Your article consistently confuses a broad global definition of liberalism as political freedom and equal opportunities ("liberal democracies such as the US, Canada and Australia") with a narrow US definition of liberalism as the policies of the Democratic party base ("Kamala Harris is a liberal"). This incoherence perhaps makes US Democrats feel good, but it does little to help with the broader problem of the "world on fire".
In 2020, I lived in an area that was "liberal" in the narrow, US-based sense. And I saw it become highly *illiberal* in the larger, global sense: schools and small businesses were forcibly shut down, police were sent to arrest people for having "gatherings", and all of these decisions were made by unelected "public health" officials with zero input from voters.
I do believe that liberalism in the broad global sense is worth fighting to preserve. But to do so, we need to have a definition of it that is coherent and not based on tribalism. Why, for instance, our populism and consumerism less "liberal" than technocratic rule and a spirit of self-sacrifice for the common good? Both of the former arise regularly in liberal democracies and are quite compatible with that form of government. One can easily argue that populism is more compatible with liberal democracy than rule by the "best and brightest" with phds from elite colleges. It's incoherent to lump in populism and consumerism with racism and patriarchy, just because you don't like them. It's also incoherent to assume that no one calling themselves a "liberal" could possibly threaten the core liberal values of freedom and equality - again, look at 2020.
Your article consistently confuses a broad global definition of liberalism as political freedom and equal opportunities ("liberal democracies such as the US, Canada and Australia") with a narrow US definition of liberalism as the policies of the Democratic party base ("Kamala Harris is a liberal"). This incoherence perhaps makes US Democrats feel good, but it does little to help with the broader problem of the "world on fire".
In 2020, I lived in an area that was "liberal" in the narrow, US-based sense. And I saw it become highly *illiberal* in the larger, global sense: schools and small businesses were forcibly shut down, police were sent to arrest people for having "gatherings", and all of these decisions were made by unelected "public health" officials with zero input from voters.
I do believe that liberalism in the broad global sense is worth fighting to preserve. But to do so, we need to have a definition of it that is coherent and not based on tribalism. Why, for instance, our populism and consumerism less "liberal" than technocratic rule and a spirit of self-sacrifice for the common good? Both of the former arise regularly in liberal democracies and are quite compatible with that form of government. One can easily argue that populism is more compatible with liberal democracy than rule by the "best and brightest" with phds from elite colleges. It's incoherent to lump in populism and consumerism with racism and patriarchy, just because you don't like them. It's also incoherent to assume that no one calling themselves a "liberal" could possibly threaten the core liberal values of freedom and equality - again, look at 2020.