It's becoming very difficult to discuss politics at all without being shouted at or called names, or being lumped into one or more odious categories (usually by self-appointed spokespeople for one category or another).

Any discussion of politics is hamstrung by what can only be called fanatic devotion to a showdown between an increasingly shrill left, and an increasingly "religious" (a term I use for lack of any alternative, save "fundamentalist") right. This showdown is motivated by the desire of both loud minorities to make America "choose" between two sides the majority don't wish to choose: fundamentalism or Marxism. The 9/11 attacks initially united most Americans, but the seeds of the present nastiness were planted right at the beginning, when defensive leftists as as well as defensive fundamentalists blamed America for the attack. (Not surprising, considering that the ferocious fundamentalism of the America's new enemies was matched only by their slick utilization of anti-American multiculturalism.)

It has been all too easy for both parties to go with this flow. Thus, we are increasingly seeing the emergence of the shrill Party of God versus the equally shrill Party of Michael Moore -- both of which, by their incessant noise, make it as easy as possible to mutually characterize the two loudest noises as the only two choices.

That Americans don't want to be run by the Party of God or the Party of Marx/Moore/Foucault is not only irrelevant, it's become an opportunity, because when the majority is turned off, the minorities run amok.

I wish I could see a solution, but I don't. Goldwater Republicans and Lieberman Democrats have lost out, because they are liberal in the classical sense, and classical liberalism is no longer on the political chart.

The following is not my definition of political liberalism, but it comes from a dictionary written when the word liberal was definable. When being liberal did not mean atheist, communist, RINO, DINO or mealy-mouthed, easily-manipulated sellout. For what it's worth, here it is:

Not bound by authority, or orthodox tenets, or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; often often specif., having tendency towards democratic or republican, as opposed to monarchical or aristocratic, forms; as liberal thinkers, liberal Christians, liberal ideas in politics; -- hence [cap.], adopted as the designation of of political parties in some countries, notably England. In England the designation of liberal was first applied in the first quarter of the 19th century to the more radical elements of the Whig party, with an element of reproach, but soon supplanted Whig both as an adjective and a noun, as, about 1830, Conservative supplanted Tory, the earlier names being reserved for the conservative minority in each party. See CONSERVATIVE, adj., 4. RADICAL, adj., 3. TORY, 3; UNIONIST, 2 c, WHIG.
Syn. -- LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT. As applied to living, LIBERAL suggests freedom or abundance, GENEROUS emphasizes the idea of a warm-hearted readiness to give; as, a liberal (cf. a generous) provision for one's needs; a liberal offer, a generous portion. Liberal also suggests freedom from prejudice or narrowness; generous, magnanimity, esp. in judging; as liberal opinions, liberal in one's religious views; a generous opponent; generous in praise of a rival. BOUNTIFUL suggests abounding liberality; MUNIFICENT, splendid or princely generosity; as "a worthy gentleman.... as bountiful as mines of India" (Shak.): "Lady Bountiful" (Farquhar); a munificent endowment. Cf. PLENTIFUL, PROFUSE.
Ant. -- Stingy, grudging, mean, narrow, bigoted. See PARSIMONIOUS. Webster's New International Dictionary (Second Ed., 1958), at 1424.

Not today!

Obviously, words change. (Interesting discussion here.) Liberal is no longer liberal, and conservative is no longer conservative. But changing definitions don't change human nature, and there are still plenty of liberal thinkers ("not bound by authority, or orthodox tenets, or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion") in the United States.

Such people are like fish out of water.

Maybe that's why so many of them are ready to walk.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: Factor in morality and things get even more complicated. Whether morality is liberal or conservative (or right wing or left wing) depends on much more than one's personal morality. Amazingly, one can be very conservative morally (even a total prude), yet not be considered a moral conservative. By today's standards, "moral conservatism" has little to do with personal morality. Unless one wishes the government to dictate moral standards (including, if necessary, by the use of force), it is unlikely that the dominant moral conservative ideologists will allow one to make a claim of being a "moral conservative." (You can be, for example, personally opposed to pornography, and even hate it, but unless you believe that the government should imprison people for it, you'll be called "pro-pornography" and a "moral relativist." On the other hand, you can be a drug-taking hedonist, and as long as you insist that these activities be criminalized, you're a moral conservative. You're judged not by what you do, but by what you'd force others to do.)