Admittedly, I'm more of a wordsmith than a number cruncher. But I can still count.

That's why I'm trying to figure out why 'liberal' has become a four-letter word.

It was a word that, not too many years ago, was embraced and even welcomed by a segment of our nation's population. It wasn't a big deal.

Now, it seems 'liberal' has morphed into something of its own that is not particularly gratifying. Shock and horrors usually follow.

I'm sure you've heard the phrases:

"He's a liberal!"

Of course, the phrase is not limited to one gender.

"I'm not surprised. She's a liberal and it was obvious she'd vote that way."

Here's my favorite.

"I don't know why I listen to that Fields guy. He's just another member of the media and they're a bunch of liberals anyway."

Here's what's happened. Over the course of about the last 20 or so years, liberal's meaning has been altered into something that it truly isn't.

So, what does it mean? We're going to consult Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary for this one.

Here's some definitions.

"Given or provided in a generous and openhanded way."

"Lacking moral restraint."

"Broad-minded, not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms."

It seems Americans have automatically lumped the word into the second definition -- a negative connotation.

But looking at those definitions, it shouldn't be the case, especially when looking at the final definition.

If you take liberal by the third definition, I would hope that meaning is applicable to every journalist. Members of the media need to be unbiased and broad-minded. They need to take the facts, discern what is and isn't the truth, and take that information and give it to their readers, listeners, etc … in a fair and impartial manner.

Is every journalist going to do that? Unfortunately, no. Sadly, not every single government official, teacher, law enforcement officer, etc … is an upstanding individual, either. I'd like to think that most journalists are ethically above reproach, just like I believe each member of the above professions are.

But there's always going to be a few bad eggs. Still that doesn't mean someone should bend and twist a word's definition to something that it shouldn't be.

If being liberal truly means being broad-minded, then I embrace the word. If it means lacking moral restraint, then I despise it.

Either way, it shouldn't be given an assumed definition by society. We are all capable of thinking and choosing our own words, and shouldn't have to worry about being unfairly labeled by others.

Dan Fields can be reached at 434-2230 or by e-mail at :mailto:dan.fields@austindailyherald.com