Read carefully. The good professor, as befits his station in life, is very scholarly. He has correctly traced the genesis of the usage of 'liberal' in political discourse.
"Liberalism in its noblest, and also in its most essential, sense" is embodied in American conservatism--we are conserving the American Founding, which was liberal in the original (and noble) sense, against assorted socialists. fascists, Marxists and Nietzschians.
Read carefully the program of the baby-murdering 'left' now--it owes more to Nietzsche's romantic anti-Christianity (What is 'multiculturalism' but the romantic exaltation of savage custom? Why do the leftist flakes natter on about 'spirituality', even in some cases proclaiming themselves 'neopagans'?) and his notion of 'transvaluation of values' than to Marx (who would have included 'neopaganism' along with Christianity, and all the religions the multiculturalists support while trampling Christianity, under the heading 'opiate of the masses') and looks more fascist than communist (dirigist through regulation rather than demanding goverment ownership of the economy).
You are exactly correct. Though the "good professor" says it best when he states:
"What were -- what still are -- the sources of American distaste for liberalism (a distance from, rather than a disillusionment with, liberalism)?
One was the gradual liberal acceptance, indeed advocacy, of the welfare state.
During the 19th century, liberalism, by and large, meant political and economic individualism, an emphasis on liberty even more than equality, a reduction and limitation of the powers of government.
From the beginning of the 20th century, liberals, by and large, accepted and advocated the spread of equality, meaning more and more legislation and government bureaucracy to guarantee the welfare of entire populations."
In fact you can take the good professor's correct analysis of the change in meaning of the word "liberal" a bit further in it's conclusion and contend, as I do, that there is not much difference between a 20th century liberal and quite of few FreeRepublic.com conservatives.
Neither group believes in "individualism..." or "libery..." or "reduction and limitation of powers of goverment..."
Both groups want government to exert it's unbridled power for their own agendas.
For example, FreeRepublic.com "conservatives" love TAS and Homeland Security Administration existence, in spite of what 19th century, classical liberal Amendment IV states about preserving liberty and individualism.
Democratic Underground.com 20th century "liberals" hate free people from keeping and bearing arms, in spite of what the 19th century, classical liberal Amendment II states about the need of of an arm citizenry to protect their liberty and individualism.
A 19th century, classical liberal does not find ways to deny, disparage, or diminish the liberty guarantees of the Constitution for "compelling state interest" or "security" reasons.