[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
“Liberalism” was a term first ascribed to and advanced by a variety of enlightenment thinkers who pushed for greater political and (later) economic rights. The economic ideas advanced by 19th century liberal philosophers would today be associated with the political right. But these ideas in their more extreme forms were only briefly actually enunciated by the “liberal” parties that emerged in many Western European countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, however, and very rarely (perhaps never) in the context of fully democratic regimes.

In Europe, where working class political movements emerged earliest and most forcefully, “liberalism” quickly became a term to describe the political center, with conservatives and nationalists on the right and socialists, communists, and social democrats on the left. Sometimes, such as in 19th century England, liberals were able to coopt labor movements, resulting in the political coalition often termed “lib-labism.”

In the US, “liberalism” was first a term that also described the political center. For the first half of the 20th century, a “liberal consensus” of Keynesian centrism regarding economic matters characterized American politics. With the rise of conservativism in the post-war period, liberalism eventually became a term associated with “leftist” politics, although it was very similar to the centrist “liberalism” of Europe.

In Latin America, “liberalism” was a term that generally described political movements that wanted to commercialize agriculture and embrace more democratic politics in the 19th century. When the rise of the working classes spawned other movements and countermovements in the 20th century, the “liberals” often were left as the political alternative on the right. Thus, liberalism in Latin America to this day has connotations of right-wing politics, and the marketization of Latin American economies in the last generation is often termed “neoliberalism.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. But in the context of this discussion we are clearly talking about modern Keynsian, progressivist liberals. That is why I put quotes over the term, "liberal." The modern use is contradictory to its original meaning.

Also, a one dimensional political spectrum won't cover 18th century liberals. It needs to be two dimensional.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't even bother to read the OP. Your answer is pretty good aside from the application of the crude modern politcal spectrum.