About liberalism: why I use quotation marks

Article on subjectm that I am not very interested in, comes up with the following remarkable statement:
"Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-­clericalism." 

My comments:
1. The imposition of "liberal" values can be seen in the intolerant attitudes towards the evangelical Christians in the US. Another case is the attempts by "liberal" groups to impose economic and academic boycotts on Israel, whereas in Israel itself this takes a form of anti-settler sentiment. Ironically, if a liberally-minded person tries to defend the rights of evangelicals or settlers on their views (without actually agreeing with them), he/she is branded a right-winger.

2. You may have noticed that sometimes I use quotation marks to designate the terms whose linguistic usage does not agree with their literal meaning: "liberal", "progressive", "rich/poor" etc. So, for example, in the US "liberal" is used to designate Democrats, often extremely left-wing ones. Yet, for the reason outlined in the previous comment these people frequently are not liberal in the original sense of the word.

Another case when "liberals" are not really liberals is when one refers to their views on the economy. "Liberals" often advocate limiting the market freedom and discriminating against those who are more economically successful. In this contextm the people who do hold liberal economic views are referred to as "neo-liberals" (or, in an extreme case, "libertarians".) In fact, those who are called "liberals", should be really named "neo-communists" (no offence intended - simple statement of ideology.)

The subject, that goes beyond the theme of this post, is whether one can forgo the economic liberalism, but preserve the liberal freedoms in the other areas of life (freedom of speech, freedom of gatherings etc.) Marx and Lenin would certainly disagree.