I reject your premise entirely and I'll add that it's a shame you've bought into the media narratives. But, since you do understand the narrative let's focus on that since we'll have a common language that way.

You suggest that a liberal state would be one that does not engage in micromanaging people's lives. A liberal state would be one, you say, that respects individual liberties and personal freedom. According to your worldview a liberal state would believe in small unobtrusive government that sticks to its role as defined by the Constitution.

Now, according to the media narrative I just defined a conservative state. Well, supposedly. I mean that's the rhetoric the GOP feeds its sheep every four years.

The very liberal Michael Bloomberg, anti-gun advocate, wanted to pass laws limiting the size of your soft drink. That doesn't sound very "liberal" according to your narrative. In your narrative a conservative would want to do that.

So the truth is that ideology is always secondary (or somewhere farther down the line if it even matters at all). The acquisition of power is always primary for politicians and the Establishment. They convince us to argue and fight with each other which we do to fuel our own egos. "I'm a liberal, I have moral superiority" "I'm a conservative, I'm right you're wrong because reasons" . The whole time we're arguing with each other they laugh all the way to the bank. Plus they have something better than currency, they have power that we give them. Power is worth so much more than money. The Establishment is made up of liberals, conservatives and the media working together.

If someone is pushing kratom bans it is not because of their ideology.

By the way, those antiestablishment hippies in the 60's became the Establishment we know and love today Hillary Clinton is a perfect example. Hippie in the 60's, wall streets best friend and crony capitalist today.

Tl;Dr don't believe the hype