Libertarian leaning.

Most politicians pick two or three issues they really focus on and for everything else they simply repeat the party line when asked, and vote that way when expected to, but otherwise don't do much about it. So it makes sense to judge them more by their priority issues than by an overall score on all issues.

This is a grading curve libertarians seem to intuitively understand and use frequently when applied to the right. A Republican can get good marks for focusing on free markets and deregulation, even if their nominal positions on social issues and/or foreign policy aren't libertarian at all. So long as they don't really prioritise the latter, they get treated as a friend and ally. They might even get the debatable label "libertarian-leaning."

The same standard should apply in the opposite direction: a Democrat who's strongly focused on civil liberties, criminal justice reform, and a less militaristic foreign policy deserves at least as much credit, even if their nominal positions on economic and budgetary issues are standard-issue Democratic talking points. Yet I almost never hear the label "libertarian-leaning" applied to such Democrats, and when it is it's usually hotly disputed.

Neither case should be treated as though they're across-the-board libertarians (or even "libertarian-leaning") when they're not, but we should treat them similarly. Single-issue allies on the left can do us just as much good as single-issue allies on the right. One of the strengths of libertarianism is that it maintains an equidistant position from both the left and the right, not functioning as a subset or permanent ally of either. In order to maintain that, we should have an even-handed approach to giving credit where it is due.