I believe the way mathieuh is using the word "liberal", a liberal would be under the general umbrella of leftism, or at least presents itself that way, but has

I believe the way mathieuh is using the word "liberal", a liberal would be under the general umbrella of leftism, or at least presents itself that way, but has interests that are not compatible/aligned with other brands of leftism, or the tactics employed by other leftists. So in more concrete terms, mathieuh thinks that liberals oppose violent resistance, instead insisting on forms of nonviolent resistance such as civil disobedience (perhaps even when that proves ineffective). Liberals, wanting to claim Mandel as one of their own, "rewrite history" to make Mandel align with nonviolent resistance in a more strict way. I believe mathieuh views liberalism as the enemy in the same way a Lamborghini owner might rage at a minivan in the fast lane. That is being a bit uncharitable though. (I am trying hard not to inject my own opinion on what liberalism and leftism are; I am trying to explain how mathieuh is using these words, while remaining relatively charitable to his point of view. As such, I may be incorrect about what mathieuh thinks but the things I think he thinks might be correct. Similarly, I might be correct about what he thinks, but the things that he thinks may be incorrect. It would be best if he just gave a clear explanation of what he thinks...)