The modern "liberal" label, when viewed in an historical context, is seriously misapplied within today's political scene. The true liberals were the revolutionaries who dared to conceive the vision of a new nation based on a clearly articulated vision of liberty. What we have today are progressives who don't share the vision of the founders, and are diametrically opposed to it.
The founding documents, i.e. the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, plus the other literature of that truly liberal generation, were placed firmly on the foundation of natural rights. In this view, men derive their rights from God, and by definition, the powers of government must be limited so as to not infringe on this relationship. God is referenced four times in the Declaration: once overall, and once with respect to each of the three branches of government. Madison observed that as long as we were not governed by angels, limits would be required and rights would need to be protected from what the Founders called the "tyranny of the majority".
The Progressive movement sprang up in the latter half of the 19th century, and holds that men are able to achieve enlightment on their own, and can eventually achieve a situation in which government can be perfected. In their view, rights would derive from the state and would be able to change as conditions warrant. They chafe at the constitutional controls which limit the power of the state. The most progressive administrations in history have been Teddy Roosevelt's, Woodrow Wilson's, Franklin Roosevelt's, Lyndon Johnson's, Barack Obama's, and to some degree, every president since Eisenhower, excepting Ronald Reagan.
Those interested in political science should recognize the impossibility of reconciling these viewpoints. One believes human nature will always be corruptible, man depends on God, and government powers should be limited as they tend to become increasingly corrupt. The other believes human nature is evolving to a higher standard, God is not in the equation, and government powers should include the ability to grant and invoke human rights. That's why there's no such thing as a true "independent". What we call Independents today are simply people who are malleable due to a lack of understanding.
The two views cannot be mixed, and a choice is inevitable. A large part of the public is ill-trained to grasp these realities, and tends to gravitate toward the most appealing message packaged and served up by the modern press. We need to stop complaining about "the politicians" and start looking in the mirror!
