Friedrich Hayek on the appropriation of the term "liberal" by socialists

[T]here was the deliberate deception practiced by American socialists in their appropriation of the term 'liberalism.'  As Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly put it" 'As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.'  The same applies increasingly to European political parties of the middle, which either, as in Britain, carry the name liberal or, as in West Germany, claim to be liberal but do not hesitate to form coalitions with openly socialist parties.  It has, as I complained over twenty-five years ago (1960, Postscript), become almost impossible for a Gladstonian liberal to describe himself as a liberal without giving the impression that he believes in socialism.  Nor is this a new development: as long ago as 1911, L.T. Hobhouse published a book under the title Liberalism that would more correctly have been called Socialism, promptly followed by a book entitled The Elements of Social Justice (1922).

~ Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, Chapter 6

Norman Thomas on the importance of propaganda in bringing about socialism in America

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

~ Norman Thomas, a one time US presidential candidate

Friedrich A. Hayek on liberalism and conservatism

There is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here (in Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom) the term "liberal" in the original, 19th-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been a part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensible term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of approbrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.

It is true, of course, that in the struggle of the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its tradionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disallusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desireable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

~ Friedrich A. Hayek, 1974 Co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, in the Forward to The Road to Serfdom, Page ix