An interesting article by an insightful writer. I particularly liked the author's reflections on individualism.

In addition to the economic and social problems, I think it is important to note that liberalism has already decisively failed on a geopolitical level, too. The really high level geostrategists like Brzezinski had extremely ambitious plans that were intended to be completed years ago. The window of opportunity in the 90s was supposed to be the foundation for a truly global order - one that integrates a pro-Western liberal democratic Russia, the Middle East and, after regime change, liberal democratic China too. The US has failed to achieve any of these goals and has instead chosen to oppose these states directly, which according to Brzezinski is the worst case scenario. Incompetence has become institutionalised.

I would also like to comment on some of the arguments in the article.

This was the thesis of Patrick Deneen’s 2018 book Why Liberalism Failed, written before the populist wave of 2016, and perhaps the most reliable guide to the world we live in now. In his telling, liberalism was one of three ideologies that dominated the world over the last three centuries. The other two — communism and fascism — were shorter lived, and died in the West in the twentieth century. Liberalism — the elder brother — is only dying now. One reason for its comparatively long life is that it piggybacked on older stories, presenting itself as the inheritor of established traditions of liberty when in fact it was something quite different.

Liberalism has already died several times. The only reason why this completely obsolete, moribund ideology is still kicking about is because of its willingness to adapt, absorb and shamelessly surrender again and again. Its transformation into "liberal democracy" was its first major defeat, and its subsequent transformation into "social democracy" was yet another. Feminism was also an example of a major blow to liberalism as such. The liberal system essentially relies on appropriating the energies of non-liberal mass movements to survive. As soon as it loses the will or ability to adapt in this way, it will collapse. This is also why neoliberals who chip away at the welfare state are foolish.

Apart from that, I think the author ends up conceding too much ground to liberalism on certain points, specifically on its ability to liberate. If anything, the advent of liberalism expanded tyranny massively, but also brought about greater material prosperity by bulldozing essential social structures which prevented the commercialisation of society at large.