[bagxrvxpepzn]

The answer to Liberalism dying isn't more Liberalism. Liberalism is dying precisely because Liberalism is wrong or at minimum, unsustainable. The attitude of the writer is exactly like the fetishists of every dead ideology, in particular Libertarians who argue "Real capitalism hasn't been tried yet!" or Communists who argue "Real communism hasn't been tried yet." These people, Liberals (capital L) included, need to get real and understand that reality is much more complicated than their specific simplistic idea of Utopia.

To save Liberalism, rather, we must first accept Liberalism is wrong. Then we must discuss what was wrong about it. Then fix those things to invent whatever ruling ideology comes next.

Here's a hint and it comes from his own writing. The "critical theory" and "identity politics" coming from within are directly a result of the nihilism and pathological individualism, respectively, that is born out of Liberalism. The US is degenerating because it lacks a prescribed morality (an unequivocal definition of what is right and wrong) and a prescribed universal identity, respectively. Things that Liberalism eschews, and things that people will find or invent elsewhere despite how many times you bemoan the death of enlightenment ideals.

[boxed]

That anti-liberalism was born out of liberalism doesn't make liberalism wrong.

It's like saying all dinosaurs were birds because birds evolved from dinosaurs. It just doesn't follow that a weird offshoot now defines the entire group retroactively back in time. It makes no sense to think like this logically.

[bagxrvxpepzn]

Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet." "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism. No matter how many times you try Liberalism it will degenerate into exactly the current situation we are facing now.

Failing to acknowledge the structural flaws of Liberalism just opens up an opportunity for ideological revolution. If the adherents of Liberalism prefer moderation, they better had start acknowledging how it's failing people. "Just Liberal harder" won't work forever.

[boxed]

> Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet."

No, it's been tried, and most of us are living in it right now. You are attempting a strawman badly.

> "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism.

First of all "identity politics" is just the new name for "tribalism". It's older than the human race. So leave that out.

For the rest: nope. Why did it take literally hundreds of years from the start of the Enlightenment for critical race theory to go totally crazy? If it's inevitable, it should be much faster. Look at communism which inevitably becomes just garden variety authoritarian dictatorship. How long does that take? Less than a year seems to be the pattern. THAT is what inevitable from the seed looks like.

I seriously hope your definition of liberalism is very different from mine, because you're not making much sense...

[guzfip]

The problem with most anti-liberals is that they seem to be exclusively lunatics.

The one exception seems to be Europeans catholic monarchists. I’ve found those people to be surprisingly rational in a world dominated by low IQ populism.