1/ Liberalism stems back to John Locke and expanded by Adam Smith. Smith's first book, Theory of Moral Sentiments was published in 1759; Wealth of Nations in 1776. It is the latter work in which he used the phrase 'invisible hand', but read carefully. 
2/ Note the word "frequently". He is not making the claim that free markets solve all problems or that they can't create new ones. Notably, he never used the phrase "laissez faire". He understood trade as part of an organic economy, but was not a cheerleader for business.
3/ I don't want to drag us too far down that path; just far enough to highlight the irony here. For years, going back to maybe the Reagan years (?) conservatives touted Adam Smith as justification for deregulating everything in sight.
They viewed Smith as their guy.
They viewed Smith as their guy.
4/ To do this, they had to ignore the bulk of his writing. All of Theory of Moral Sentiments, and much of Wealth of Nations. And that inconvenient word 'frequently' turned to 'always' in their ideology.
5/ They also ignored any economics or history of bad results from markets. That all of economics rested on Smith's work, yes, even Karl Marx. Smith's work on the Labor Theory of Value presaged Marx
Too much cognitive dissonance for the ideologues were they to actually read him!
Too much cognitive dissonance for the ideologues were they to actually read him!
6/ So gradually, they stopped citing Smith, and turned to an author whose writings more appealed to how they wanted to think the world worked.
A writer of bad fiction. Ayn Rand.
A writer of bad fiction. Ayn Rand.
7/ The works of Rand were fantasies of "lone superior hero against the sucking mass of villainous parasites".
Gradually, in their thinking, first communists, then socialists, then liberals, became cast as their "parasites".
Gradually, in their thinking, first communists, then socialists, then liberals, became cast as their "parasites".
8/ So now, in their minds, "liberalism" has become a disease, a mental defect. Yet they continue in their dogmatic insistence that free markets magically solve all problems -- even where there is no trace of a free market at work. Healthcare. Regulated monopoly ISPs.
9/ They claim it is all in the name of freedom. Yet at every turn, they contradict that. Their markets are not free. They claim to be libertarian, but make a mockery of it. They support the authority of the state over citizens, and free the corporations. 
10/ So, you are entirely correct that our deplorable above could not rail against liberals, were it not for the liberties achieved by liberalism -- and the lost American conservatism of yore, which shared its roots, differing in caution, not ideals.
The very ideals she mocks.
The very ideals she mocks.
11/END So it is this deeper irony I wish to highlight. When she mocks liberalism, she mocks not just you or I or her political opponents. She mocks a quarter of a millenium of progress in economics, society, and freedom.
