Sure, I get that. The irony I see is that in the same breath he ties "new laws" to an increase in liberalism. Which is either a gross misestimation of the nature of most new laws or a gross perversion of the very idea of a "liberal" society. More so if we take the more classic meaning of the term (in the Locke, not Clinton sense).

Is there a better way of explaining it? I thought Burke and Reagan were good examples.

You might say "progressive" or "reform" politics instead of "liberal".