Liberalism still means that. What you are describing was a means to an end employed primarily in the 1970s. Given that the burning issues of that time were social, cultural, and moral rather than economic, it made a kind of sense, although in saying that I'm not endorsing any particular policies from that time.

We're starting to see a return to economics in liberal thought today, and away from the social issues. Obama's actually a good example of that, although he's been required to talk about race some recently due to this Wright thing. Mostly, though, he's about encouraging unions, modifying our so-called "free trade" policies to prevent instead of stimulate the loss of capital to third-world thugocracies, and weaning us off our oil addiction. Plus ending the war in Iraq, of course.

The argument here is between those who want to do those things, and those who would prefer to continue transferring wealth from the middle-class to the rich, which is what has happened steadily over the past 20 years and more to the point now where the economy itself is threatened by loss of consumer buying power. Everything else, including this Wright business, is only a tool used in that dialogue. It's all really about economics. Which means, arguably, that we have today begun to return to reality and real issues.

Actually, Obama is moving AWAY from the traditional laissez faire liberal economic policies of the 19th century and towards the destructive, wealth-destroying policies of the far-left: huge tax increases, punishment for anyone who invests in the US and protectionist trade policies which destroy trade and spread recession.

Again, don't confuse means with ends. Laissez-faire economic liberalism actually arose earlier than the 19th century as an argument, and was meant to counter the subsidized, protected-monopoly economics of the time that favored the hereditary nobilities of Europe. In that context, it was a liberal policy because it favored the underdog against the elite. Once the industrial revolution had occurred, and the elite was no longer a hereditary nobility but a class of wealthy industrialists who had benefited to an extreme from the laissez-faire policies, they no longer served the same ends and had to be modified.

It's the so-called "free" trade policies that are spreading recession, because the kind of trade they promote isn't sustainable. It has resulted in goods being produced by workers who can't afford to buy them, and a dependence for marketing on declining real incomes in the U.S., with the gap sustained for a long time through extension of consumer credit. It's necessary to bring the capital home, and adopt sensible trade policies that recognize free trade as only a good thing between countries that are playing by the same rules in terms of labor rights and environmental protection.

The very word "protectionism" implies a failure to understand what has happened. Traditionally, it's been used to describe tariffs that "protect" an industry against foreign competition, on a nationalist basis, e.g. American automakers against Japanese competitors. But free trade makes sense when it's applied among advanced economies, as between the U.S. and Japan, or the U.S. and Europe. It makes no sense only when it's applied between a civilized country with reasonably advanced labor standards, e.g. the U.S. or Europe, and a country that has no respect for labor rights and encourages companies to run sweatshops, e.g. China.

This may be naive but I encourage folks to read the whole book.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Juat the opposite. Obama promises to raise taxes for the companies which outsource American job and spend that money on the job-creating areas.