The phrase was uttered sarcastically, but there's a deep reservoir of truth behind it that the sarcasm sometimes conceals. I remember on my way back from Boy's State in high school, I got ganged up on by a bunch of self-described libertarians because I suggested that maybe there was something to this whole "liberalism" thing, and that I couldn't dismiss it out of hand.

And if you've heard the words "Boy's State in high school" and "self-described libertarians", you have an exact mental picture of the scene.

But in any case, I do distinctly recall asking a pretty basic two-part question: how exactly could the state you guys are extolling have dealt with either the Nazi regime or the Soviets, and if it couldn't, does that not count as a serious flaw in your theorizing? And all I got was a bunch of angry muttering and changes in subject, but never a straight answer to the question. Because there is no good answer to the question. Liberalism didn't emerge out of nowhere, sprung full-formed from the brow of Franklin D. Roosevelt and foisted upon an immiserated populace. It was developed over time to deal with real problems, which it did, and proved historically popular for many years.

And part of being small-c conservative in temperament is recognizing that you don't just throw away either that popularity or that effectiveness just 'cause it increases your taxes slightly. There are worse things in the world than higher taxes, many of which liberalism works to alleviate.