I got into a ‘discussion’ with a friend a little while ago about librulism and its failings.

I took an unusual line of argument with which my interlocutor took strong issue. I defined librulism as I understood it. He said “You can’t DO THAT! You can’t just define it the way you like.” I thought that over and replied “Yes I can.” I will present my case before you, today’s jury, and you can render your verdict, either unanimous, or more likely, not. But first let me summarize HIS impression of librulism.

He said it was squishy, and soft-headed, and tended to blindness about inefficiencies and lack of actual results. This is a common complaint, and one I’ve had myself. But libruls have spent some time out in the desert since Reagan and have to some extent come to recognize that these charges can’t be dismissed out of hand. At least I have. But a tendency does not define an ideology. I define an ideology. At least I define an ideology as I understand it and am prepared to defend it. So here’s MY definition of librulism, including in it a self-correcting mechanism that I think rightly belongs there. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

Librulism is the evidence-based and results-based political philosophy that places a high value on social justice.

Postscript: I consider environmentalism to be a conservative issue that libruls adopted because of neglect.