We must step off the Daliesque carousel, stop, think and act. We cannot afford to do nothing. We have an election coming up rapidly. In a few months it will spin by.

Already voters in the dozen-plus swing states suffer through or surf away from arch ads which use the same sly tricks as any other ads. Bush calls Kerry unsure, anti-defense, and too liberal. Kerry says he's not liberal and deems Bush an unsteady and unaccountable failure. Spoiler Ralph Nader agrees with both viable candidates' attacks on each other, but all indications show he's helping Bush again. Time to stop the spin long enough to ask and answer a few questions. What does "liberal" mean anyway? And if Bush isn't "liberal," what is he?

"Liberalism" defines a wide spectrum of political, social and other thought extending from near-conservatism through moderation to the fringe of radicalism. It's a systematic, evolutionary approach to politics, like science is a thoughtful approach to the natural world. All the founders were liberal, as were Lincoln, both Presidents Roosevelt, and the three Kennedy Brothers. If someone is trying to reform, advance or refine something via cooperative and peaceful means, then that person is almost definitely a liberal.

Liberals in different fields established the modern governmental, social, economic and even religious frameworks most westerners take for granted. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, John Locke theorized, and their devotees like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton and hammered out new institutions.

Liberals founded new traditions such as limited government subject to provisional consent of the governed rather than divine right monarchy, and "free markets" with corporations in competition rather than chartered monopolies beholden to the whim of the crown.

Right wingers bitterly opposed these changes, of course, even to the point of violence against the reformers. During our Revolution against Britain, the right wing Tories backed the Crown and Mad King George III against George Washington with force of arms. In England, Edmond Burke understood the folly of trying to occupy and dominate another people. The British Tories ignored his wisdom.

As JS Mill wrote in a letter to a conservative Member of Parliament, Sir John Pakington in March, 1866: "I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

Times change and conservatives change too, albeit extremely slowly and reluctantly. Even if they support George Bush II today, what American would deny the superiority of our republican democracy over the colonial status under the English monarchy, or demand return to the royal fiat oligopoly 18th century conservatives defended against capitalist reform? Better late than never, we suppose.

It's possible to overstate the revolutionary vs. evolutionary character of these changes. A president or prime minister may resemble a temporary king, and corporations such as utilities and defense contractors mimic the exclusive right to conduct business the mercantile-era Dutch East India Company enjoyed. Still, there are bright line distinctions between leaders chosen through popular elections vs. divine right rulers of yore who held powerful office merely because their parents did. Present administration excepted.

Perhaps conservatives changed less over the recent centuries than usually considered. It's clear their views remain out-of-step. In his book "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth," Joe Conason reports that most Americans support liberal principles and policies - from tolerance and inclusion to Social Security and civil rights. Most even support national health care and prefer better services to deep tax cuts. Considering the range of opinion beneath the liberal umbrella, views too extreme to fit the expansive liberal label drift far outside the mainstream.

Conason debunks "Big Lies" including "The myth that Republicans are fiscal geniuses and champions of free enterprise," that only the right wing has "family values," conservative claims that liberals are "unpatriotic and anti-American," and Bush's claims he's a "compassionate conservative." Since these right wing lies are demonstrably false, why do so many Americans cling to the notion they're conservative? Conason details the failure of the corporate media and other reasons. Conservatives relentlessly misrepresent liberals, and millions of people remain fooled.

The problem is so bad many people refuse to accept - much less champion - the liberal label. Even John Kerry, whose voting record is clearly toward the liberal end of the spectrum, shuns that term. Howard Dean dismissed ideology, dedicating himself to the best policies no matter who developed them. It's better for people to choose leaders and leaders to choose policies based on merit and substance rather than style or packaging. In an ideal world, calling an idea or its proponents "liberal" or "conservative" should matter as little as the color of someone's tie or hat.

Still, in our era - with most people overloaded and stressed out, awash in confusing torrents of infotainment - a short-hand label which attracts and rallies supporters without demanding much from them has a huge advantage. When most Americans think they're conservatives, conservative politicians enjoy an important advantage. Especially when the tipping point is so precariously balanced, and the window for decisive action - casting a vote - telescopes down to as little as a single hour every four years for millions of "swing" voters.

Instead of fighting over the unfairly faded luster of the liberal label, people who care about America should focus in depth on the stakes in this election. Flatly stated, GW Bush is the worst president we've ever had. Even understanding he's really little more than a front man, even the careless corruption of Harding, the paranoia of Nixon, the delusional cold warrior bluster and infrastructure-slashing of Reagan all fell short of the Bush Administration's ability to fall short.

Let's check the record. This "President" and his administration lost the election, but benefited from five family friends in black robes willing to throw out votes in favor of expedience and partisanship. Since this judicial coup, nothing has knocked the Bush Junta from its fascist trajectory.

We've seen Bush, Cheney, Rove and others' audacious use of propaganda, repression, intimidation and even violence against critics. They ordered an actuary to withhold critical information from Congress - lying by omission - and threatened the career of a Republican representative's child. This to coerce passage of a single bill - their "shower tax dollars on HMOs and Pharmaceutical Corporations Act."

Even Republicans like Dan Burton decried "monarchical" Bush Administration tactics when they blocked local police efforts to arrest suspected an organized crime boss. This unelected ruling elite, this "Bush restoration" in Kevin Philip's phrase, practices vindictiveness imperious and petty alike.

When Bush I's former Ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson drew their ire, Bush's inner circle retaliated by "outing" his wife - an undercover agent entrusted with protecting us from weapons of mass destruction. This undermined our national security and imperiled all other agents and assets known to have known her.

At home and abroad, this regime flaunts its contempt for dissent and its scorn for international law and custom. Bush and Cheney made invasion and occupation of Iraq a primary policy rather than a last resort, although Iraq did not represent a clear or present danger. This on top of the secret documents and covert councils outlining conquest and pillage of Iraq which offered a strategic resource ripe for the taking, as well as a prime location for geo-political advantage in the PNAC power game. Operation Iraqi Liberation by any other name still spilled blood and spelled OIL.

Confused and corrupt, cynical and sinister, the men and women operating Bush Inc. have an unmatched record for failure. They surpassed all others at getting Americans killed on U.S. soil, running up debt, humiliating and alienating allies, coddling corporate criminals and polluters, and bald-faced lying to the media, the Congress and the American people.

Republicans can call this conservative with a straight face. They can even disingenuously point to much smaller-scale actions by previous American leaders from the Spanish/American War to the Grenada invasion. They cannot credibly deny that this violates traditional conservative precepts and ideals. Read my lips. That's not conservative.

So back to the label game: If Bush isn't "conservative" - compassionate or otherwise - what is he? What is Cheney? How about the so-called "neo-cons" and theocratic "movement" conservatives? Other than key building blocks of the Bush coalition, if they're not conservative are they something else?

It's hard to deny this Bush/Cheney "CEOcracy" resembles the "bundling" of business and government once openly called fascism by its practitioners, especially considering this statement: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- this from Benito Mussolini, who would know. Are the Bushistas fascistas?

Although labels matter less than the impact of the policies and actions, these Bush Inc. actions resemble Mussolini's a bit too closely. Considering the right wing extreme's relentless bad-faith attacks against mainstream Americans, moderates, progressives and liberals of all flavors shouldn't shrink from using an historically accurate label, even if it stirs passions. Especially if it stirs people to action. We shouldn't unilaterally disarm or refuse to call a fascist a fascist.

What is Fascism exactly? "An authoritarian form of statism that advocates 1. Private property, 2. State-centralized economy, 3. Militarism and 4. Nationalism" according to bkmarcus. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia notes, "The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses violent nationalism and racism (ethnic nationalism)."

Clearly the Bush/Cheney regime and associated operatives qualify on every point. The Bush administration seized power in an anti-constitutional judicial coup led by Scalia. Since then, they've assaulted civil and constitutional rights.

The Bushistas "bundle" together corporate and governmental power. No one personifies this more than James Baker, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and both Bushes who zigzagged between the White House and Pentagon and corporations which get $billions of tax dollars.

The Scalia's court rulings - even before blocking the ongoing fair Florida vote count to defending Cheney's refusal to make public his public-policy making secret energy commission - elevate corporate and big governmental power over individuals' rights and the Constitution itself.

No one can mistake the Fascistic resort to Herr Karl Rove's arch propaganda using the most modern PR techniques and censorship by intimidation, corporate media concentration and manipulation. Bush and Cheney embody violent nationalism as with their rush to war in Iraq, and Rove's announcement to a Republican gathering they would "campaign on war" - long before that imperial invasion.

Consider too the social regimentation demanded by the Patriot Act along with the wide-ranging intrusive police-state powers it grants the central government and the blatant racism the Bush Brothers used in throwing innocent Blacks off the Florida voting rolls.

This is all textbook fascism, and brings us back to the detainee abuse scandal. The Bush Team is falling back on its standard excuse. They didn't and couldn't be expected to know, if they did know they'd never have let it happen....

This is the same shallow refrain they sang about 9/11, the massive budget deficits and job losses, the flare up of violence in Iraq - in short everything people don't like about administration policies. This although there's ample evidence they did know in most cases and should have known in others.

Bush rewarded the mastermind whose memo justified torture with an appointment on the federal bench. Naming a pro-torture advocate to rule over others in an unelected lifetime appointment is a pro-Fascist decision if there ever was one.

At some point trying to distinguish gross negligence or recklessness from malign and Fascist intent becomes moot. These are two forks in a path which leads to a singular destination, the irrefutable conclusion that this crew is too inept or corrupt - or both - to remain in power.

John Kerry and John Edwards may or may not be wonderful, but they're clearly better than Bush and Cheney. More honest, more talented, more responsible, and much more mainstream. Perhaps many voters may wish Kerry and Edwards were less liberal, but many others wish they were more liberal. That puts them in the mainstream.

All Americans should demand a leadership much less right wing and fascist-leaning that what we have now. So most importantly, this election is a referendum on ourselves. We will define for world, for history and for our children who we are and what we value.

If we value freedom not fascism, we cannot endorse Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft's flirtations with tyranny. If we reward these leaders who misled us by allowing them another four years in power, then we will announce that our ideals are those of Tomas de Torquemada, not Thomas Jefferson.