Tag: liberalism

End of the Liberal Era

nivtricLeave a comment

The liberal era is coming to an end. We see it happening in Europe and the United States, which have long been the centres of liberalism. The foundations of liberalism are individual freedom and rights, thus the rule of law rather than the ruler’s whims. The liberal steering mechanisms are markets and elections. Liberalism assumes we are all rational individuals who seek to express our preferences in elections and markets, which means that individual freedom works best. Individual freedom began to develop in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and unlike in other areas, there have always been strong powers countering authoritarian rulers, like nobles and independent cities, and later, the bourgeoisie.

That has long enhanced the West’s might, as economic power translates into military power. Property rights were essential. If your property is safe, you can build your capital and grow stronger economically. The propertied classes ran successful states like the Dutch Republic, Great Britain, and the United States. The emancipation of the masses later turned these countries into liberal democracies. These historical developments were responses to societal issues that arose under the pressure of competition. Universal suffrage gave citizens a stake in their country, which helped prevent revolutions, promote stability, promote economic growth, and make the country more successful.

Our values aren’t necessarily superior, and may fail us when circumstances change. The rise of China suggests that its authoritarian model is more competitive, but this remains uncertain. In the 1930s, while the West suffered from an economic depression, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union powered ahead. At the time, they seemed to win the race. But liberal democracy has survived both. Liberal democracies are now going under due to wealth inequality and the consequences of mass migration. The fascist parties promise to look after the interests of the native working class. After the Soviet bloc collapsed in 1989, liberals like Francis Fukuyama deluded themselves into thinking we had reached the end of history and liberalism had won. Others were more cautious and warned that tribalism has not died.

The Clash of Civilisations became the response to The End of History. After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, there was no denying that history had not yet ended. Since then, we have seen the rise of a new nationalism and fascism, including messianic leadership cults. It began in the Netherlands with Pim Fortuyn, which is quite remarkable, as the country has led the previous liberal revolution as well on issues like abortion, euthanasia, LGBTQ rights, and the allowance of the use of marijuana. For long, the memory of two devastating world wars has kept nationalism and fascism at bay in Western Europe. After two world wars, Europeans had learned the hard way that nationalism and fascism are excellent ways to destroy their country. That memory has now faded, and the world has changed.

It becomes easier to understand once you see history as a struggle for the survival of groups of people via competing stories. It is rational to believe the stories that help you to survive. That is also why we look for strong leaders in times of uncertainty. Democracy works best when the situation is stable, the rules are clear, everything is functioning smoothly, and everyone is honest and on the same page. But it often required warfare to get people on the same page. If you think immigrants are a threat and ending immigration is a matter of survival, everything is allowed, including spreading fake news. It is not unreasonable to have that fear. Had the Native Americans made up and believed stories about whites being cannibals, eating human bodies and drinking human blood during secret rituals in their churches, and killed them all in a frenzy when they still could, they might have fared better.

The truth matters, but we don’t know the future, no matter how thoroughly we examine the facts, so our choices are a matter of faith. In the hypothetical example, believing the facts that Christians aren’t cannibals would be a death sentence for the Native Americans. And the truth is that lies and fake news can help us survive, most notably sensational stories that depict others as evil. And look at how these whites have culturally enriched the country. The beautiful forests have given way to strips of tarmac surrounded by ugly structures with neon lights. They have completely ruined the land. And look at the people: fatties in funny clothes. The remaining natives now languish in reservations. Those who fear mass migration and believe sensational stories about evil groups conspiring to cull us.

Evolution made us that way. It is survival of the fittest. That made us violent religious creatures who kill each other for our beliefs. Those who believed in lies and killed those who didn’t were the ones who survived. And so, fact-checkers bite the dust. There is often a relation to the facts. Christians have a peculiar ritual in which they eat bread and drink wine and pretend these are the body and blood of Christ. And because of overpopulation, there are efforts to promote birth control. But facts don’t inspire us. We need great stories about good versus evil. These stories help to come into action.

And so, we are religious beings and believe in fairy tales, whether it is the multicultural society or white genocide. So, who is destroying the United States? Is it MAGA cultists trampling on the Constitution, or is it cultural Marxists with their diversity policies who tell us what to think? Take your pick. We also need scapegoats or enemies, and it helps if they have an unusual appearance, so you can poke fun at them. For the leftists, these are neo-Nazi skinheads with their particular tattoos, and for the fascists, it is transgenders. It allows us to cooperate and rally behind causes, which enhances our chances of survival, provided we choose the right stories.

The new fascism is less about racism and more about cultural identity. It is also less about starting wars to enlarge a nation’s territory and more about preserving the country by preventing immigration and sending immigrants back. While Europe’s population is declining, it is growing in Africa. By 2100, there may be four billion people in Africa, eight times as many as in Europe. And that is a concern, because many Africans might come to Europe. South Africa is an example of what can go wrong if descendants of African immigrants replace European natives. It is a worst-case scenario.

Some African countries do well, so it may come to pass, but it is a realistic scenario. Blacks can learn to run successful states because they have done so for over 2,000 years in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has long been ahead of Western Europe. Running a state and building institutions is an ability you acquire by learning. Most of Africa had never had states before the European colonisers came. Africa had to catch up and achieve in a few decades what Europeans took 1,000 years to accomplish. We don’t know the future. That is where the fear comes from. And that can make us go apeshit. Civilisation is just a thin veneer. Underneath, we are all primates.

Several countries, like Hungary, now have fascist governments. In 2023, the nationalist anti-immigration party PVV became the largest in the Netherlands. The tipping point, however, became Donald Trump’s second presidency. During his first presidency, Trump’s cabinet consisted of Republican establishment figures, thus people from the old political order. By 2024, Trump had transformed the party and surrounded himself with yes-men, and he has little regard for the rule of law. The US political order was already corrupt to the core before Trump became president, and the previous Biden Administration also did not uphold the law by doing little against illegal immigration.

Things will not return to what they once were. We have entered unprecedented fascist territory with scenes not seen in the West since the demise of the Third Reich, with raids to round up illegal immigrants, withholding funds from universities for political reasons, and efforts to take away the rights of legal immigrants. But let’s not forget that many activists on the left are also illiberal, don’t tolerate alternative views, and use violence. Dutch politicians who have tried to limit migration know, or at least those who have survived the assassination attempts.

Indeed, force has always been our ultimate argument. Liberals try to solve issues with laws, but laws are also opportunities for abuse. You can ask yourself why babies born in the US should automatically become US citizens. But that was also the law. Laws and litigation don’t make just societies, which has been the most visible in the United States. The rule of law is a century-old pillar of Western civilisation, so liberals are shell-shocked, or as MAGA enthusiasts would point out more colourfully, suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome and exploding heads.

Laws are fictions we create to make societies work, so you should question the laws when they don’t work. Even the rule of law comes into question when it fails to protect ordinary citizens. We often forget that the first and foremost task of a state is to provide order and prevent gang violence. We often take the state for granted, or even think we can do without it. States have succeeded in reducing violent deaths by over 99%, and if they disappear, the world will become a dangerous place.

In El Salvador, violent crime has gone out of control. Eventually, rounding up suspected gang members and locking them up without due process brought down murders by over 95%. That measure turned El Salvador into one of the safest countries after being one of the most unsafe. But once you go down that road, where does it end? Concentration camps? Conversely, how many murders do you accept to prevent innocent people from going to prison? So, why did liberalism fail? There are several issues:

  • Liberalism is not a story that unites us but one that allows us to merely coexist and do as we please. It only requires us to obey the law. The arrangement works when everyone respects liberal institutions despite their differences.
  • The world has become globalised, but we want to be part of a group and feel a connection to each other. Mass immigration reduces social cohesion, making the lack of stories that unite us a pressing problem.
  • The rule of law has failed us. Authorities often don’t uphold the law. Legal doesn’t mean just. The elites get away with their crimes. Innocent until proven guilty helps criminals. Litigation blocks solutions. Lawyers make money by scamming us.
  • Liberalism centres around individual rights. That blocks solutions to global collection action problems, such as reducing production, consumption, and population, which requires trampling on rights that people imagine they have.
  • Technological development is about to produce a disaster. Many things can go wrong, but artificial intelligence can make us redundant. Countering this threat requires ending the competition, thus ending nation-states and capitalism.

Humans are creatures that cooperate by believing the same stories. To liberals, the myths the fascists believe may seem hilarious, but they forge group cohesion and create an enemy, which can generate the required anger for collective action. Trump supporters stormed the Capitol after Trump claimed he had won the election, and Democrats had committed election fraud. That was after Trump had tried to commit election fraud himself. Accusing others of what you are doing yourself was a successful tactic often employed by fascists. It shifted the attention from the real fraud Trump had tried to commit to the imaginary fraud Democrats supposedly had committed. And the MAGA crowd loved it. No politician lied more than Donald Trump. He gets away with corruption, sexual assault, and countless lies. It makes liberals go apeshit. That is what the MAGA enthusiasts want to see.

Within the MAGA movement, several outlandish ideas circulated. One of the most extreme was Q harping about a paedophile network operating at high levels and Donald Trump leading the fight against them. The reality is that Epstein held parties with underage girls whom Trump also attended. Then there are the suspicious circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death, dubbed a suicide. He had been on suicide watch after he tried to commit suicide. Somehow, the supervision failed due to ‘a perfect storm of screw-ups,’ as the then US attorney general, Bill Barr, called it. One of Epstein’s victims said that Epstein had claimed he was running a Mossad operation. It looks like the plot of a spy novel. Liberals can poke fun at Q, but upon closer examination of the facts, it becomes understandable why some people believe it.

Most MAGA supporters didn’t believe it, yet found it helpful for their cause. Stories help us cooperate. And Qit is a great story: Trump as a gladiator fighting paedophile networks within the elites, even infiltrating them by attending these parties. And Trump is a sexual predator, as 26 women have accused him of sexual misconduct, while he admitted that he grabbed women by the pussy. He uses his presidency for his business interests and those of his family and friends. Trump is a lowlife and makes a good gangster boss, but that is precisely what his followers look for. A gangster boss can win a fight for you in this world full of danger. A bureaucrat or a career politician can’t. They play it by the book or do the bidding of their wealthy donors.

Due to campaign financing and influence buying, which is legal in the United States, the US political system is criminally corrupt according to Dutch law. Outright gangsterism was a logical next step. Why pretend not to be criminals if everyone knows you are? Trump is even more open to bribes than any president in recent history. That is the art of the deal. Indeed, far-right leaders are more often gangsters than not. The Hungarian president is an excellent example. The French far-right leader has also proven to be a swindler. And so are most others. These leaders know to inspire their followers by calling investigations into their corrupt dealings witch hunts. To their followers, they are strongmen or women.

Trump single-handedly built the MAGA movement, took over the Republican Party, won the election, and is now going after the liberal establishment. That is what his vengeful followers hope to see. They don’t care if he is more corrupt than any US president in recent history. When you think Marxists are destroying your country, lying and cheating are okay. The Biden Administration did little to stop the influx of illegal immigrants. If you believed Democrats were destroying the United States, that was good evidence. It wasn’t all bad what Donald Trump tried to achieve. Think of bringing industrial jobs back to the United States and ending the war in Ukraine. Still, Trump and the MAGA movement will likely wreck the United States. MAGA drives on Big Bullshit. It can collapse at any time, leaving the country in shambles.

We can’t oversee the consequences of our actions. Our beliefs and ideologies are models of reality, not reality itself. They are all fictions or stories we tell. And whatever story works best to survive is the most successful. Models have limitations and fail from time to time. Liberalism has been a success for centuries, but mainly in the West, making liberals blind to their faulty assumptions, like the state being a voluntary agreement between individuals. It forged nations like the United States by allowing people from different backgrounds and religions to cooperate.

And immigration has contributed much to the success of the country. Liberalism supposes an individualist culture, making it typically Western. That is where it went wrong. Something similar applies to cultural Marxism, as it builds on the Western tradition, thus the progress of society through the Hegelian dialectic. That societal process mainly took place in the West. Marx already argued that progress builds on previous achievements. A society needs to become bourgeois before it can progress further. Tell Africans or Muslims about LGBTQ rights. They will probably think you are nuts.

Liberals didn’t foresee that the influx of immigrants from different cultures would undermine the very basis of liberalism. They deluded themselves by thinking liberalism is superior because nationalism and fascism have failed even more miserably in two devastating world wars than communism, which has collapsed relatively peacefully. Science has proven religions wrong, making liberals think that liberalism is superior. If your ideology is vastly superior, immigration is no problem, because the immigrants will eventually see the light. You can even invade a country like Iraq, and a liberal democracy will pop up and flourish. Okay, it didn’t work out that way. That should have been a warning sign.

Like many in the MAGA crowd today, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler believed the elites, communists and Jews were destroying Germany. The irony of history is that no one ever did a greater job in ruining Germany than the Nazis. In fact, patriots often did a much better job of destroying their countries than Marxists. Had the Soviet Union still existed, Russia and Ukraine wouldn’t have fought a bloody nationalist war. Had the communists still run Yugoslavia, the civil war wouldn’t have torn the country into pieces. But we live by stories, not facts, and liberalism is also a fairy tale. Liberalism was only very successful. It was the fairy tale that built the West.

Success is about survival, not about getting the facts right, which liberals, impressed by the achievements of science, have forgotten, but that is also a fact and why liberalism collapsed so quickly. If humans commit suicide by science and the rats survive, the rats are more successful as a species. You don’t need science and facts to survive. They might even kill you. It explains seemingly irrational fears, such as those related to vaccines. But the odds of a product of science killing us may well exceed those of natural causes. Only the fictions we create can help us cooperate and survive, and the fiction that we need science and facts has long helped those who believed it. And suddenly, that story fails.

That is where we stand now. Humanity is at a crossroads. Global problems like the coming technological-ecological apocalypse don’t disappear without unprecedented measures unthinkable in a liberal world. You can’t reason from the facts, find definitive proof, and propose solutions respecting individual rights. That is not going to work. We don’t know the future. The choices we make are a matter of faith, and only faith can save us now. Humankind, as we know it, may only survive with an inspiring fairy tale that unites us all. We are about to enter a new chapter in history, which may well be the end of history.

Featured image: AI-generated

Latest revision: 23 August 2025

Liberal democracy

nivtricLeave a comment

A definition

Democracies are often called liberal democracies. So what is a liberal democracy and why might it be the best way of government? There are no easy answers to these questions nor is there agreement on these matters. Liberalism emphasises the value of individuals while democracy is rule by majority. These two principles can be at odds.

Liberal democracies have elections between multiple political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life, an open society, a market economy with private property, the protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for everyone.1

Liberals believe that individuals and social groups have conflicts of interest. The social order must deal with these conflicts and resolve them in a peaceful manner. To achieve such a feat, all parties must be reasonable and there should be a balance of powers. No party should be able to force its will upon others.2 It is an important reason why liberals stress the importance of individual rights.

Democracy means that government decisions require the consent of the majority of the citizens. In most cases the citizens elect a parliament that does the decision making for them. Sometimes citizens can vote for individual proposals in referendums. In reality many democratic countries aren’t fully democratic because not all government decisions are supported by a majority of the citizens.

Principles

Liberal democracy is based on a social contract, which is an agreement amongst the members of society to cooperate for mutual benefits. For instance, labourers may accept capitalism if they get a share of prosperity. That deal turned out to be more attractive than state ownership of the means of production.

Liberalism has two principles that can be at odds, namely non-interference with people’s lives and realising everyone’s potential. In this vein there are two branches of liberalism:

  • Economic liberalism promotes freedom of the markets as well as free trade and claims that the state should be of minimal size and not interfere with people’s lives.
  • Social liberalism claims that the state should help to realise the potential of people by promoting their freedom to make choices, which includes ending poverty.

Each liberal democracy more or less embraces these values. Liberal democracies come with a market economy and respect for the rights of individual citizens. Governments interfere with the lives of people and try to promote their happiness and to realise their potential. The conflicting nature of both principles makes liberal democracies differ with regard to freedom of markets and government interference.

In the United States liberalism has a different meaning. There it is another word for social liberalism or democratic socialism. In Europe the definition of liberalism is broader and this is also the definition used here. In the 17th century liberal ideas began to emerge in what is called the European Enlightenment. Around the year 1700 the philosopher John Locke came up with the following basic principles for a liberal state:

  • a social contract in which citizens accept the authority of the state in exchange for the protection of their rights and property and maintaining the social order;
  • consent of the governed, which means that state power is only justified when the people agree;
  • separation of church and state, which means that the state doesn’t favour a specific religion and does not require a religious justification.3

Is it the best form of government?

Liberal democracy is part of the European cultural heritage. Proponents claim that it is the best form of government. These universalist claims are sometimes contested on the ground that they are a form of western cultural imperialism. Another argument is that there is no guarantee that liberal democracy leads to better decisions. From a religious perspective people argue that our Creator may prefer a different kind of social order and government, possibly even a theocracy.

The argument in favour of the universalist claims is that liberal democracy emerged out of a historical process that took centuries in which rational arguments played a decisive role. The European Enlightenment challenged existing practices in government on the basis of reason. Ideas that emerged out of the European Enlightenment were tried out in different ways and refined further. Europeans also invested heavily in educating their citizens. This produced a culture of reason and compromise as well as a massive body of practical experience and best practises.

There is also no guarantee that other forms of government lead to better decisions. In an open society better information can be available so well-educated citizens in a culture of reason and compromise may make better decisions. There are a few democracies that live up to these expectations so it can work out that way. And we may not be able to determine what kind of order God desires. If our Creator is all-powerful then the emergence and spread of liberal democracy may not be God’s plan.

One of the biggest problems facing liberal democracy is high expectations. Liberal democracy itself does not guarantee a reliable government that is both efficient and effective nor does it ensure a flourishing economy. This has led to disappointments. A failed and corrupt government can’t simply be turned into a success by allowing elections. Liberal democracy works best with a well-educated population in a culture of reason and compromise that doesn’t allow for corruption and abuse of power.

On the moral front there are a few issues too. Liberal democracy promises equal treatment for all people. In reality people aren’t treated equal nor do they have equal opportunities. There is discrimination based on ethnicity, gender or sexual preferences. And poor people have fewer opportunities than rich people. Still, the goal of equal treatment and equal opportunities can be something to strive for. It may be better to aim for such goals and fail from time to time than not having these goals at all.

If liberalism promotes tolerance then how to deal to intolerant people? Should their intolerance be tolerated? If people do not accept liberal values, should they be educated or should these values be imposed? And are free markets the best way of organising the economy or is government involvement advised? If the economy is served by stability, should dissent that causes instability be suppressed? An excessive or unnecessary use of force can undermine the foundation of liberal democracy as liberal democracy is based on reason and convincing people by argument. And indeed it is possible that liberal democracy can be overturned.

History

The preconditions for liberalism had already emerged in Western Europe during the Middle Ages. There was a larger degree of individualism than elsewhere. Liberalism itself emerged during the sixteenth century. At the time Europe was ravaged by devastating religious wars. After several decades of warfare Europeans grew tired of the conflict and began to tolerate religious differences. Some catholic countries accepted protestant minorities while many protestant countries accepted catholic minorities. Germany was almost equally divided. At the time Germany consisted of small states that had either protestant or catholic rulers.

This religious tolerance was at first more or less an uneasy truce. No party had been able to gain the upper hand. Religious minorities at first didn’t receive equal rights. They were only tolerated. Over time the case for religious tolerance became more widely accepted. It was based on two major arguments.

  • The argument of ignorance which states that only God knows who is on the right path and who is doomed so humans shouldn’t judge others.
  • The argument of perversity which states that cruelty is at odds with Christian values and that religious persecution strengthens the resolve of the persecuted.1

The concept of tolerance expanded into a general concern for the rights of individual citizens. In the 17th century liberal ideas were spreading. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England limited the power of the king. The rights of individuals were written down in the Bill of Rights. Parliament became the most powerful political institution based on the principle of consent of the governed. The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States was based on liberal principles too. It states that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.2

The founding fathers of the United States were also early liberals. The United States Constitution reflects this view. The aim of the United States Constitution is, amongst others, to safeguard the rights of individuals against the state. A large group of Americans believe that individual rights should prevail against democratically elected governments. The widespread support for gun ownership in the United States comes from a distrust of the state as a protector of life, liberty and possessions.

Democracy had not been a seriously considered since classical antiquity. It was believed that democracies are inherently unstable and chaotic due to the changing whims of the people.1 The violence during the French Revolution supported these views. It began as a popular uprising incited by liberal ideas but it soon turned into chaos and bloodshed. Order was restored by a despot ruler named Napoleon Bonaparte who did much to spread liberal reforms throughout Europe by ending the feudal system, emancipating religious minorities and imposing a liberal code of law. The spread of liberal ideas proved to be lasting and democracy was to follow a century later.

The Industrial Revolution started a period of accelerated and constant change that was disastrous for many who found themselves on the losing side. The ruling class changed. Nobility was replaced by a new elite of business people. The position of craftsmen was undermined by factories. And workers in factories laboured under miserable conditions for low wages. There were three major ways of confronting these changes:

  • Conservatives tried to hold on the old order of community, religion and nobility.
  • Socialists tried to overturn the elite of business people by giving power to workers.
  • Liberals tried to manage the change, thereby implicitly supporting the order in which business people were the ruling class.

Liberalism often coincides with the interests of business people. They have possessions and some are rich. They feared that the poor might vote for handing over their possessions to the poor. Socialism became the embodiment of this fear. Liberals were at first inclined to limit the right to vote to people who pay taxes because this excluded poor people from voting. When the threat of socialism became subdued and socialists were willing to compromise, liberals came to accept democracy based on the principle of one person one vote.

In the 19th century European countries held vast colonial empires. These colonies were kept for profit. It was generally believed that the people in these colonies had to be educated before they would be able to govern themselves. The colonial era helped to modernise these countries and most Europeans at the time believed that the oppression and the economic exploitation were justified on these grounds. There were only a few dissenters, for instance the Dutch writer Multatuli.

Liberal democracy faced a few major crises like World War I, the Great Depression and World War II. World War I demonstrated that liberal democracy and free trade weren’t a guarantee for peace and stability. The Great Depression once again challenged liberal democracy as the Soviet Union remained unaffected while Nazi Germany was able to recover and achieve full employment while other countries were still struggling. And during World War II Nazi Germany overran most democratic countries in Europe.

After World War II the European colonies became independent. The Soviet Union came to dominate Eastern Europe and China became a communist country. The United States became the protector of liberal democracy but also a number of dictatorships. This era is called the Cold War and it lasted until the Soviet Union dismantled itself after allowing the peoples of Eastern Europe to make their own choices. Major challengers of liberal democracy nowadays are the one-party system in China and political Islam.

The citizens of Hong Kong and Taiwan don’t like to lose their freedoms. Chinese too probably prefer freedom if they have a choice. And the Islamic State has shown Muslims all around the globe that political Islam can easily turn into a reign of terror. The foundations of liberal democracy may be strong, but a collapse of the global economy may turn be a more serious threat to liberal democracy than the alternatives. Reason can easily disappear once people become fearful of the future.

Reasons for success and limitations

The success of liberal democracy is therefore not a historical necessity. Liberal democracy might never have been invented or dictatorships could have gained the upper hand. That didn’t happen. Communist and fascist dictatorships came and went. Perhaps liberal democracy is a temporary phenomenon but we can’t know that now. Only the future can tell. There are a number of causes that might explain the strength of liberal democracy.

  • Liberal democracy is based on the consent of the governed so it is has the consent of the governed by default while other forms of government do not.
  • Science greatly contributes to the success of states and science is best served with an open debate that liberal democracy provides.
  • The economy greatly contributes to the success of states and the economy is best served with individual rights that liberal democracy provides.

A despot ruler or a ruling party in a one-party system might have the consent of its subjects, but if not, only force remains for the ruler or the party to maintain power. Liberal democracies usually resolve such issues peacefully through elections, making liberal democracy more stable by default. Intellectual freedom is helpful to science while economic freedom is helpful for the economy, so liberal democracy can be a potent force. Only when leadership is required, liberal democracy might not always be adequate.

Liberalism has no higher moral value than the individual, which is peculiar because the individual human is an insignificant part of this universe. And individualism may be at odds with human nature as humans are social animals. Humans are not atomic beings that choose to cooperate for mutual benefit like liberalism supposes. Cooperation is part of human nature and not a choice individuals deliberately make.

It is the success in cooperation that makes a society win out. Liberalism gives a framework for living together in peace as long as all major parties are reasonable and willing to compromise. This makes larger scale cooperation possible and that can make a society successful. For instance, the United States integrated people from different cultural backgrounds, which contributed to the success of the United States as a nation.

It is said that history is written by the victors. Strength may be the reason why liberal democracy prevailed. Liberal philosophers have tried to provide a moral justification for liberal democracy or they may have opposed it or they may have tried to improve it. Liberal democracy emerged out of thought and action, experiment and failure, and it was a process that took centuries. Philosophers like Locke contributed to its success as they set out the goals people could strife for.

Apart from individualism, liberal societies lack a higher purpose. From a scientific viewpoint there is no higher purpose to this universe. The moral codes humans live by are not more than an agreement. Only when this universe is created for a purpose there is a reason for our existence. But moral individualism can be dangerous. The challenges humanity is currently facing, most notably living within the limits of this planet, most likely requires making individuals subject to a higher causes like the survival of humanity and caring for the planet.

1. Liberal democracy. Wikipedia.
2. Liberalism: The Life of an Idea. Edmund Fawcett (2015). Princeton University Press.
3. History of liberalism. Wikipedia.