Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where does that leave Locke, Smith, et al?
She argues that it's inaccurate to call them liberals because the term didn't exist then (at least with the same meaning, "liberality" meant generous) and they wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about. Basically, Anglophones retcon'd a rights-based liberalism in the late 1800s. Personally, I think she takes the argument a bit too far. She credits Constant and de Staël for formalizing liberalism in the after…
This is perhaps just getting hung up on one part of what seems to be a more substantive corrective than that, though.