Basically, he seems quite right, give or take a bad example or two.
I think he made a mistake by trying to extend the liberal/conservative dichotomy from programmers to languages. His obsession with static typing versus dynamic typing (which he apparently sees as the universal Manichean struggle underlying every single programming question ever) causes him to label languages in a way that contradicts the way he labels programmers. This is especially apparent right now when many of his "liberal" languages (notably Perl 5, PHP, Python, Visual Basic, and Javascript) are safe, established, corporate-friendly languages that any timid Blub programmer would tackle without anxiety, while many of his "conservative" languages (notably Scala, Clojure, Erlang, ML, and Haskell) are widely considered alien, exotic, and high-risk (from both a project management standpoint and a career standpoint.)
Perhaps he sees no contradiction in conservative languages like Haskell appealing mostly to risk-tolerant programmers and risk-averse programmers feeling quite at home with liberal languages like Javascript, but I find it incoherent.
I agree with you. Yegge's core mistake was to use political terminology as a descriptive tool for any topic other than politics. The political labels "liberal" and "conservative" are loosely defined, dependent on context, artificially limiting, and prone to fluctuate from one electoral season to the next.
I think he made a mistake by trying to extend the liberal/conservative dichotomy from programmers to languages. His obsession with static typing versus dynamic typing (which he apparently sees as the universal Manichean struggle underlying every single programming question ever) causes him to label languages in a way that contradicts the way he labels programmers. This is especially apparent right now when many of his "liberal" languages (notably Perl 5, PHP, Python, Visual Basic, and Javascript) are safe, established, corporate-friendly languages that any timid Blub programmer would tackle without anxiety, while many of his "conservative" languages (notably Scala, Clojure, Erlang, ML, and Haskell) are widely considered alien, exotic, and high-risk (from both a project management standpoint and a career standpoint.)
Perhaps he sees no contradiction in conservative languages like Haskell appealing mostly to risk-tolerant programmers and risk-averse programmers feeling quite at home with liberal languages like Javascript, but I find it incoherent.