The right rails against the very government the people themselves have chosen to have - not one imposed on them by outside interests. Additionally they would, if they could, replace the government of the people with one that suits their minority viewpoint. And when you see endless postings about armed insurrection from the more extreme right wingers, some would do so by force and ironically enough, call it 'liberty'.
So how is to be 'classically liberal' to replace a government of, by and for the people with one you would choose for them and impose by force? That is actual tyranny. Being in the minority and not happy with the choices of the majority is not tyranny - it is sour grapes.
Now today's liberals do not have it all right. Many would, if they could, impose all kinds of mandates and requirements on the people through government by rule of law. But the thing is they try to do so through the democratic process of government.
In the end it is still the people that decide what to do and no version of 'liberalism' enjoins the people from implementing their will via their government - with the exceptions being that the majority may not strip the minority of enumerated rights or any rights they reserve for themselves. When the people decide - that is classic liberalism. When the minority imposes their will on the majority that is not.
So in a Republic with a government of, by and for the people, those that are not getting their way are simply the minority - not representatives of classic liberalism fighting tyranny. If their message resonates with a majority of their fellow citizens, then they will prevail. But that is the only permissible path to the change they desire.
Given that the right wing radio dummies have created this straw man called 'Today's Liberal', an entity that doesn't exist any more than 'Emmanuel Goldstein' exists, or the Nazis 'Jew' existed the entire premise of this question is to say the least...bogus! Simply redefining a word doesn't create a reality. In real life the democrats are politically, economically and socially where the Eisenhower Republicans used to be.
Today Eisenhower, Nixon, and Jerry Ford are RINO's, Teddy Roosevelt has exited right wing history and Bob Taft, once know as Mr. Conservative is nowhere to be found on Planet Reactionary. Nelson Rockefeller? Never heard of the bum!
Today the GOP/Tea/Fox/Jesus freak party exists solely to pimp for big money interests, 'the rich' and the trans national corporations now hiding out in COMMUNIST China. There's nothing in that party for the 95% of Americans who work for hourly wages and whatever miserable benefits they can get. Their unions have been busted, their incomes reduced and there's the ongoing threat to Medicare and Social Security.
There's no forward thinking about climate change, a bloated military living totally on borrowed money, our rapidly failing social and physical infrastructure and any attempt to make HEALTH INSURANCE affordable for 'the peasants' is called 'Socialized Medicine'.... complete with Death Panels. The Tea Party's beliefs are in line with classic liberalism? I've smoked some pretty good weed in my day, but the person who posted this 'question' must have a stash of of some really good $%^&!
No kiddin'!
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.