This has been a source of endless confusion for me in the past when discussing politics with american friends. Took me surprisingly long to figure it out.
The word "liberal" over the past century has experienced so much meaning drift in the US that it is basically antithetical to the original meaning. Places where it has experience less drift will thus have an opposing meaning to the US meaning.
This is not a criticism. Meanings change over time, it's what they do.
(Incidentally, this is why it's very silly to either attack or credit political parties in the US with things they did more than about 30 years ago, or perhaps even 20. The parties have shifted around a lot and traded a lot of issues. They're dynamic coalitions of convenience, not great, century-spanning statements of ideological purity.)
Along with "more taxes, more red tape, more corporate control" one also sees things like environmental regulations. Whether supporting environmental regulations is liberal(I want the right to enjoy my back yard without smog from his car and without sludge from your factory) or authoritative(so don't pollute) is a topic that is up for debate, and shouldn't be lumped in with "corporate freedom."
I'm talking about government regulations in general. Environmental regulations are, by definition, authoritative because the government enforces that law. It's very hard to create laws, eg the right to enjoy backyard without smog, as even people breath out pollution. It could be argued that by creating a law prohibiting smog in your backyard, it's far more authoritative than a law to regulate the levels of smog.
It doesn't mean that authoritative laws are bad, really. Some laws are mildly authoritative (anti-littering) to heavily authoritative (anti-terrorism). People's positions tend to be relative to the country they're in. For example, a fiscal-centre-liberal person in USA could be seen as a fiscal-far-liberal person in France.
The word "liberal" over the past century has experienced so much meaning drift in the US that it is basically antithetical to the original meaning. Places where it has experience less drift will thus have an opposing meaning to the US meaning.
This is not a criticism. Meanings change over time, it's what they do.
(Incidentally, this is why it's very silly to either attack or credit political parties in the US with things they did more than about 30 years ago, or perhaps even 20. The parties have shifted around a lot and traded a lot of issues. They're dynamic coalitions of convenience, not great, century-spanning statements of ideological purity.)