The End of Liberalism Nears

April 2023May 17, 2023By Charles W. Sharpe

In his latest book, Francis Fukuyama sees liberalism under threat from extremists on both the populist right and the identitarian left . . .

Subscribers Only

Subscribe now to access the full article and gain access to other exclusive features.

Already a subscriber? Sign in here

Comments (10)

That’s right, Prof. F-“Last Man”-F: Weimar is passing: Stalin-Mao or Hitler? In America, not looking so good for the latter.

April 26, 2023 Nick Reply
Fukuyama’s The End of History fundamentally misreads the implications of the fall of the Soviet Union and socialism in Eastern Europe. But I don’t think it (or he) should be blamed for the irresponsible conduct of the powerful during recent decades, or for the power game implicit in identity politics.

April 26, 2023 Charles McKelvey Reply
This book doesn’t appear to serve a useful enough purpose. Knowing your enemies, your friends, the Order of Battle of the opposing forces, the lay of the battlefield, and the vast array of available tactics to be used (the overwhelming majority which are NONKINETIC… and prayer to the Deity is not to be discounted; one tactic does NOT believe in) would be more useful information to put in a book. We are in WWIII already, with nonkinetic tactics already in play, and kinetic blitzkriegs may not be too far away. A book like General Flynn’s “Citizens Guide for 5th Generation Warfare” might offer more pertinent advise. Also, Mash Panel’s “Government Gangsters” would give better insight in Knowing Your Enemy. I read Gary Allen’s book “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” so long ago that I barely remember it. It freely available on the internet, and looks kind of quaint, but still pertinent in principle. It was based on an earlier book written by a Dr. Quigley, called “Tragedy and Hope” about the cabal of extremely rich and powerful families dedicated to Tyranny (is the only way I can put it). Dr. Quigley worked with and studied them in the forties and fifties, and he was good with what they were doing, just disagreed with their deeply secretive ways (sounds very naive to me; I guess not all Doctors have common sense). In summary, the Order of Battle pits the forces championing Tyranny against the forces championing Liberty, using a variety of tactics and strategies, sometimes seeming similar, but aiming toward opposed and opposite ends. The topic has moved beyond the quiet study in the library. The War is upon us now, and the opposing forces are in motion, maneuvering right now.

April 26, 2023 Larry Bowen Reply
Corrections: “one tactic does NOT believe in” should read “one tactic the enemy does NOT believe in”. “Mash Panel” should read “Kash Patel”.

April 26, 2023 Larry Bowen Reply
I believe that natural rights are the antecedent of all political questions and that the reason this simple fact is not universally recognized is that natural rights have never had a direct, intrinsic connection with the physical world, which is, after all, the target of all human economic activity. The #temporalRights view of nature reveals the universal natural rights that have been hiding in plain sight all the while.
One of the interesting aspects of temporal rights is that they embody an inherent morality. If one adds the principle that “my rights end where yours begin”, a foundation is laid that can support the entire scope of classic liberalism. The result is the simplest and hence the most powerful basis for a government such as the founders envisioned.

April 26, 2023 Jackson Pemberton Reply
Of course the Western elites misread what the so-called fall of Soviet communism meant. What we call the fall of communism was merely a change in doctrine on the part of the international communist movement.

I’m a pretty good quipster and I quipped to friend of mine when Soviet communism fell, “Don’t worry, Here in the West, our own communists are still firmly in charge.”

April 27, 2023 Anonymike Reply
ANONYMIKE, to reinforce your point: as that scourge of the malicious mountebanks, H.L. Mencken pointed out, FDR was Stalin-lite. The only difference was that FDR did not have so many kulaks to dispose of. In other words, the affluence of the USA was such that FDR could perpetrate his atrocities bloodlessly. (Why kill me with a sword when you can tax me at 99%?)

April 27, 2023 Nick Reply
Fukuyama did ignore the problem with the policies that came out of his doctrine. The wars, immigration, and deindustrialization discredited him and what is now called “our democracy”.

But the source of the issue isn’t classical liberalism per se but the fracturing of it from Christian assumptions about morality, purpose, and freedom. Western elites are in a process of rejecting all facets of a Christian worldview. As this has happened we have seen the destruction around the world and in our own homes. Liberalism then went in unconstrained directions that have led to things like identitarianism, atomistic individualism, and insane immorality.

The answer to America’s problems isn’t rejecting the ideas of individual rights, limited government, and free market capitalism. The answer is to attach those things back with a Christian understanding of morality, purpose, and piety; in other words natural law.

https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-ethics-of-liberty-human-rights-as.html

April 27, 2023 RMB Reply
“The answer is to attach those things back with a Christian understanding of morality, purpose, and piety; in other words, natural law.” So, while two types of Christian (Catholic and Protestant) were slaughtering each other in the 16th and 17th centuries, did they BOTH have morality, purpose, and piety? And which one went to heaven: Oliver Cromwell or Charles I? So, you best specify which are the Christians and which ones are the heretics among us: if natural law can inform you. Last I checked, the Pope, Islam-appeaser if not Islam-embracer, is the most powerful CHRISTIAN leader in the entire world.

April 27, 2023 Nick Reply
Unfortunately, the left-liberal era is only just beginning. Centrist Democrats have been destroyed intellectually by making it impossible to critique liberalism from the right credibly. That unfortunate fact means that on domestic policy, the terms of the ideological debate will continue leaning, if not directly heading, to the left. Today, amid left-wing militant activism and ethnic conflict, a left-liberal, if not outright socialist, age is only beginning. A changing mood drives much of this leftward shift among whites—even within the GOP. The debate about race and justice is not moving to the right but keeps moving further to the left—with the change in demographics, culture, and national identity.
Race-related crime has exploded, fueling a politics of fear and vengeance, with ethnic crime becoming an accepted fact occurring routinely in Western liberal democracy over the past two decades. In polling, Americans typically favor a smaller government while supporting many specific government programs. In an age when the government has become more intrusive, minorities have turned more confrontational, and existing assumptions about sexual orientation and gender identity have been overturned, most Americans are not shouting “stop,” as they did in the mid-1960s. The biggest reason: they are not composed of the same group of Americans.
The young are most pleased with the leftward policy shifts and eager for more. They are progressive, left-liberal, or socialist because their formative political experiences were the Iraq War and the Great Recession, the tuition explosion and debt burden, the social justice delusion and identity confusion, and because they constitute the most secular, most racially diverse, and least patriotic generation in American history. None of that is likely to change.
How this liberal dominance will end is anyone’s guess. However, it will likely endure for some time to come.

April 30, 2023 Peter J. Sandys Reply