On Liberty?

I almost blogged about this book review yesterday, puzzled.

It's a book about the future of liberalism by a Boston College professor. Maybe I'm missing something, but frankly, I don't get it. The reviewer notes:

Wolfe seems to grope at first for a workable definition of liberalism. He begins with a core principle that conservatives, too, might embrace: "As many people as possible should have as much say as is feasible over the direction their lives will take."

While that's a terrific tenet--and yes, many conservatives or libertarians would agree--I'm perplexed by the fundamental paradox of this new breed of FDR "liberalism". How can individual liberty be expanded simultaneously with government social programs? These programs demand the support of citizens, unwilling or willing.

Which, of course, brings up the ironic moment where Wolfe claims John Stuart Mill as an icon of liberalism. On Liberty, of course, is a touchstone of libertarians--but, more importantly, it seems that Wolfe is muddling "classical liberalism" (much closer to minarchic libertarianism) with the "progressive" liberalism of today. It's sort of like saying Abraham Lincoln was a famous Republican: it may be true, but it disingenuously misconstrues fundamental details.

Maybe I'm missing something though. When I get a moment, I guess I'll try to read the book