The problem I have with this debate is
The problem I have is one of definitions. Terms like liberal, progressive, conservative, fascist, right & left (in terms of the political spectrum), etc., are notoriously difficult to define. As Revoltingest mentioned, historically liberal meant something much more like today's libertarian (see, e.g.
Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse by Professor von Keuhnelt-Leddihn). Today, it is often used synonymously with progressive, leftist, or even democrat (the latter-most being the most incorrect and infrequent). Given the nebulous nature of these terms, it becomes all the easier to demonize one's opponents. For example, it is fairly common to place any oppressive regime on the right of the political spectrum. Properly speaking, though, many fascist regimes were born out of the foundation of much leftist thought (the french revolution), are (or were) collectivist systems, and are (or were) therefore more properly leftist institutions. Another common fallacy is to define various people who commit acts (usually violent) by who/what they are attacking, whether an institution, a person, a gathering, etc. A good example of this is recent attempts I have read by both the left and right to claim Jared Loughner as "a leftist" or "a conservative" given X or Y, rather than a more complete ideological system he adhered to.
