Silvio Berlusconi and Forza Italia never really seemed particularly “Conservative” to me. Not that I follow Italian politics closely, but it seemed to me that the politics of Berlusconi were based more on populism and could range from being fairly centerist to extremely left depending on the mood of the public.

But Sarkozy could be seen as being a very charasmatic leader who is portrayed as a "rock-star" ...

With that said, if you investigated the portrayal of candidates and leaders in westen democracies over the past 25 years you would find that the number of leaders who are portrayed as "Rock Stars" on the left is probably 2 or 3 times as many as are on the right.

But, once again, my point wasn't "Who does it more" as much as simply that it is a problem. When you have a leader that people follow without questioning them you can end up in a place you probably didn't want to arrive at.

Calling for academics in colleges and universities to stop indoctrinating their students into a particular political ideology is not "anti-intellectualism" or "anti-academic"

Wikipedia says that both Forza Italia and Berlusconi's new party, The People of Freedom, are centre-right parties.

Anyaway, you're right about it not being important "who does it more". Realistically, none of the leaders from Western countries that can be considered "rock stars" are anything close to the likes of Hitler. The conditions for the rise to power of a Hitler-like individual are just not there. Such individuals need economic turmoil and political instability to rise, essentially a country in ruins, and desperate people who aren't thinking logically. And if you wanna blame someone, you should blame the people, as they're the ones who gladly embrace such individuals (I blame people's obsessions with "messiah" figures).

Still, I don't really think you can accuse any dictator that has ever existed of being a "liberal" in any shape or form.

It seems to me like it's just propaganda meant to create a negative view of academia, and ultimately promote anti-intelectualism. The same accusations were brought against intellectuals in all countries that eventually became dictatorships (they're "indoctrinating" students), including my own. Please tell me what exactly is this political ideology in which students are being indoctrinated in.

I agree. It's long past time that we stopped conflating leftism with liberalism when the two have so little in common.

Liberalism and conservatism are in opposition FTR.

In the modern parlance, sure, but not really, no. If you are a conservative (that is, one who adheres to traditional institutions) in a (classically) liberal country, you may well be a liberal as well as a conservative. Today's "liberals", on the other hand, are just leftists by another name, and there is little liberal about them.

Modern day conservatives, staying true to term "conservatism" oppose things like liberty and freedom. There's nothing liberal about them. And what's the problem with being a "leftist"? It's certainly better than being on the right.

False. Liberalism is a well defined and universal ideology - a liberal is a liberal anywhere in the world. Conservatism is a relative term and entirely dependent on where the person lives. A conservative in the USA is not the same as a conservative in Uganda.

Whether or not leftists are preferable to righties is a matter of opinion, I suppose. But as self-righteous busybodies, leftists are decidedly illiberal.

Wrong.

Modern day conservatives want liberty and freedom - but primarily for market sectors, and not personal sectors. That is 'conservative' as most nations have had less regulation/economic controls in the past, thus they want to 'conserve' this. Likewise, most personal freedoms have been restricted in the past, thus want to 'conserve' it.

Likewise, modern day liberals want the opposite of this - market restrictions and personal freedoms.