I am afraid this reminds me a bit of Doug's "No Alternatives" post/ forward. The original author of that piece claimed that there were no alternatives to [what I dub] Western establishment medicine. This of course after this establishment medicine opportunistically absorbed (and continues to absorbs) "alternative" remedies. My "martyrs" (a bit different perhaps from yours) wouldn't have called themselves "liberals" or their movement/ideology "liberalism". I OTOH do consider myself a liberal. It seems to me that both in the case of establishment medicine and the liberal me, what we are (and what our ideology is) is an end product, not a source. We are opportunistic, and that's a good thing, but that also calls for humility (which was sorely lacking in the "No Alternatives" author as is also lacking amidst modern liberals i.e., the blogosphere, etc, which now prefers the term "progressive"). It is true that such a liberalism is part of the next cycle -- but here, IMHO, it serves as a sort of nourishing ground for new left ideas, movements, and leadership to emerge.
I write at the top that Andie's post reminds me "a bit" -- I think what I offer, in my usual half-arse way ;-). in the following sentences is my version of Andie's points (informed by Carrol's criticism), and not an anti-thesis to them. All offered FWIW.
--ravi
IMHO = in my humble opinion OTOH = on the other hand FWIW = for whatever its worth