Some historical flaws on classically liberal ideology that no modern has:
1. Some like Jefferson didn't want any government backing to develop the economy into many industries. They were fine with the entirely agrarian set up. And I don't mean even as much interference as some Asian countries give today. Just any. He caved a bit outside of the purist ideology to have a successful presidency.
2. I really hope one doesn't have to support the gold standard to fit the narrow definition because in a changed economy, classically liberal ideas should evolve.
3. A lot of the Malthusian backed beliefs are astonishingly wrong. First, population increases are usually wonderful, and humanity has not remained eternally poor. I dont know how that was ever part of the ideology. Also, the individualism is great, but when you take it to the n-th degree so that you can't acknowledge people can produce more putting minds and labor together, then you might want to use some good old reasoning that you pove.
That's just a start to the criticism, but if you believe the this line of thought from some of the greatest thinkers of all-time can evolve, then you can still claim it as your tradition - most probably anyone with libertarian leanings will try to. Just don't be searching for purists. No one can get elected using such a narrow lens. I doubt anyone would publicly vouch for repeal of most Progressive Era reforms. In a right wing utopia where you are starting with near perfect income equality and education possibly but what's the point of discussing that?
I'd assume what we are looking for is ultimately just someone influenced by Hayek that is supportive of civil liberties.
Basically
