same time stand for “freedom?” Freedom for who? In order to achieve that level playing field, someone’s freedom is going to be curtailed (certainly not the liberals’ freedom…that just wouldn’t do). Similarly, if the government guarantees “personal safety” one would have to assume limits on personal freedom to prevent people from doing things that could potentially harm themselves…like eating at McDonalds or sky-diving.

Here’s P.J. O’Rourke on the difference between liberals and conservatives:

Conservatism is sometimes confused with Social Darwinism or other such me-first dogmas. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. When those who are against conservative policies don’t have sufficient opposition arguments, they call love of freedom “selfish. ” Of course it is-in the sense that breathing is selfish. But because you want to breathe doesn’t mean you want to suck the breath out of every person you encounter. Conservatives do not believe in the triumph of the large and powerful over the weak and u seless. (Although most conservatives would make an exception to see a fistfight between Norman Schwartzkopf and George Stephanopoulos. If all people are free, George Stephanopoulos must be allowed to run loose, too, however annoying this may be.)

But some people cannot enjoy the benefits of freedom without assistance from their fellows. This may be a temporary condition-such as childhood or being me when I say I can drive home from a bar, just fine, thank you very much, at three a.m.-or, due to infirmity or affliction, the condition may be permanent. Because conservatives do not generally propose huge government programs to combat the effects of old age, illness, being a kid or drinking 10 martinis on an empty stomach, conservatives are said to be “mean-spirited.”

What’s truly amazing is that over the last decade or so there’s been a seismic shift in the definition of classic liberalism and classic conservatism. In short, the two ideologies have flip flopped. Liberals now stand for maintaining the status quo, fighting against change of any kind in government responsibilities like taxes, defense, foreign policy, social security, welfare, and the wise use of resources. Modern conservatives seek changes in all of these policies; not a return to a past where these policies didn’t exist but a fundamental shift in the relationship between the governors and the governed.

That’s what George Bush’s “Ownership Society” is all about. It’s not a reorganization of priorities but rather a redefinition of freedom in America. In a polyglot nation where people come from dozens of countries, speaking many languages and worshipping many gods, America has slowly been losing a true sense of identification with their own government. The cure for this, in the opinion of modern conservatives, is giving every American a financial and emotional stake in the country itself by allowing Americans to control their future. Personal retirement savings, health savings accounts, and a tax system that promotes investment and savings will give Americans a new sense of participation in America’s future.

Mired in the past, seeking to undermine freedom by abdicating any notion of personal responsibility, and obstructing changes in policies that would benefit all Americans; this is modern liberalism. The question remains if this tired, failed ideology can re-invigorate itself by allowing real self examination and introspective analyses of its faults.

UPDATE:

Welcome Polipundit readers! While you’re here, I’d like to draw your attention to a brand new conservative blog, “The Wide Awakes.” We’re a blog with 15 fantastic writers posting on a wide variety of subjects. Blogroll us!