The problem with "liberal"

Too often journalists, news commentators, writers, and politicians have taken to describing the common liberal as a "bleeding heart," a "tree hugger," or some other description that conjures an idea of a Starbucks-frequenting pacific northwest hipster who subscribes to Amnesty International's email listserve, while decrying the tyranny of "the man." Allow me state the fact: most everyone can agree upon, nobody likes that person. That guy or girl is annoying, touts a holier than thou image, and generally makes everyone around them feel insecure, as well as apathetic to their causes. In labeling liberals as this, the conservative movement does more to harm the left's appeal to the working man than almost any other ploy used. The great irony here, is that it is the conservative who should invoke feelings of bitterness from the middle class, it is the conservative who should be seen as the bane of a happy medium of income, and yet the working man hates "the liberal."

I avoid calling myself a liberal. When a more common descriptor is needed (in the place of "Socialist," democratic socialist, etc) I call myself a "progressive." I believe it conveys a less haughty meaning. The American left, as people see it, has been branded, and this most likely won't change. As long as people continue to believe it, the conservative populist movement will continue to condemn leftists as "latte-sipping" liberals, and the people will continue to agree. It is time for the Socialist to rise. The word has been tainted for so long in the past, and yet it is ready for rebirth. Let it now be used to describe the hard working, meager living, champions of the people, those who actually have something to gain from a change in our political system. The "liberal" has won us nothing, and his time is over, let the Socialist now rise to foment true change in America.