We need an update in political terminology

Because the basics don’t exactly change, the use of terms is getting elastic, and terms are drifting all over the place in this campaign season.

When they start throwing words like “moderate” and “bipartisan” at you, the best thing to do is duck.

Here’s a brief on where we stand currently:

Within the electorate, “conservative” is regarded broadly as an acceptable word, or label. “Liberal” (or, horrors, “leftist”) is not. Polls suggest that regarding the labels “conservative” and “liberal,” about twice the number of Americans describe themselves as “conservative.” Because these days “liberal” carries many negative connotations, those of that ilk have appropriated to their self-descriptive use such words as “moderate,” “centrist” and “mainstream” — even “independent.” Practically everybody loves a moderate.

That’s key to know, because “moderate” has, indeed, become the new term for what we recently knew as “progressive” and just before that as “liberal”.

Now, a primer on where the parties stand, which I’m glad Ross Mackenzie wrote because I was about to put together something like this for people to navigate the muddled and ever-present political reporting.

The Republican Party is heavily conservative, the Democratic Party heavily liberal. Yet Republicans, as a group, are far more fractured ideologically.

The Republicans currently boast at least three camps: social conservatives (represented by for instance Mike Huckabee), economic conservatives (Mitt Romney), and national security conservatives (Rudy Giuliani and John McCain). The primaries feature a fight among those camps for dominance within the party — and ultimately the party’s presidential nomination.

That’s it in a nutshell. Now, the other party:

The Democrats do not feature comparable ideological division: For the most part, excepting the likes of a Joe Lieberman, they are liberals of one very leftist mind. From Social Security and energy and the environment to illegals and taxes and the toxic Texan,

…that would be president George Bush… 

they all say pretty much the same thing. All tend to regard global warming as a graver, more actionable threat than global terror. When asked by Charles Gibson in a New Hampshire debate to acknowledge that the Iraqi “surge” might be working, none would.

Which is interesting, because I’m starting to hear liberal television network commentators admit as much, respectfully paying deference to Gen. Petraeus for leading it well. And, as Mackenzie notes:

Even Congressman John Murtha admits the surge may be working.

So how are the Democrats distinguishing themselves? One way or another, by issues of race, gender and experience, mostly. And at the end of the day, “electability”. Now, what does that term really mean…?