Liberalism's objection to monarchism and hereditary rule was that
a) It was painfully obvious that a Monarch could not actually be trusted to be interested in the prosperity and safety of his Kingdom.
b) The aristocracy was clearly unqualified to govern in any sense as it became easily corrupted
c) Hereditary rule was utterly useless in guaranteeing that competent leadership or an administrative state could be preserved.
All of these have been repeatedly proven true.
Liberalism is not about supplanting the Monarchy with a new order of bureaucrats, it is about limiting the power of the government entirely so that the people may live unmolested by those who dream to control them.
If that is true then liberalism has been a total failure. Corruption has certainly not been solved, and if anything, is worse than it has ever been.
a) It was painfully obvious that a Monarch could not actually be trusted to be interested in the prosperity and safety of his Kingdom.
How do you figure that? A monarch has numerous motivations for doing so. For one he wants to pass something good on to his children, because the land is their inheritance. For two he does not want to have riots in his kingdom. And for three, if he is challenged and defeated by an outside power, he and his family would be murdered. I'd say those are pretty damn good motivations.
Now let's compare to the modern day. A politician can lie or steal and not worry about being put to death. They have zero interest in the nation. Why should they? They will eventually leave their office and it will be someone else's problem. In ancient history, if a ruler was doing a bad job of ruling his nation, do you know what happened? A ruler who is doing a better job and generating more wealth decides to invade and take it over. Today this is impossible. If France is taxing its people to death, what is the recourse? All you can do is vote for someone who may or may not be lying just to get into office. There is no hope that a better manager of his kingdom might decide to claim your country for himself and improve it.
Or in short, asking why a monarch, the owner of the nation, would have a vested interest in their nation is the same as asking why the owner of a company would have a vested interest in their company.
History. Particularly military history. Particularly the military history of the West and the Anglosphere specifically.
I'll go over why each and every single one of your points has been proven wrong by monarchs who do the opposite of what they say.
For one he wants to pass something good on to his children, because the land is their inheritance.
Wrong. This assumes that the monarch has such a desire to pass anything to his children, or is even capable of having children. Very often, monarchs have failed to give two shits about their own kingdom because they were busy engaging themselves in a litany of wars or conquests, and took no interest the domestic state of the country which they really didn't care about. This was a particular problem with Richard The Lionhearted, who really didn't even give a shit about England, and saw it a worthless backwater. Not like France and the Holyland.
Not to mention that the King does not have such ownership, when he is typically in conflict with his lords, who have their own land and property to pass on. Very often, monarchs will be happy to destroy the territory of less loyal lords, while rewarding more loyal lords as an act of political sabotage and loyalty.
For two he does not want to have riots in his kingdom.
Absolute hogwash. Monarchs have repeatedly stoked mobs of people into violence as a methodology of control. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, it is literally the origin of the word Tyrant. This is sheer historical ignorance on your part. Riots are not always allowed, but riots are sometimes intentionally allowed as a methodology of control, demographic replacement, and justification for larger political strategic actions.
And for three, if he is challenged and defeated by an outside power, he and his family would be murdered.
Total nonsense. The installing of vassal monarchs on behalf of larger empires is maybe the entire history of the Hapsburg Empire.
A politician can lie or steal and not worry about being put to death.
It was literally impossible for Kings to commit crimes in Europe. The execution of a King was the invention of an English popular uprising that declared popular sovereignty, in opposition to "Divine Right of Rule". The English decision to execute their King for crimes against his own Kingdom was considered utter madness, and anti-monarchical.
There was never a justifiable reason to execute a king according to the philosophy of most monarchical systems.
They have zero interest in the nation. Why should they? They will eventually leave their office and it will be someone else's problem.
As with many tin-pot dictators who rule over their country as if they were a monarch, they also don't give a shit what happens to their country, because their interests only matter within the glorious capital city, and the most prosperous core of it. Let the rest of the people starve. This is common among monarchs and dictators alike.
In ancient history, if a ruler was doing a bad job of ruling his nation, do you know what happened?
Normally, not a damn thing until the next heir came to power. He could run his country into the ground for 70 years, suppress every uprising, and then let his son take over and do something slightly different. This is something that happened with Pharaohs, Czars, and Emperors alike.
A ruler who is doing a better job and generating more wealth decides to invade and take it over.
Again, no. Expanding your empire's influence is only one part of the agenda of a ruler. The Hittites are not going to conquer Egypt just because the child-king of Egypt is literally to young to properly rule. The weakness is useful for the Hittites to develop their kingdom and expand their influence unmolested, but it is not justification to conquer a kingdom. In fact, it is likely that many kingdoms will simply stay out of it to avoid embroiling themselves into a political situation they simply don't care enough about to solve. They have better things to do.
If France is taxing its people to death, what is the recourse?
Popular disruption, civil disobedience, and thankfully some kind of voting system which can unseat the established power structure to a small degree. Under a king, like literally every king where high taxes were imposed (like under China, Japan, Islamic Caliphates, Ottoman Empire... the list goes on forever), the only option would be mandatory death and starvation.
Extreme taxation... literally to the point of death and famine, is absolutely not unheard of among monarchies. It's very familiar. Normally because a monarch has gone on yet another ridiculous military campaign that will benefit no one, but the army needs grain so... die.
There is no hope that a better manager of his kingdom might decide to claim your country for himself and improve it.
Again, there is under most western systems with term limits. Where there is absolutely zero hope of a better manager of his kingdom is under a monarch.
Seriously, I don't think you know anything about the history of monarchs.
I firmly believe that anyone who unironically believes in monarchy should be required to play several rounds of Crusader Kings. While I wasnt exactly a monarchist before I played that game, it ruined any belief that monarchy is a good idea.
Because I cant tell you how many times I got the fabled Philosopher-King, the man who has all of the required intelligence, charisma, and expertise to be a good monarch. I have all of these plans to give my realm a new Golden Age of a better life for my peasants, a superior army to defend the realm, new great works to show off the engineering might of my scholars, and perhaps if I have the time go conquer one of my old rivals.
.......Then my conniving brother goes and tries to fight a war with someone I planned to be an ally with because he is trying to steal some power from anyone, so now I have to go help him or else lose part of my realm, and while I am at it cross that nation off from the "potential ally" list. Then I come back to find out that one of my vassals was in debt to the Jews so he committed a pogrom and forced them out, and God Damn it! I needed them for my economic plans, you idiot! So I do what I can to invite them back in, but now I have the Pope breathing down my neck for helping them, but he says he will look the other way if I go on Crusade. So I go to do it and get some heat off of me, and I am doing reasonably well due to my skilled commanders (at least I chose them well), then I get word that my god damn bastard of a brother is trying to steal my throne! So I have to go back and kill him for good this time because I am tired of his shit. Then now I have a peasant revolt from them demanding a tax lien, and no! I cant give it to you even though I want to, because if I did it right now my vassals would think I am a weak ass bitch.
But somehow, I finally manage to put out all of the fires. It took most of my life though. I can finally start on putting in to place all of the things I wanted. Even give the peasants that tax lien under a situation more favorable to me. And as I am reaching the end of my life, I can die content that even though I didnt get everything I wanted, I at least set it down the right path, and all my son has to do is not screw it up.
........then it turns out my son is a god damn midwit who screws it all up by not being enough of a gigabrain to understand the things I was doing or wanted to do because he was too busy playing court politics while I was actually doing things, and now it all dies on the vine or gets done much later, and now we are back to square one. FML.
Then I come back to find out that one of my vassals was in debt to the Jews so he committed a pogrom and forced them out, and God Damn it!
The game implemented my hypothesis, neat.
Yeah, I've said this before but, long story short, Tropico cured me of any Leftism I could have had. I intentionally tried to play as "the perfect communist" and realized that my welfare state had ballooned out of control so the only answer to prevent a revolution was to create a secret police state, arrest all the lumberjacks and farmers who weren't making me enough money, and deport them to Miami.
I racked my brain thinking of amicable solutions to the insane cost of my welfare state, and I was slowly depleting my country of all it's gold and oil. I couldn't even fill the jewelry factories and oil rigs because soooo many tropicans wanted a cushy life being an over-paid farmer, waitress, or brothel girl. The welfare state was so large I couldn't even afford an army to protect me (I actually had to compromise and eliminate my 0% inequality so that my personal guard could still have people working in it)
There were only 3 options
Create a secret police state and mass arrest everyone who was going to be fired, then deport them to Miami
Create a secret police state and assassinate everyone who didn't like getting fired
Fire the workers and replace them with a massive military build up, balkanize the society between the militarists & loyalists, then watch the country spiral into Civil War as people began to rebel, and hope that I could kill them all with the military.
There were no even half-way decent options. No matter what, if I wanted to maintain "equality", I had to depopulate my way out of it.
I went from thinking Leftism "was a bad idea" to Leftism is "innately evil". The more you succeed in being a communist, the more likely you will have no other choice but to do unspeakable evil to maintain it.
Then now I have a peasant revolt from them demanding a tax lien, and no! I cant give it to you even though I want to, because if I did it right now my vassals would think I am a weak ass bitch.
It's funny. My military democracies always worked, but always upset the intellectual leftist class. Everyone would be happy, prosperous, the Island is growing, and I have a military that's strong enough to keep the Soviets & Americans at bay, even if they try to scare me with their battleships (NGL, I got real fuckin nervous. All I did was say that I couldn't send you all those bananas because it was a waste of my money! Calm the fuck down, Senator!)
No crime, no corruption, strong military, strong & diverse economy, a free press, and an educated public, and all of the sudden the intellectuals are crying that we have "low democratic expectations" and then they start to get angry and protest.
"Fine! Fuck you! Early elections!" ... a few months later... "No shit, I won. I have a 70% approval rate, now go back to your fucking colleges you god damned snowflakes."
It's always that group of people just under your position of power trying to start shit, even if there's absolutely nothing wrong.
........then it turns out my son is a god damn midwit who screws it all up by not being enough of a gigabrain to understand the things I was doing or wanted to do because he was too busy playing court politics while I was actually doing things, and now it all dies on the vine or gets done much later, and now we are back to square one. FML.
"Oh he's retarded! ... Wait! Scotland! Come back!"
Wrong. This assumes that the monarch has such a desire to pass anything to his children, or is even capable of having children. Very often, monarchs have failed to give two shits about their own kingdom because they were busy engaging themselves in a litany of wars or conquests, and took no interest the domestic state of the country which they really didn't care about. This was a particular problem with Richard The Lionhearted, who really didn't even give a shit about England, and saw it a worthless backwater. Not like France and the Holyland.
That's not typical at all. Historically the thing monarchs cared about most was their legacy and their heirs. What do you think the conquests were about? Expanding and enriching their territory. How is that not caring about your country? You want it to be bigger and better. Obviously their motivations are also selfish, that just comes with the territory.
Not to mention that the King does not have such ownership, when he is typically in conflict with his lords, who have their own land and property to pass on. Very often, monarchs will be happy to destroy the territory of less loyal lords, while rewarding more loyal lords as an act of political sabotage and loyalty.
Well a King relies on his lords to help secure his land. If they are rebellious he is going to try and depose them and reclaim it. I don't know where you are getting the idea that he wants to destroy their territory from, because that's HIS territory.
Absolute hogwash. Monarchs have repeatedly stoked mobs of people into violence as a methodology of control. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, it is literally the origin of the word Tyrant. This is sheer historical ignorance on your part. Riots are not always allowed, but riots are sometimes intentionally allowed as a methodology of control, demographic replacement, and justification for larger political strategic actions.
Nobody who is in power wants a revolt on their hands. The people who foment riots are those who want to take power for themselves. If you already have control, then anarchy is not profitable for you in any way. The word tyrant is from a brutal response to something like a riot, not from starting one.
Total nonsense. The installing of vassal monarchs on behalf of larger empires is maybe the entire history of the Hapsburg Empire.
So is the routine massacre of royal families. Look at Rome, Byzantium, Russia, etc.
As with many tin-pot dictators who rule over their country as if they were a monarch, they also don't give a shit what happens to their country, because their interests only matter within the glorious capital city, and the most prosperous core of it. Let the rest of the people starve. This is common among monarchs and dictators alike.
No it was very uncommon for that to happen throughout history. You wouldn't stay King long if your people were starving to death.
Again, no. Expanding your empire's influence is only one part of the agenda of a ruler. The Hittites are not going to conquer Egypt just because the child-king of Egypt is literally to young to properly rule. The weakness is useful for the Hittites to develop their kingdom and expand their influence unmolested, but it is not justification to conquer a kingdom. In fact, it is likely that many kingdoms will simply stay out of it to avoid embroiling themselves into a political situation they simply don't care enough about to solve. They have better things to do.
Yes they would. The death of a King was often an opportunity for a rival to declare war and annex territory. Any weakness in a rival was an opportunity to strike, and a child-king is a great example of that.
Popular disruption, civil disobedience, and thankfully some kind of voting system which can unseat the established power structure to a small degree. Under a king, like literally every king where high taxes were imposed (like under China, Japan, Islamic Caliphates, Ottoman Empire... the list goes on forever), the only option would be mandatory death and starvation.
Doesn't happen. A kingdom doesn't survive very long if the people are starving to death.
Again, there is under most western systems with term limits. Where there is absolutely zero hope of a better manager of his kingdom is under a monarch.
Seriously, I don't think you know anything about the history of monarchs.
You have a very naive view of history, and a poor understanding of people in general. Life back then was hard for everyone. We simply didn't have the technology that we have today. We all live individually better than any king in history did. A monarchy is not inherently bad or evil. Historically they had more of a stake in the success of their kingdoms than politicians do today, because politicians just pass their problems onto the next guy. A king doesn't have that option. His problems either go on to his children or end up with him getting wiped out.
Yes, but that describes libertarians, not what we call the left. I don't think anyone would say it's unfair to say that they want the government to have more control over their citizens, not less.
Correct, but that's the problem. The corruption of the term Liberal by the Left. Leftism is inherently illiberal, and it's why "Liberals get the bullet too".
Its not just the left. Too ofthen, those on the right (usually boomercons) will say something like "those darn liberals" and actually mean leftists. I see it on this site all the time.
That's why I try to be careful in my choice of words. If I actually mean a left-libertarian (what "liberal" used to mean in American politics) I'll actually specify that. Otherwise, if I say liberal and mean classical liberalism or right-libertarianism, I'll say that too.
This is the result of Roosevelt and Hoover stripping the word "Liberal" from it's meaning while the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" were seen as utterly unacceptable.
Hoover was an interventionist and a Corporatist. However, FDR attacked him for being too interventionist and spending too much money. He framed himself as a Liberal.
He then proceeded to act as effectively a Democratic Socialist, and every single thing he did was called "Liberal". Not only that, but the Leftwing narrative completely turned history around and claimed that Hoover didn't intervene at all.
In the span of 15 years, the Left dominated so much of the cultural apparatuses and institutions that they re-defined the word Liberal. This narrative was so well accepted that Goldwater used the term "Conservative" to effectively define what it meant to be Classically Liberal, rather than trying to undermine and re-take the term.
Liberalism's objection to monarchism and hereditary rule was that
All of these have been repeatedly proven true.
Liberalism is not about supplanting the Monarchy with a new order of bureaucrats, it is about limiting the power of the government entirely so that the people may live unmolested by those who dream to control them.
If that is true then liberalism has been a total failure. Corruption has certainly not been solved, and if anything, is worse than it has ever been.
How do you figure that? A monarch has numerous motivations for doing so. For one he wants to pass something good on to his children, because the land is their inheritance. For two he does not want to have riots in his kingdom. And for three, if he is challenged and defeated by an outside power, he and his family would be murdered. I'd say those are pretty damn good motivations.
Now let's compare to the modern day. A politician can lie or steal and not worry about being put to death. They have zero interest in the nation. Why should they? They will eventually leave their office and it will be someone else's problem. In ancient history, if a ruler was doing a bad job of ruling his nation, do you know what happened? A ruler who is doing a better job and generating more wealth decides to invade and take it over. Today this is impossible. If France is taxing its people to death, what is the recourse? All you can do is vote for someone who may or may not be lying just to get into office. There is no hope that a better manager of his kingdom might decide to claim your country for himself and improve it.
Or in short, asking why a monarch, the owner of the nation, would have a vested interest in their nation is the same as asking why the owner of a company would have a vested interest in their company.
History. Particularly military history. Particularly the military history of the West and the Anglosphere specifically.
I'll go over why each and every single one of your points has been proven wrong by monarchs who do the opposite of what they say.
Wrong. This assumes that the monarch has such a desire to pass anything to his children, or is even capable of having children. Very often, monarchs have failed to give two shits about their own kingdom because they were busy engaging themselves in a litany of wars or conquests, and took no interest the domestic state of the country which they really didn't care about. This was a particular problem with Richard The Lionhearted, who really didn't even give a shit about England, and saw it a worthless backwater. Not like France and the Holyland.
Not to mention that the King does not have such ownership, when he is typically in conflict with his lords, who have their own land and property to pass on. Very often, monarchs will be happy to destroy the territory of less loyal lords, while rewarding more loyal lords as an act of political sabotage and loyalty.
Absolute hogwash. Monarchs have repeatedly stoked mobs of people into violence as a methodology of control. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, it is literally the origin of the word Tyrant. This is sheer historical ignorance on your part. Riots are not always allowed, but riots are sometimes intentionally allowed as a methodology of control, demographic replacement, and justification for larger political strategic actions.
Total nonsense. The installing of vassal monarchs on behalf of larger empires is maybe the entire history of the Hapsburg Empire.
It was literally impossible for Kings to commit crimes in Europe. The execution of a King was the invention of an English popular uprising that declared popular sovereignty, in opposition to "Divine Right of Rule". The English decision to execute their King for crimes against his own Kingdom was considered utter madness, and anti-monarchical.
There was never a justifiable reason to execute a king according to the philosophy of most monarchical systems.
As with many tin-pot dictators who rule over their country as if they were a monarch, they also don't give a shit what happens to their country, because their interests only matter within the glorious capital city, and the most prosperous core of it. Let the rest of the people starve. This is common among monarchs and dictators alike.
Normally, not a damn thing until the next heir came to power. He could run his country into the ground for 70 years, suppress every uprising, and then let his son take over and do something slightly different. This is something that happened with Pharaohs, Czars, and Emperors alike.
Again, no. Expanding your empire's influence is only one part of the agenda of a ruler. The Hittites are not going to conquer Egypt just because the child-king of Egypt is literally to young to properly rule. The weakness is useful for the Hittites to develop their kingdom and expand their influence unmolested, but it is not justification to conquer a kingdom. In fact, it is likely that many kingdoms will simply stay out of it to avoid embroiling themselves into a political situation they simply don't care enough about to solve. They have better things to do.
Popular disruption, civil disobedience, and thankfully some kind of voting system which can unseat the established power structure to a small degree. Under a king, like literally every king where high taxes were imposed (like under China, Japan, Islamic Caliphates, Ottoman Empire... the list goes on forever), the only option would be mandatory death and starvation.
Extreme taxation... literally to the point of death and famine, is absolutely not unheard of among monarchies. It's very familiar. Normally because a monarch has gone on yet another ridiculous military campaign that will benefit no one, but the army needs grain so... die.
Again, there is under most western systems with term limits. Where there is absolutely zero hope of a better manager of his kingdom is under a monarch.
Seriously, I don't think you know anything about the history of monarchs.
I firmly believe that anyone who unironically believes in monarchy should be required to play several rounds of Crusader Kings. While I wasnt exactly a monarchist before I played that game, it ruined any belief that monarchy is a good idea.
Because I cant tell you how many times I got the fabled Philosopher-King, the man who has all of the required intelligence, charisma, and expertise to be a good monarch. I have all of these plans to give my realm a new Golden Age of a better life for my peasants, a superior army to defend the realm, new great works to show off the engineering might of my scholars, and perhaps if I have the time go conquer one of my old rivals.
.......Then my conniving brother goes and tries to fight a war with someone I planned to be an ally with because he is trying to steal some power from anyone, so now I have to go help him or else lose part of my realm, and while I am at it cross that nation off from the "potential ally" list. Then I come back to find out that one of my vassals was in debt to the Jews so he committed a pogrom and forced them out, and God Damn it! I needed them for my economic plans, you idiot! So I do what I can to invite them back in, but now I have the Pope breathing down my neck for helping them, but he says he will look the other way if I go on Crusade. So I go to do it and get some heat off of me, and I am doing reasonably well due to my skilled commanders (at least I chose them well), then I get word that my god damn bastard of a brother is trying to steal my throne! So I have to go back and kill him for good this time because I am tired of his shit. Then now I have a peasant revolt from them demanding a tax lien, and no! I cant give it to you even though I want to, because if I did it right now my vassals would think I am a weak ass bitch.
But somehow, I finally manage to put out all of the fires. It took most of my life though. I can finally start on putting in to place all of the things I wanted. Even give the peasants that tax lien under a situation more favorable to me. And as I am reaching the end of my life, I can die content that even though I didnt get everything I wanted, I at least set it down the right path, and all my son has to do is not screw it up.
........then it turns out my son is a god damn midwit who screws it all up by not being enough of a gigabrain to understand the things I was doing or wanted to do because he was too busy playing court politics while I was actually doing things, and now it all dies on the vine or gets done much later, and now we are back to square one. FML.
The game implemented my hypothesis, neat.
Yeah, I've said this before but, long story short, Tropico cured me of any Leftism I could have had. I intentionally tried to play as "the perfect communist" and realized that my welfare state had ballooned out of control so the only answer to prevent a revolution was to create a secret police state, arrest all the lumberjacks and farmers who weren't making me enough money, and deport them to Miami.
I racked my brain thinking of amicable solutions to the insane cost of my welfare state, and I was slowly depleting my country of all it's gold and oil. I couldn't even fill the jewelry factories and oil rigs because soooo many tropicans wanted a cushy life being an over-paid farmer, waitress, or brothel girl. The welfare state was so large I couldn't even afford an army to protect me (I actually had to compromise and eliminate my 0% inequality so that my personal guard could still have people working in it)
There were only 3 options
There were no even half-way decent options. No matter what, if I wanted to maintain "equality", I had to depopulate my way out of it.
I went from thinking Leftism "was a bad idea" to Leftism is "innately evil". The more you succeed in being a communist, the more likely you will have no other choice but to do unspeakable evil to maintain it.
It's funny. My military democracies always worked, but always upset the intellectual leftist class. Everyone would be happy, prosperous, the Island is growing, and I have a military that's strong enough to keep the Soviets & Americans at bay, even if they try to scare me with their battleships (NGL, I got real fuckin nervous. All I did was say that I couldn't send you all those bananas because it was a waste of my money! Calm the fuck down, Senator!)
No crime, no corruption, strong military, strong & diverse economy, a free press, and an educated public, and all of the sudden the intellectuals are crying that we have "low democratic expectations" and then they start to get angry and protest.
"Fine! Fuck you! Early elections!" ... a few months later... "No shit, I won. I have a 70% approval rate, now go back to your fucking colleges you god damned snowflakes."
It's always that group of people just under your position of power trying to start shit, even if there's absolutely nothing wrong.
"Oh he's retarded! ... Wait! Scotland! Come back!"
That's not typical at all. Historically the thing monarchs cared about most was their legacy and their heirs. What do you think the conquests were about? Expanding and enriching their territory. How is that not caring about your country? You want it to be bigger and better. Obviously their motivations are also selfish, that just comes with the territory.
Well a King relies on his lords to help secure his land. If they are rebellious he is going to try and depose them and reclaim it. I don't know where you are getting the idea that he wants to destroy their territory from, because that's HIS territory.
Nobody who is in power wants a revolt on their hands. The people who foment riots are those who want to take power for themselves. If you already have control, then anarchy is not profitable for you in any way. The word tyrant is from a brutal response to something like a riot, not from starting one.
So is the routine massacre of royal families. Look at Rome, Byzantium, Russia, etc.
No it was very uncommon for that to happen throughout history. You wouldn't stay King long if your people were starving to death.
Yes they would. The death of a King was often an opportunity for a rival to declare war and annex territory. Any weakness in a rival was an opportunity to strike, and a child-king is a great example of that.
Doesn't happen. A kingdom doesn't survive very long if the people are starving to death.
You have a very naive view of history, and a poor understanding of people in general. Life back then was hard for everyone. We simply didn't have the technology that we have today. We all live individually better than any king in history did. A monarchy is not inherently bad or evil. Historically they had more of a stake in the success of their kingdoms than politicians do today, because politicians just pass their problems onto the next guy. A king doesn't have that option. His problems either go on to his children or end up with him getting wiped out.
Yes, but that describes libertarians, not what we call the left. I don't think anyone would say it's unfair to say that they want the government to have more control over their citizens, not less.
Correct, but that's the problem. The corruption of the term Liberal by the Left. Leftism is inherently illiberal, and it's why "Liberals get the bullet too".
Its not just the left. Too ofthen, those on the right (usually boomercons) will say something like "those darn liberals" and actually mean leftists. I see it on this site all the time.
That's why I try to be careful in my choice of words. If I actually mean a left-libertarian (what "liberal" used to mean in American politics) I'll actually specify that. Otherwise, if I say liberal and mean classical liberalism or right-libertarianism, I'll say that too.
This is the result of Roosevelt and Hoover stripping the word "Liberal" from it's meaning while the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" were seen as utterly unacceptable.
Hoover was an interventionist and a Corporatist. However, FDR attacked him for being too interventionist and spending too much money. He framed himself as a Liberal.
He then proceeded to act as effectively a Democratic Socialist, and every single thing he did was called "Liberal". Not only that, but the Leftwing narrative completely turned history around and claimed that Hoover didn't intervene at all.
In the span of 15 years, the Left dominated so much of the cultural apparatuses and institutions that they re-defined the word Liberal. This narrative was so well accepted that Goldwater used the term "Conservative" to effectively define what it meant to be Classically Liberal, rather than trying to undermine and re-take the term.