I think that is a modern conservative widening of the goalposts. They were more confident in the past. Such week claims are not going to save liberalism so I suggest a different tack.
> Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP.
I am not referring to that in particular. I am referring to the narrative behind 2nd-wave colonialism in general, and since then IMF / World Bank insisting on free trade, etc. In a domesticate setting, education is viewed similarly to clean up the bitter deluded masses, "science will defeat religion" type views. Liberalism has always been about taming the wild passions of a vast illiberal other.
And to be clear, I would be perfectly happy if education brought patience, science defeated religion, etc. etc., but again empirical reality doesn't make one so hopeful.
> The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism.
Liberalism has always had a slight utopianist inclination, be it whig history, "the arc of history bends towards Justice", etc. Reform, not revolution, but certainly not accepting the world as it is either.
Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology. Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is too tepid and will not save it.
Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means.
> Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology.
No, you are reading that in.
> Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is *too tepid( and will not save it.
This is a restatement of the justification for authoritarianism.
But it's important it converges pretty nicely. That arbitrage slowly lifts the standard of living in all places until past colonializism and slavery no longer matter is fundamental to modern liberalism, hence https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit...
> No, you are reading that in.
We'll we can agree to disagree here, but let me first clarify what you do think. If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK? Do you think e.g. John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russel would agree with you?
> > Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is *too tepid( and will not save it.
> This is a restatement of the justification for authoritarianism.
I am not stating that liberalism isn't good enough. I am not even stating that liberalism isn't ambitious enough "objectively". I am saying that sort of liberalism isn't ambitious enough to maintain popular support. Right or wrong, it will die as the increasingly restless, and sure, illiberal, masses, seek other things.
Neoliberalism, was surprisingly successful saying we cannot have certain nice things and narrowing the overtone window (again, I say that independently of whether neoliberalism's claims are true), but it is unsustainable.
How is this question relevant?
Saying the latter doesn't matter, is assuming liberalism will be judged by a liberal audience. But that's cheating. Most people are illiberal, more than you, more than me. Liberalism needs to survive their judgement too.
You are saying it is insufficient and you are proposing that the criteria for that insufficiency is that has not eliminated intergenerational wealth.
Your position is understood.
(In that example, I think constitutional reform is scary to many people because they think that will open the floodgates to eviscerating their favor parts of the Bill of Rights.)
That’s not accurate. You are making claims about liberalism.
You have no privileged access to what ‘most people’ think, nor do you have a time machine that makes your predictions about the future special.
These are simply rhetorical devices you are using to imaginatively express your own thoughts.
Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply makes the assumption that less liberal systems will be even worse at producing human flourishing.
> When there's an emphasis on rules-based systems, it assumes there is some sort of quorum of those playing by the rules and others will have to join the fold.
It does assume that it is in people’s general interests to have some kind of trustworthy system of agreements.
As for ‘other people having to join the fold’. Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP.
> Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing.
This is a complete non-sequitur from your prior statements.
The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism.