It just shows that framing the world as liberal/conservative , left/right, capitalist/socialist and expecting people to fall neatly and consistently into on of these camps is a stupid thing. People are much more complex and their actions in one area often don't reflect what they do in another. For example, there are probably racist environmentalists and racists who protect the environment which is something that shouldn't exist if you follow the usual beliefs about environmentalists or racists.

Indeed. Here's a condemnation of Wilson from a different perspective, one emanating from distrust of government power. Might be called "radical conservatism", in the original first senses of those words rather than as found in the political jargon of today's headlines:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-best-way-to-tell-...

He also styled himself as a progressive, and was largely supported by progressives. He specifically took rhetoric from the Progressive Party platform.

Donald Trump bears little resemblance to Reagan or Lincoln, but he is still a Republican. Wilson, likewise, was a progressive - even if he did other things we might consider anti-progressive.

The definition of progressivism, like Republicanism (and conservatism, and liberalism), has also changed significantly in the last century. Prohibition of alcohol, for example, was a central plank of most progressives of Woodrow's era, but it is not considered such now. Likewise, opposition to racial inequality is often associated with modern progressivism, but it was not so explicitly supported by many early progressives.

Nixon started the EPA, and I’m pretty sure we don’t call him a liberal environmentalist.