One issue with the article, though, is that he uses the term ``liberalism'' in too different contexts. On one hand it means, what we would call liberalism today, i.e. the politics of Ted Kennedy. But he obviously refers to classical liberalism too, which many people on this site would agree with- though they wouldn't agree with the former.
The point of people like Schindler is that they're not very different like you think. Once you've accepted Hume, Locke, etc., then you've bought into a system that leads inevitably to where we are today with Teddy Kennedy. Kennedy, after all, is not an original thinker. Today's liberals are the inevitable product of some kind of process. How did we get to where we are today?