Positive/Negative for ...

Progressive: 67/22
Conservative: 62/30
Liberal: 50/39
Capitalism: 50/40
Libertarian: 38/37
Socialism: 31/60


http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/?src=prc-headline

As I have said, I have noticed it when interacting with people--mostly "conservatives" but not necessarily the extreme "conservatives". Of course they have it too, but I have noticed also in less ideological types this underlying hatred which will instantly turn them off to any logic or reason.

The use of the word liberal is not really what I am referring to, although it is related. The "conservative" weakness here is that there PR message does not match the reality and it occurs to me that we can negate that "conservative" PR quite easily. We're not doing it. At least if we are countering that particular PR, cranked out by "conservative" think tank wankers like Heritage and Cato, I'm not seeing it.

It actually seems to me that retreating to the word "Progressive" is just that, a retreat. We need a PR campaign promoting our real accomplishments, and they are real accomplishments starting with the founding fathers who were flaming liberals.

Where have they been successful in any meaningful way?

I have this theory about syllables and the more there are, the harder it is to attach a meaning to.
Where - Conservative has 4 and has been stuck with a meaning for a while and it is hard to change.
While - Liberal has 3 and it took a few years to attribute a meaning to it.

During the early 90s it wasn't a term that people ran away from.

I keep thinking that I shouldn't call a "Conservative" conservative, just because they usually are not "conservatives", they are cons, and from here-on-out I will just call them that.

A singular syllable, easy to remember, and easy to attribute.
Mitt Romney is a con, Limbaugh is a con, see how easy that is?

Used in a sentence.

"Con man Mitt Romney says that releasing tax documents will give more ammunition against his campaign."

"Conservatives" are not conservative. They are radical. They want radical changes. They may cloak that change in a veneer of nostalgia but their vision is nevertheless a radical one, so they can't be really conservative. Actually it's clear to me that contemporary American "conservatives" are to the right of conservatives on the real political spectrum (as opposed to the nonsense that the think tank wankers have tried to spin). This position on the legitimate political spectrum, to the right of conservatives, is occupied by fascists.

And interestingly fascists have always rejected the legitimate political spectrum, claiming that they don't fit anywhere on that spectrum. But they are authoritarians so that puts them squarely between conservatives and aristocrats.

But in the meantime we are attacking "conservatism" and that isn't registering enough, IMHO. We really ought to be cranking out more of the undeniable reality of the superiority of liberalism.

Though I am a firm believer of "simplify".
Simplify the message, condense it, but always ALWAYS be able to provide back up and a more thorough explanation.

I think that many people already know the score and are supporting liberal causes and candidates. Many of those who are conservative and republican are not going to change right now regardless of the evidence - they will simply ignore any evidence that contradicts the truth as they see it.

bryant

How about the longer run?

A hatred of the feminine, the perceived weakness, the cooperator rather than the competitor, the warrior rather than the farmer, the Id rather than the Superego.

And, I blame Paterfamilia and Christianity for this hatred.

Paterfamilia is very much alive today. Only today, it is considered "Traditional Family Values"

That's definitely part of their appeal.

That's what it is.

Very insidious, very deliberate. The very sort that has preceded civil war and genocide.