The problem I see with this is mostly that the two are entwined with one another. If you support forcing someone not to drink alcohol because you think that it's bad for them, why let them make their own choices economically? Take the fanatical Christians for example. People today would consider them to be right-wing. However, these people were heavily involved in the Progressive movement, of which modern liberalism is a decedent. William Jennings Bryan for example, was a populist progressive during the early 20th century and a democratic nominee for president sometime around there. He was also the main person helping the prosecution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial," the evolution in public schools case.

I think one of the major reasons for this mix-up is the party system, in which each party takes on new interests (which are not necessarily ideologically compatible with one another) in order to get themselves elected. I also think that both of the parties should become ideologically synced with themselves, based on the political spectrum I have proposed above.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true: