I just defined liberalism as "equality, privacy, diplomacy"

in a conversation with a Republican friend. Would you accept that definition?

It was actually an interesting conversation. He knows that things are bad, but doesn't see how bad, how close the army is ceasing to exist as a functional force. How bad the nascent civil war is in Iraq, how much we need to get out, regardless of who calls us "pussies", "weak", or "decadent".

Still, he by no means completely unaware, but definitely hostile to the Democratic Party. He thinks we should care more about our image, that the recent comments by Durbin and Dean made us look crazy. Naturally, I set him straight about that.

Overall, not an experience completely devoid of hope.

The party hasn't been able to connect with them because of the resistance from the corporate news media and the conflicts of interests within the party itself because of special interest money.

He seems like a moderate. Just present your facts and evidence, and he should weigh it for what it is.

Democrats are more worried about substance.

Your three nouns work well for me, especially number one.

I use this:

lib·er·al \Lib"er*al\, Adj. 1. Favoring political and social reforms tending towards democracy and personal freedoms for the individual; advocating reform or progress in education, religion, etc. 2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; not bigoted. 3. Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 4. Describing Democratic forms of government, as distinguished from monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies, fascism, etc.

And Say The Right-Wing are the opposite.