I have no problem with the analysis. It is the subtext that intrigues me. If I am correct it would seem that the author is maintaining that members of the Liberal Party see themselves as the heirs to the 19th century Liberal tradition.
I fail to see any coherent political tradition within the Liberal Party. It certainly cannot claim to be a radically conservative party say in the vein of an Edmund Burke, nor is it remotely liberal either by Mills standards or John Rawls.
There certainly is a strong trend towards the same irrational philosophies as espoused by the American Tea Party movement those few Liberals who attempt, Canute like, to anchor Liberal policies into some sort of coherent political philosophy are invariably sidelined by the so called hard headed pragmatists. Who, I would add, have not fully grasped Hayek's economic theories either.

Hayek was a pinko.

This essay is really just an exercise in sophistry.

The on the ground reality produced by Hayek's disciples is much more simple and brutalistic.

Hayek provided the ideological framework and justifications for all of the right-wing so called libertarian and/or "conservative" STINK-tanks that have set the ideological framework for what has happened in the world altogether in the last 30 years or so. He also provided the framework for the Chicago BOYZ school of applied economics.

The brutalistic applied politics of which are/were described in The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

The way they captured the cultural, political and economic agenda, and thus FRAMED the (no turning back) agendas has been comprehensively described by Sharon Beder, especially in these two books.

Global Spin http://www.herinst.org/sbeder/Books/global.html

Suiting Themselves http://www.herinst.org/sbeder/Books/suiting.html

These "conservative" "freedom" loving think tanks were also highly supportive of the activities of the TOXIC outfit described and criticized at this site.

http://www.soaw.org

I think she's pretty liberal. If you watched her in From Dusk 'til Dawn she shows a fair bit of flesh.

Whereas true freedom is the freedom to obey the government, right, HoHum?

On reflection the contemporary Liberal Party possible draws more on the views of Ayn Rand - for there seems to be almost a total rejection of any notion that we ought to pursue some policies for altruistic reasons - the stance on the boat people is a good example of Rand's political philosophy.

Jardine

Radical or Real Politics for ordinary people.

http://www.dabase.org/radicpol.htm

http://www.dabase.org/coopdoub.htm

Plus some quotes from the above author re the state of the dreadfully sane "everyman" created in the image of TV and the corporate media as also described in This Little Kiddy Went To Market by Sharon Beder http://www.herinst.org/sbeder/Books/kiddy.html

The power of industry and money has actually become senior to the power of governments, and is now controlling the entire world.

The modern "everyman" of consumer society is a propagandized individual, participating in illusions and, effectively, self-destructing.

The modern "everyman" is being created by the power system of the world, because it is in the interests of that power system for there to be consumer egos who are completely self-involved, self-seeking, and stupefied.

At present, a culture of total war, a culture of death, is ruling, while the people are engrossed in stupefying consumerism.

(WELCOME to BRAVE NEW WORLD and 1984)

The rulers get to consume. The defeated, or the subordinates, get to live in poverty, or with little.

As power of wealth - extended through corporations, as well as individuals - is used to acquire goods, power, and territory outside of the domain of the culture, or the nation-state, or the alliance of nation-states.

The situation has arisen that wealthy people, wealthy nation-states, and wealthy corporations everywhere are acquiring property and goods all over the world.

The power of wealth is upsetting the balance of how things were, and is having a negatively dramatic effect on the global system altogether.

Elsewhere the author has pointed out that when the principal ethic (or rather anti-ethic) of unbridled competition rules the world, then everyone, including the "winners" inevitably loses. And that any and every such "culture" is thus well on the way to total disintegration or collapse.

"The modern "everyman" of consumer society is a propagandized individual, participating in illusions and, effectively, self-destructing."

Whereas you know better than everyone else what their values should be

HoHum

You are right in pointing out the corruption by which the rich obtain advantages at the expense of the poor. But your blind faith in government is truly touching.

Consider a different perspective: http://mises.org/daily/4686