Because it's probably easier to understand both sides. Ideology is often a bad thing, because it saves from own thought. Ideologies are often a pure vision that is unlikely or even impossible to accomplish or to fully function. Often, pragmatic thinking leads to the most success and is within the possible. To explain it in brief on the economy for example, the best solutions are mostly in the middle: You need some common-sense regulations, you need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share, but you also can't tax and regulate the hell out of everything. Economic growth is necessary to expand wealth to everyone, and therefore you need a business-friendly environment. However, a completely unregulated market doesn't work and only helps the upper class and the rich. The government needs to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, and there also needs to be safety net for everyone who needs help. On the other hand, only those who really need it should benefit from a welfare state.
I really, really hate to use the term "neoliberal" for a variety of reasons, but in this case it's more than appropriate: I love how the most steadfast proponents of neoliberalism are so keen on asserting that their garbage ideology is some sort of "trans-ideological", COMMON SENSE phenomenon when in fact it's nothing more than just that, an ideology.
Ah, but you seem to fail to grasp that all ideologies coat themselves in nonsense. Communism is "equality and wealth for all"; progressivism is "progress, equality, and liberty"; and so on and so forth.
But Andrew's precise point is that liberalism is the only ideology that has convinced itself that it doesn't exist. Each ideology might have its own conceit, but liberalism's particular conceit is particularly annoying and harmful.
Poll
