From a reader:

You made an interesting point in your USA Today article that in Europe, a “liberal” is a someone who believes in free enterprise. The word “liberal” comes from the French word libre meaning “free”, so a French “libéral” (like President Nicolas Sarkozy) is someone who wants to “free” business from the fetters of socialism. In America, the word has come to mean someone who wants to “free” people from the restraining morals of Judeo-Christian culture, so they want freedom for abortion, divorce, adultery, sodomy, using illegal drugs, etc.
Senator Hillary Clinton’s re-labeling of American liberals as “progressives” is smart politics, although it’s a deliberately deceptive attempt to paint her opponents as “against progress”. We conservatives need a new label which defines us as advocates of a more noble goal than merely “conserving” the status quo. But words can be tricky—as one RedState commenter puts it, “if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress”?

Me: This actually tracks conversations I had on the cruise a few times. So a few quick points:

First, the history of the word liberal. Here’s how I understand it (and I am open to correction). The word “liberal” goes back to the Latin “liberalis” and was used to imply freedom. The “liberal” in the “liberal arts” stems back to the Middle Ages and implied not the progressivism of the George Stephanopoli of the world, but instead meant the skills and knowledge a free man should have at his disposal. But the word didn’t enter the political lexicon until 1812 in, of all places, Spain. The supporters of the Constitution of Cadiz called themselves los liberales because they opposed the absolute monarchy. The word migrated north through France and made it to England where it was used, still in its Spanish pronunciation, mostly in a derogatory way at first (which is funny because the Cadiz constitution was in fact a fairly British-style constitution). Sir Walter Scott preferred the French “liberaux.” By the 1830s the Whigs in Britain decided to own the insult and call themselves liberals. In the United States, the word wasn’t widely used by progressives and reformers to describe themselves until well into the 1930s. However, scholars have called those reformers and progressives “liberals” for decades.

Re: the need for conservatives to come up with their own label. No thanks. Sure, I’d like to have “liberal” back — at least to describe traditional libertarians – but I would oppose tooth and nail the idea of casting aside the word conservative simply to market it better. That’s the logic of “compassionate conservatism,” Kempism, and other schools of thought which hold that conservatism needs to adopt liberal assumptions in order to be “relevant.” The fact that conservatives are willing to stick by their ideas and label is a sign and source of conservative strength, not weakness. Coming up with some “progressive” sounding label for conservatives merely concedes an argument we need not concede. Conservatism didn’t need the adjective “compassionate” and it doesn’t need any other clever repackaging. It is what it is. If we need to embrace some new reforms that’s fine. Conservatives understand that times change. But just call them conservative reforms. Or just call them reforms conservatives can get behind.