liberal meaning

The phrase “purely academic” applies so perfectly to certain arguments.  I take the meaning to imply that only students and bureaucrats have the time to debate issues that have limited importance to most people.  My favorite of these issues is the debate within the libertarian influenced realm over the difference between the ideas liberal and classical liberal.  Historical uses of the word liberal differ significantly from the modern usage (in America).  In its essential form liberal has the political connotation of being for freedom.  Most indoctrinated libertarians see the word in this way:

“of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives”  (def 6, M-W.com)

This seems to fit with the history and foundation of this country (at a time where the word was the same in English and Americanish), but it remains slightly unfamiliar to those who are content to use the word liberal as a pejorative for advocates of a welfare state.  Let’s try another definition: 

“a : marked by generosity : Openhanded <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded” (def 2, M-W.com)

That seems to fit much closer to its intuitive usage.  That I believe is what I see most often, someone is described as a liberal if they have blind faith in redistributing income.  The rub comes in where the so called “classical liberals” mean to reduce government, and the modern liberals need large government to carry out their policies.  In a way, these polar ideas are represented by the same etymological accident. 

It creates some frustration to constantly have to map the meaning of liberal from revered texts of free market economics and classical liberalism onto the modern political dialogue.  The temptation is to use the word in the eloquent way  that it was intended, originally.  The best irony of all is that the word has another meaning:

"Broad-Minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms" (def 5, M-W.com)

This meaning seems to laughably exclude the debate I was just referring.  If Liberals are open minded and shunning orthodoxy, then what is the problem with the word liberal having such a meaningless hodgepodge of definitions?  Much like the other academic debate over the definition of “rational” this debate cements the fundamental beauty of language, this being the spontaneity and disorder which it requires in order to remain dynamic.  My understanding is that certain languages have tried to eliminate innovation, latin being the most tragic example of failure to do so.  The French have similar motives and are used as an example of futility in this regard.  English and its parent language German, seem to embrace innovation, which may explain the dominance of these languages during high periods of academy.  I have a hard time, however, imagining that there are German words so hopelessly convoluted as the English word “liberal.”

For the actual story of the evolution in difference between American and English liberal see the wikipedia article.