> Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means.

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.

> If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK?

How is this question relevant?

I assume we agree with what liberalism is, the question is what liberalism does.

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.

What you have written is about how you are judging liberalism.

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.

How I judge liberalism doesn't matter. I don't call the shots. I am asking you to think about how most people judge liberalism. It's not popular, which you can see in e.g. opinion polls on various things. Can an undemocratic liberalism hold fast? Is it even liberalism at that point?

To be clear, there are plenty of ways we can improve on the American status quo that don't ditch liberalism --- such as constitutional reform for far more democratic voting systems. But I fear they are very unlikely because by the time we had the political will for such huge steps, there will be a lots and lots of discontent and the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater.

(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.)

> How I judge liberalism doesn't matter. I don't call the shots. I am asking you to think about how most people judge liberalism.

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.