I wonder, though, whether the participants really understand what classical liberalism is, because they loosely talk about freedom and free-markets, but then speak of "the collective good" and government (euphemistically referred to as "we") taking over the production of transportation and and who knows what else, and living for some "higher purpose" (higher than my own life???).
This is the language of illiberalism.
The idea that one should look for meaning in some duty to serve some collective, nation or god, is what liberalism rejected. The Declaration was a statement about the sovereignty of the individual and the right to pursue one's own life and happiness for one's own sake. And governments are instituted for the purpose of protecting that right.
JFK's "ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turns the Declaration on its head. Sovereignty and the source of meaning belong to the individual, not the country. The country exists in serve of the individual's freedom, which they possess by right.
What liberalism needs is a moral defense. The common cause of liberty is to recognize that meaning is something that each individual creates for themselves by pursuing and achieving their own values and happiness. For each individual, their life is their ultimate value. No, this does not exclude other people, nor working together, nor community, nor caring about others, etc. All of these are values to individuals.
Modern day 'Liberalism' is insanity and I agree with everything you've written.
The original concept of Liberalism was for each individual to attempt to do their best by choice.
You can't shame people into becoming better but you can inspire them to be.
Current 'Liberals' only use shame and pressure, as experienced by cancel culture and top down Government, which is why they're becoming so reviled.
Modern day 'Liberals' are not liberal at all. They're communists, trying to FORCE people to comply from outside pressures.
The irony here, is that the entire reason young people are lost and broken is because of this Illiberal 'Liberalism' (I laugh every time I write that) that has removed meritocracy from society, and continue to do so.
Without MERIT people have nothing to live for.
The ONLY purpose Democrats (and 'Liberals' from around the world) have these days is to provide a foil to their opposition. They lead in nothing.
They are so out of touch with reality that they don't deserve to win an election...and that's probably because they've been infiltrated by the wealthy, who push a Marxist ideology that has NEVER worked in society and never well.
As long as politicians don't recognize human nature as a fundamental force, and just treat individuals as Marx did, like role players in a game, they will never be accepted.
You highlight the risky blend of free‑market language with a vague ‘collective good,’ which often disguises illiberal motives masquerading as a higher purpose. That tension underscores how vital clear, authoritative sources are when sorting fact from rhetoric, much like consulting https://fayettecountycourt.org to separate procedural myth from legal reality. The Declaration’s focus on individual sovereignty should remain the benchmark for any policy claim, and keeping the debate anchored in precise definitions will help Gen Z discern genuine liberalism from its post‑liberal echo.
"So I think there’s a lesson there that any candidate in 2028 needs to learn from, and this is actually something young people are asking for: to make their life meaningfully better, to make it feel like there’s progress happening. They just don’t see that happening right now at the national level."
This is CRITICAL. Contrary to what the Class Warrior illiberal progressive wing would have you believe, it's NOT about money. It's about opportunity. Opportunity is about possibly being able to do what you want to do and live your life the way you want to live it. Best summarized by Kyla Scanlon as: "The loss of a path of predictable progress." Partly because there is no clear answer, this is MUCH more knotty than just redistribution, but unless the Damn Ds understand the difference they won't make much progress. They need to *acknowledge* the problem in these terms, tell people heart-to-heart that we feel their anxiety and will work with and for them to find solutions! "Reinforcements are on the way!" (see below)
"Fukuyama: Well, my answer is very simple: the illiberal politicians need to be voted out of office."
Yes, OK. Easy to say. But what I see is illiberals to the right of us, illiberals to the left of us, and nobody to lead the huge mass of "the rest of us" in the center through to victory. With both parties thriving (nationally) on illiberalism, how does Prof. Fukuyama propose to drive us forward to victory?
I wonder, though, whether the participants really understand what classical liberalism is, because they loosely talk about freedom and free-markets, but then speak of "the collective good" and government (euphemistically referred to as "we") taking over the production of transportation and and who knows what else, and living for some "higher purpose" (higher than my own life???).
This is the language of illiberalism.
The idea that one should look for meaning in some duty to serve some collective, nation or god, is what liberalism rejected. The Declaration was a statement about the sovereignty of the individual and the right to pursue one's own life and happiness for one's own sake. And governments are instituted for the purpose of protecting that right.
JFK's "ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turns the Declaration on its head. Sovereignty and the source of meaning belong to the individual, not the country. The country exists in serve of the individual's freedom, which they possess by right.
What liberalism needs is a moral defense. The common cause of liberty is to recognize that meaning is something that each individual creates for themselves by pursuing and achieving their own values and happiness. For each individual, their life is their ultimate value. No, this does not exclude other people, nor working together, nor community, nor caring about others, etc. All of these are values to individuals.
Modern day 'Liberalism' is insanity and I agree with everything you've written.
The original concept of Liberalism was for each individual to attempt to do their best by choice.
You can't shame people into becoming better but you can inspire them to be.
Current 'Liberals' only use shame and pressure, as experienced by cancel culture and top down Government, which is why they're becoming so reviled.
Modern day 'Liberals' are not liberal at all. They're communists, trying to FORCE people to comply from outside pressures.
The irony here, is that the entire reason young people are lost and broken is because of this Illiberal 'Liberalism' (I laugh every time I write that) that has removed meritocracy from society, and continue to do so.
Without MERIT people have nothing to live for.
The ONLY purpose Democrats (and 'Liberals' from around the world) have these days is to provide a foil to their opposition. They lead in nothing.
They are so out of touch with reality that they don't deserve to win an election...and that's probably because they've been infiltrated by the wealthy, who push a Marxist ideology that has NEVER worked in society and never well.
As long as politicians don't recognize human nature as a fundamental force, and just treat individuals as Marx did, like role players in a game, they will never be accepted.
You highlight the risky blend of free‑market language with a vague ‘collective good,’ which often disguises illiberal motives masquerading as a higher purpose. That tension underscores how vital clear, authoritative sources are when sorting fact from rhetoric, much like consulting https://fayettecountycourt.org to separate procedural myth from legal reality. The Declaration’s focus on individual sovereignty should remain the benchmark for any policy claim, and keeping the debate anchored in precise definitions will help Gen Z discern genuine liberalism from its post‑liberal echo.
From Rachel Janfaza above:
"So I think there’s a lesson there that any candidate in 2028 needs to learn from, and this is actually something young people are asking for: to make their life meaningfully better, to make it feel like there’s progress happening. They just don’t see that happening right now at the national level."
This is CRITICAL. Contrary to what the Class Warrior illiberal progressive wing would have you believe, it's NOT about money. It's about opportunity. Opportunity is about possibly being able to do what you want to do and live your life the way you want to live it. Best summarized by Kyla Scanlon as: "The loss of a path of predictable progress." Partly because there is no clear answer, this is MUCH more knotty than just redistribution, but unless the Damn Ds understand the difference they won't make much progress. They need to *acknowledge* the problem in these terms, tell people heart-to-heart that we feel their anxiety and will work with and for them to find solutions! "Reinforcements are on the way!" (see below)
"Fukuyama: Well, my answer is very simple: the illiberal politicians need to be voted out of office."
Yes, OK. Easy to say. But what I see is illiberals to the right of us, illiberals to the left of us, and nobody to lead the huge mass of "the rest of us" in the center through to victory. With both parties thriving (nationally) on illiberalism, how does Prof. Fukuyama propose to drive us forward to victory?
I’m confused. Who is or would be the ‘we’ in this scenario ?