There's so much more in terms of specifics, but I wanted to make a sort of meta-point first.

1. fair taxation - which means you make more, you pay more and corps pay their share as well.  

2. welfare state - probably could think of a better term but this is the clearest.  I support a safety net for people when they need it.   I also support programs to help them to not need it as long as needs like child care are met during that transition time.

3. worker rights - all that good union stuff.  In my fantasy land the unions are run by honest people who would never fall victim to temptation.

4. minority rights - including reproductive freedom and education for women

Conservatism, on the other hand, classically believed that government - critically concentrations of power and restriction at the government level - was always and essentially bad. These days you have to refer to this conviction as "movement conservatism" to distinguish it from the enculturation of the concept. But there you have it: the movement conservatives hate government. Pure and simple. Of course, these guys invented lots of window dressing to make this look nice - starting long ago with Adam Smith's invisible hand, moving through various iterations until Bork tells us in "The Antitrust Paradox" that monopolization is essentially impossible and/or benign, so we don't need antitrust laws, then Reagan gets groovy with supply-side seducto-speak.

Never mind that we know what unrestricted, big corporate power looks like - read Charles Dickens for that.

Now, I hedged my initial sentence by saying this "used" to be an obvious answer. Two reasons I said that. First, with the frankensteining of movement conservatism and the evangelical right, all of a sudden the little "c" conservatives think that government is GOOD if it uses its power to keep us from debasing ourselves culturally. So government is bad if it helps you get a job or an education, but good if it keeps you from engaging in your sordid little private life. Second, today's conservatism seems utterly unconcerned about the actual way in which government power (for whatever ends) is actually exercised. Don't like the CIA because they don't agree with your every whim? Purge it! Don't think your cabinet is obsequious enough? Fire them and replace them with your personal staff! Don't like people knowing what your government is up to? Blame the media and never hold press conferences! Etc.

So the easy answer - liberals/progressives have an inherent faith in the ability of government to bring about positive change, conservatives don't - is maybe not so helpful anymore. For what it's worth, I think the tension in modern conservatism will eventually cause some degree of rupture, but it's hard to be optimistic about the costs of that rupture.

What's left? After all this spilled ink it's probably anticlimactic, but I think Lakoff's take is pretty good. It would be nice to find a simpler articulation, a unifying theme, but it may well be that we're a coalition of grass roots localisms.

Personally, I incline very much to the way of thinking articulated by Wendell Berry and the like. Essentially, that what we have lost as a society is the sense of community and interconnectedness that was a necessary result of local, self-sustaining economies. Obviously there is a limit to how self-sustaining a local economy can be these days. There is also the danger of the cultural severity of this model, the inherent parochialism of that model. On the other hand, I think much of the alienation and anger that the conservatives have tapped into is a result of the very policies that the conservatives champion. Middle Americans bemoan the loss of community stability and personal connection, but shop at big box discount stores. They worry about job security but vote for politicians that encourage bolstering the corporate bottom line whatever the cost to "human capital." They worry about the vapidity of modern culture but tivo Survivor and Extreme Makeover. And so on. Essentially we've moved from strip mining our natural resources to strip mining our human resources - our cultural sensibilities and human communities.

As a policy take, I think the germ of genius is in the idea of making the Democratic party the party of small business - whether it be the locally owned bookstore, the family farm, the independent doctor's group. I also think we need to avoid overcorrecting for the "moral values" issue or the "national security" issue or whatever the currently fashionable explanation for the liberal malaise might be.

And much more to the point, I think we need to reaffirm our commitment to our faith in the individual American. All the post-election rhetoric from the left has been essentially pessimistic - middle Americans are stupid, or uninformed, or lazy, or fat, or racist, or homophobic. But the Democratic party has always and should still stand for the proposition that our people can be great if they are given the chance to do so. We should stand for opportunity, for the ability of people to do well when given a fair shake. Think about this - this conviction was the root of the labor movement, public education, civil rights, women's rights, on and on - we want to give the common person, no matter who they may be, a level playing field and the right to achieve and prosper (in every sense of the word).

They believe that humans are, or can be, involved in the long march of human progress toward a peaceful, prosperous civil society.

They believe that government is both necessary and good, in order to (1) organize some aspects of civil activity and (2)counteract concentrations of self-interested power that develop because of economic or other natural forms of inequality.

Within the scope of what is considered todays liberalism is a myriad of that I consider political platforms and agendas. These platforms and agendas, put fourth by literally anyone who is a special interest in this country have clouded the waters of that liberalism is and more to the point its managed to cloud the ideology of  the people who would naturally identify themselves as a liberal.

I'm glad you asked this, I was planning on putting up a diary on this particular topic, however since you started it, then I'll make my comments here.

I think that when we look to define that liberalism is we need to avoid getting it mired in political agendas, nor do we need to make it a stance or view of the democratic party or any other political party for that matter. The way to fix this is to identify clearly the values and beliefs that make up today's liberals and progressives.

There once was a CEO of one of the largest corporations in the world who had a policy that any endeavour, any project, any direction of the company should be able to be articulated in a 10 page presentation or less. If you could not do so, then you were not focused enough on the core of that you were trying to say.

Using that, I've been thinking for some time about what I think are the core beliefs of liberalism. I've been thinking that there are some caveats to coming up with the list, but in essence, I'd like to see 10 core beliefs, that are 1. Time tested, meaning they will stand the test of time 2. Clear differences between today's conservatism as it's practiced, and 3. Can be easily understood by anyone who hears them.

Not I don't know that all of them are, I have my ideas, here are 10 that come to mind right
off the bat

1. Diversity
   
2. Open Government
   
3. Liberty
   
4. Economic and Social opportunity
   
5. Fiscal Responsibility
   
6. Religious Freedom
   
7. Fair Taxation
   
8. Individual Rights
   
9. Corporate Responsibility & Integrity
   
10. Clean Environment
    

I know that there are many more, however I wonder if we can't all come up with a list of 10 that encompass the core of our beliefs and get that message out there and stick to it. If we could get agreement and get these fundamental core beliefs out there everywhere then I think we could start changing some hearts and minds as to what liberalism is and what we stand for.

I have made an attempt to stay away from political policy positions, there's a reason for that, personally I think that we'd do better starting a "Progressive Coalition" and lobby the Dem's or whoever on our views and positions based on the core beliefs, however, it would not bother me if a party picked up on this and ran with it. Notice that you don't see anything like this coming out of the Conservative side, that's because they really don't have any core beliefs that stick or are really very popular at all.

Once 10 are agreed upon, then we could have 10 pages for each one, I.E, you could easily break down "Open Government" into 10 core beliefs of that it stands for and so on.

What do you fine folks think?

I don't think I'm being overly naive when I say that most self-identifying conservatives (not those in power, mind you, just regular voters like you and me) would like to have a world where poverty is extinguished and peace reigns worldwide.  

The difference between "them" and "us", as things stand now, is that "they" believe that an unregulated free market can get us closer to that world than a regulated market, and "we" believe the opposite.    

The challenge, as many have said in these pages, is to articulate our argument in the clearest terms possible, and get our message out.

Now, why do conservatives believe that the free market is the best solution to social problems?  The reasons are not as simple as we sometimes think: it is not just small-minded, short-sighted pettiness; it is not stupidity.  These play a part, of course, with some conservatives, but I'm afraid to say I have known some small-minded, short-sighted, petty, and not-too-bright liberals in my day as well.

Having posed the question, though, why others think the free market can solve social problems, I'll just refer people to the origins of the concept--in Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and Thomas Malthus.  I'm sure I'm missing some important earlier and later figures, but those would be a pretty good start.

What we need to do is articulate a rebuttal to that argument, in the clearest terms, making it relevant to every individual in the red states AND the blue states.

An afterthought: there may be a more profound difference between liberals and conservatives--such as the sincerity of the desire to abolish poverty, and the true equality of men and women of all races that that would entail--but  to those who do not believe in the value of equality, could we hope to change their mind?  I think a better goal, if we are to think of the problem in practical terms, is to win over the "soft" conservatives, who have the same ideals as we do, but simply believe that an unregulated free market is the way to achieve them.

1. We are morally obligated to pass on to our grandchildren a better world than the one we inherited.

This is why we fight for the environment, education and don't believe we should pass huge debts on to our children.  This is why we invest in the infrastructure of our country.

2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

We must treat all people with respect, fight for their rights, stand up for those without a voice.  The Golden Rule is easy and meaningless when dealing with friends, family and those like yourself, its power in application comes when dealing with those you disagree or don't understand.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it."

3. Understanding is reached through reason, openness, discourse and criticism: The Enlightenment.

We believe in the philosophy of enlightened reason, the philosophy on which this country was founded, the philosophy that powers democracy, science and capitalism.  No person holds a monopoly on truth.  Likewise, no entity should hold a monopoly on power.

Liberty is a given, since liberalism is fundamentally anti-authoritarian, and has been since its earliest recorded stirrings in pre-Socratic Greece. Although "personal autonomy" might be a better way to put it in our age, since it retains more of the sense that responsibility (to one's own conscience or God, not a coercive outside force) and capacity are inextricable part of the package.

Reality, too, is a liberal priniciple--it was those same early liberals who both invented science and applied its fruits to revising notions of human nature & possibility. They were the first evolutionists--2,000+ years before Darwin--and they used their theories of evolution to counter the conservative myth of a bygone golden age.

Equality is what most clearly differentiates liberalism's commitment to freedom from the selective "freedom" of other philosophies which is more accurately a form of privilege, entailing lack of freedom for others.  It doesn't mean precise material equality, nor does it mean a denial of deal differences, a devaluing of excellence, or any of the other false associations that conservatives love to make.

What it does mean is that we are all equal in our most fundamental essence--in our personhood, in our right to be treated with dignity, and that all things that may be unequal about us are fundamentally subservient to those things in which we are equal. As it says in the Gospels, "Whatsoever ye do to the least among these, ye do also to me."
Fraternity is what makes this principle live and give jor--rather than being a duty or a burden--and  also thrive in synergy with liberty, which could otherwise be a mechanical opposite.

Finally, progress. Because we are all--individually and collectively--incomplete. Because we are wayfarers on a journey to the stars.

If we Liberals fight for Justice, We fight for a whole set of values that conservatives fight to destroy.

Progressives and liberals see the role of government as being to protect and serve the people.  Conservatives, while preaching an ideology that minimizes the need for and efficacy of government, have no scruples, when they are in power, about using the available mechanisms of government to protect and serve their own interests and those of big business and the upper class.

So the clear difference is in whose interests are being protected, and who is being served.

Progressives and liberals stand for protecting and serving the people.