Thread:Blue in the Red Zone/@comment-681745-20150811084252/@comment-26279493-20150811201334

Sure. It might be a bit confusing to some of the young ones, but maybe a new category would work if we can think of an appropriate one. There are plenty of historical Liberals who seem "Not Liberal" by today's standards, yet were undoubtably Liberal. I labeled the Radical Republican's of the post Civil War as "Not Liberal" recently. They were socally liberal, yes, but they wanted to force change onto someone else. There had been a progression of populist representation up to that point. It had been a popular progression, not an authoritarian dictate from a distant ruler. The Radicals used authority on a distant unrepresented population, and that's not Liberal. Maybe a "Not always Liberal" category would work for some people, but even that could be misused.