[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
In particular, I wanted to point out that conservatives in the United States are constantly attacking liberals without really understanding what they are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The right's use of the word 'liberal' is more or less synonymous with "person/people/thing/idea I don't like" -- or even more bluntly, 'liberal' = 'not right-wing'.

My guess is, if you asked the average right-winger to define 'liberal', they'd just say things like: "hippie", "pussy", "tree-hugger", "PC police officer", "bleeding heart", "likes welfare", "hates old white men & the American heartland", "anti-Christian", "permissive morals", "baby killer" -- or whatever such ways the right throws out liberal to describe things they don't like.

So I think the right constantly attacks 'liberals' because they've so (successfully!) framed the word that, to your average right-winger (and in many ways to your average voter), it now instantly cues up images/words like "pussy", "bleeding heart", etc -- much to the benefit of the right/its candidates, who no longer need to detail specific policy differences/grievances with their Democratic/moderate Republican opponents; just slap their opponent's face in an ad and say 'liberal' as many times as possible in 60 seconds and -- viola!, you've created a successful campaign ad for a right-wing candidate.

So I don't think it's quite correct to say that the right 'doesn't understand what liberal means'. As I said, I think the right has so successfully framed the word ‘liberal’ that its common usage is now (at least for many in the US) more or less the same as the pejorative synonyms the right so skillfully managed to link it to over the last 30 years.

In other words, the right so adroitly perverted the meaning of the word that its 'classical' definition is now clearly differentiated from its 'contemporary' one.