Maybe this is facile but it's been bugging me.
I was thinking about this, and the modern liberal is fundamentally not liberal.
Like, yeah, ok, it's a dogshit ideology that destroyed the world, more than once.
But there was a time when it was radical, at least compared to Feudalism.
Now? I don't even think most liberals are anti monarchy. Like they literally aren't. If you ask them point blank, should all royalty be abolished, or was the French Revolution worth doing, they're gonna flat out say no.
The modern liberal essentially believes in two things. The absolute inviolability of the power and legitimacy of Western hegemony and institutions. And that things remain basically the same, and cannot change for any reason, because change is bad unless you can be sure it'll make things better.
That describes Conservatism. These people are conservative, fundamentally.
Conservatives that speak woke, maybe. But they believe all the same shit. Hierarchy, domination, and sadism, just mediated by the market and culture instead of whatever "conservatives" believe.
And actual conservatives are just proto, or outright, fascist at this point. They're completely untethered from the conservative tradition.
Right underneath our noses, liberalism died. Good riddance maybe but, there are, legitimately, none left.
The word "liberal" becomes pejorative because the interests of the bourgeoisie are in opposition to the majority of the human race. In the present moment, liberalism is a threat to the survival of humanity.
You're right that Henry George was a liberal thinker. He's not one that's popular one among the bourgeoisie proper. Although Georgism leaves the capitalist system intact, even the blandest Georgist reforms are too much for them. They dig their heels in the way they always do today - the same way the nobility of the Ancien Régime did. They're only ever willing to entertain those reforms when violent revolution is already underway. But Georgism and other reformist schools of thought do serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, just by existing. They act as a sort of relief valve for discontent. People who are unsatisfied with the current status quo are directed toward effective inaction - stonewalled reforms - when they could otherwise be doing something substantial to advance their cause. The powers that be are only ever willing to entertain those reforms when violent overthrow is already underway.
I don't think I said that everybody opposed to the bourgeoisie is a socialist. People like Mossadegh who lead national liberation movements are not always socialists, but they frequently deserve support from socialists in their mutual struggle against imperialist powers. I'm not sure how this came up.
Tactics are not inherently tied to the results they aim to achieve. Liberalism doesn't mean reformism - there is such a thing as a liberal revolution, for example, against a monarchy. I agree that seeking reform is often a fruitless endeavor, those in power in the US are not going to give up power simply because people ask nicely. I believe in a diversity of tactics, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't.
It came up because you said, "Being a liberal is about pursuing the bourgoisie’s best interest. Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgoisie," and I wanted to refute that by providing a counterexample of a liberal clearly opposed to the bourgeoisie's best interest. The way I interpreted your claim was definitional, but maybe I misinterpreted and what you meant is that it is generally or often the case that the principles of liberalism align with the best interest of the bourgeoisie - not that they necessarily do by definition.