Liberalism does have a certain definite logic to it, but the axioms upon which it is based have only a passing resemblance to reality. Unfortunately, some false axioms can become sufficiently embedded into liberals' thinking that the simplest explanations for things are regarded as impossible, and thus much more complicated explanations become necessary.
In a way, liberalism could be regarded as the nesting of epicycles practiced by geocentric astronomers, but the analogy falls somewhat sort: while astronomers' nested epicycles may not have represented the ways planets actually move, they were nonetheless effective at predicting where in the sky planets would appear. Liberals, by contrast, are always retroactively adjusting their theories and always have confidence in their models even though their predictive accuracy is truly horrible.
Liberals' assumptions, or axioms, certainly do not correspond closely with reality. When I was working on my PhD, I used a computer model to predict how my experiment would turn out. When it didn't turn out that way, I tweaked the program until it did. But I never was able to tweak the experiment. Mother Nature wouldn't allow it.
Liberals have another trait, too. They are willing to use logical fallacies to prove their point, too. The smart ones are perfectly aware of what they are doing, and the stupid ones are stupid.