Virginia Postrel has a good post on the real-life consequences of allowing the verbal currency to be debased (e.g., the hijacking of the word "liberal" by the left).

Bush's rhetoric continues to have two major problems, neither of which is likely to disappear. The first, and most obvious, is that he says the enemy is terrorism rather than Islamicism using terrorism as a weapon (including against Muslims). The second, less obvious, is that he says we are fighting to defend democracy, when in fact we are fighting to defend liberalism (or liberal democracy). Iran is a democracy, in the normal sense of holding real elections, but it is not liberal.

The fundamental conflict is over whether the systems of limited, non-theocratic, individual-rights-bsed governments that developed over centuries in the West are good or bad. Outside of the academy and other intellectual circles, however, American political discourse has literaly lost the words to describe what the "civilized world" has in common. We think "liberal" means Hillary Clinton, when it also means George Bush.

I suspect too many people in Bush's base are hostile to liberal democracy (using the term as Postrel does).

There's an ugly strain in the Republican party. Big government conservatives who just want government to enforce their views. Consider, for example, The War on Drugs. Or, more subtly, the FBI or NASA where certain brands of religious fanatics have power that simply isn't justifiable.

Ms. Postrel managed to put her finger on something that has eluded me for a long time, namely, the exact reason why I always cringe when I hear "The War on Terrorism." Like she says, it is a rather poorly defined and inaccurate label (sort of like the war itself, I guess:-) since "terrorism" is such a wide concept.
---
"War on Islamicism" would be a real PR disaster in the Arab world, though, and I can see why the President tries to play down the "christianity vs. islam" element whenever he can.

MARCU$