Actually, only a liberal can

Today's NYTimes asks "Can a liberal be a unifier?"

Let's start by checking in with our handy Dictionary.com.

Here are some of the things that come up under the Definition of Liberal: (emphasis mine)

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

Here are some of the things that come up under the Definition of Conservative: (emphasis mine)

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.

9. a supporter of conservative political policies.

So, contemplating that for a bit, only a liberal can be a unifier.

Of course, if they mean ‘unifier’ in doublespeak…….

as in Dubi-ya’s promises of “I’m a uniter not a divider”(he is a “decider”);
Or someone who is a “reformer”; Or a “president of all the people not just those who voted for me”; Or someone who “restores integrity to the White House”; Or someone who believes “It’s the people’s money, not the government’s" etc etc etc......

for those doublespeak values, you need someone endowed with the certitude of bigotry, greed and lack of conscience. Someone disposed to preserving existing conditions, to limiting change....

then no, a liberal is not what you’re looking for.

Print this post