"Liberals" are not liberal, "Progressives" actually regress, and "Socialists" are not social - except maybe ex officio, when in a home or family context. All three labels refer to people who try to impose their ideals by force - as rulers, or "archists", but who disguise that intent by using those softer, more appealing names.
Libertarians, in contrast, do believe in freedom; anarchists in zero-rule. So we on this side of the philosophical divide go by honest names, which describe us as we actually are.
What of "Conservatives"? I'd say that, too, gives a reasonably accurate idea of what those folk are about. In general they favor making changes only slowly, valuing rather those ideas and practices hallowed by long use. They want to keep - conserve - what they see as good about society. Their problem is not so much that they conceal or disguise what they are about, but that some of those old ideas are not, in fact, good at all and need changing at once or sooner.
There are two other frequently used labels: Democrat and Republican. Those are both particularly misleading.
"Democrat" strictly means, one who believes that people should rule; that is, the δεμος or public at large, rather than some kind of monarch. Sounds noble, but is in fact complete nonsense. Assuming the "people" constitute a large majority of the population, as was shown in the ZGBlog Minority Rule, it is impossible for any such majority to be in control; it would suck the minority dry before one could say "entitlement."
Furthermore, the "people-rule" idea presumes that that The People are united, more or less, in what they want done. This is not the case, now or ever. There are zillions of competing wishes and proposals, frequently contradicting each other.
That fairly obvious objection may be countered by proposals to modify it, to become representative democracy, instead of the raw kind. Same difference, because if one delegate represents 10,000 people (or 10, come to that) he or she is inevitably pulled every which way; he may be able in campaign speeches to be "all things to all men" and play every side of the street, but come show time when laws have to be voted up or down, he has to choose.
So, Democrats hang their hats on a fairy tale, a logical impossibility. The label is a swindle, designed to catch votes but with no substance whatsoever.
"Republicans" also use the D-word, they claim merely to wish to obey the people and pass laws the people want, but qualify it by insisting that there are limits on what the government can properly do; as in, a "Constitutional, Democratic Republic." Hog wash; again, it's just a label. In reality, they rule.
One easy way to check that is to notice who uses the phrase. East Germany did; its government ran one of the most repressive régimes ever, but called it the "German Democratic Republic." What could possibly be wrong with that? Today there's the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (the poorest country on the Pacific Rim, ruled savagely by a monarchic dynasty) and the People's Republic of China (likewise tightly governed, but with a more enlightened ruling clique) and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, with so many competing governments wanting to rule that occupying US troops remain to keep them apart.
"Leader", lastly, is another title or label often used in the political arena, as in "leader of the free world." Just as if free people need a leader, as if they were sheep. Members of the Kim dynasty are called "Dear Leaders", as if those brutal dictators in North Korea were loved by their victims; I see echoes there of the "Big Brother" figure in Orwell's 1984. Mao Tse Tung of China had the title of "Paramount Leader", yet his primary accomplishment was to kill more of his countrymen than any other politician in history. Earlier in the 20th Century there was a Leader (Il Duce) in Italy, who steered that country into war and ruin, and of course there was the greatest Führer of them all, who did the same for Germany.
All of it is merely a label, connection to reality being slim or none. I don't know if there will be leaders in the coming zero government society, people whom many will choose follow so as to attain great achievements together in business; but I do know there will be no archists, regardless of what they call themselves.