The previous paragraph employs the standard model of the political spectrum, which ranges from Left to liberal to conservative to Right (the reason why some of those terms are capitalized, and others not, will be clarified shortly). But that model is hopelessly outmoded: where, for instance, do you place an engineerist on that continuum?

[P]art of the problem is that the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” are nearly useless now. There isn't any consensus as to what they really mean, or rather the consensus for each has been created by their opponents as ugly caricatures. I gave up on both words a long time ago, and I used to refer to myself as progressive until that term got coopted by some lunatics whose program I found repulsive. The technical meaning of “libertarian” (one who believes in liberty) is also decent, but Libertarian has also been coopted by lunatics. One of the participants in my forum coined the term engineerist to describe me, and I'm happy with that.

Engineerists are socially liberal, economically conservative and politically libertarian. Note the use of lower case letters on all of those words; I'm “socially liberal” but damned well not “Socially Liberal”.

The author of these remarks is Steven Den Beste, whose site is one of the entries in my blogroll not expressly conservative in outlook. His description implies that three axes (at least) are required to properly plot political orientation: one for moral issues (from social conservatism to liberalism), one for fiscal policy (fiscal conservatism to liberalism), and a third for level of government intervention (libertarianism v. statism). It would be an interesting exercise to, say, analyze what regions of this Cartesian 3-space have historically given rise to stable governing entities, or to trace the trajectory traversed by the American system of government through time.

(On second thought, the latter would be depressing.)

But such a project goes well beyond the scope of this post. To simplify matters, let's stipulate the existence of three poles: Left, Right, and Libertarian. The poles themselves are extreme positions; following Den Beste's usage, I will refer to these extremes with capital letters. For example: National Review is conservative (or right); the two Pats, Buchanan and Robertson, would be Right (or Conservative). Glenn Reynolds (of InstaPundit fame) is small-l libertarian; the Libertarian Party is large-L Libertarian (and is populated to large degree by certifiable freaks).

Small-c conservatives are well represented in my blogroll. Orrin Judd comes closest to being a Conservative, and might even claim that appellation. Libertarians are scarcer: as already mentioned, Steven Den Beste and Glenn Reynolds are rightly described being of the small-l variety (I have similar tendencies, though to lesser degree). Movement libertarians are represented by samizdata.net; a few, though certainly not all, of the authors at that group blog can safely be described as of the capital-L variety.

(On a regular basis I also read Hit & Run, the group blog of the libertarian [Libertarian?] magazine Reason. But Hit & Run is not on my blogroll, and likely never will be, as one of the criteria for inclusion is don't habitually piss me off.)

That leaves one pole still to be addressed. To be blunt, I despise Leftists (note the capital), even those who do not possess a religious fascination with Marxism and its equally vile offspring. A major part of this abhorrence is due to the universal embrace of postmodernism by the Left—an instrument that renders truth subject to context, that posits history as a social construction written by the ruling class. Subvert the dominant paradigm, and the history created by the former elite ceases to exist: nihilism in service of Progress, a tactic that may be adapted to erase any memory of incorrect cultural heritage, or to distort the legacy of a deceased President beyond all recognition, in furtherance of political ends.

But not all liberals are Leftists. During my initial explorations of the blogosphere two years ago, I despaired of finding fair-minded liberals whose work I could not only tolerate, but perhaps even look forward to reading on a regular basis. Recently I decided to try again, and thus far have found two: Roger L. Simon and Michael Totten. Both write incisively; and in addition to his literary gifts, Simon has genial charm to spare.

So two cheers for ideological diversity. Astute readers may, however, notice one pronounced unanimity: even my favored liberals support aggressive military action in the war on militant Islamist fundamentalism, and in particular the invasion of Iraq.

Make of that what you will.

UPDATE: For the sake of completeness, I should have noted that Roger Simon was, for most of his life, of the capital-L Left. But no longer.