Has Liberalism Failed?
Conservatives have been pronouncing the failure of liberalism since the late 1960s. And yet liberalism continues to reign supreme as the unofficial state ideology of virtually all Western democracies.
It is time for conservatives to switch gears and begin trying to account for liberalism’s undeniable longevity and success in spite of its inherent flaws.
I think liberalism’s surprising success (I think it has deep flaws) can be attributed above all to the economic prosperity it has engendered. This prosperity provides enough citizens with a large enough stake in the liberal regime to keep it going. It also offers citizens a realistic enough prospect of economic-status advancement to remain committed to the general liberal idea of freedom to pursue one’s “best life.”
Pluralism
I think another element that conservatives, in particular, have overlooked is the cooperative potential of human beings in a pluralistic culture. There is good historical precedent and factors, at least on paper, to make one suspect that such a degree of pluralism could not possibly work in the long term.
But I think there is enough evidence now to conclude that this probably underestimates the adaptability and cooperative instincts/potential of human beings (the point above helps, of course, so it perhaps all hinges on a collective sense of progress).
I’m not saying that conservatives should become uncritical proponents of pluralism. I just think that conservative critics of pluralism need to come up with a cogent account of why the growth in pluralism over the last 60 years in countries like Australia has coincided with economic growth and stable social order.
Just a couple of thoughts on liberalism and really an appeal to conservatives to abandon the facile “liberalism has failed” mantra and come up with a more sophisticated account of liberal flaws and success that accords with empirical reality.
___
Originally published on Dr Jonathan Cole’s page.
Subscribe to his podcast, The Political Animals, for more insights.
Photo by David McBee.
One Comment
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
26 June 2026
4.4 MINS
Channel Nine just supercharged Karl Stefanovic’s conservative brand power. The network has officially confirmed they’ve cancelled the Today show host over a now-deleted interview with UK independent journalist Tommy Robinson.
26 June 2026
3.8 MINS
Pauline Hanson’s critics would rather play dumb than debate multiculturalism's failures. It's much easier than having a serious debate over monoculturalism — or any debate at all.
26 June 2026
2.6 MINS
Nation First examines the interview that rattled the woke media class, and asks why a straightforward conversation with Tommy Robinson was enough to end Karl Stefanovic’s career at Nine.
26 June 2026
8.5 MINS
Sowell once flirted with Marxism, attracted by its promises of equality of outcome, only to reject it. Here are some choice quotes from him on what true equality means — and most importantly for today — what it does not.
25 June 2026
2.4 MINS
The Australian Christian Lobby is hosting screenings of the groundbreaking documentary Born Alive, Left to Die across Australia. It is time for truth, accountability, and change. Attend a screening and invite others to join you.
25 June 2026
3.9 MINS
Most Australians still believe in human dignity and inalienable rights, essential truths for a just legal system. What they’ve since abandoned is the only foundation that make those beliefs coherent.
25 June 2026
3.2 MINS
Larry Sanger helped create Wikipedia to be "the free encyclopaedia anyone can edit." Three decades later, he's been locked out — for trying to make the site more balanced.
Rebuttal to Dr. Jonathan Cole’s “Has Liberalism Failed?
Dr. Cole’s account of the longevity and successes of liberalism largely overlooks the underpinnings of the current pluralistic society, which, according to some analyses, is a direct result of the neo-Marxist revolution with its long march through the institutions. While Dr. Cole praises the success of liberalism due to economic prosperity, he does not acknowledge the subversive influences that have changed the fabric of society.
Firstly, while Marx originally posited a division between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, when this division failed to materialize to the extent needed for a revolution, a new approach was employed. As the West was deeply entrenched in bourgeoisie principles, the Marxist narrative adapted. Queer theory and critical race theory emerged as tools to create new divisions within society, not based on class but on race, gender, and sexuality.
These theories, according to some interpretations, were crafted with the express purpose of undermining the status quo by introducing internal conflicts that the liberal society would find hard to reconcile. Over time, these divisive concepts have gained traction in educational, media, and other major institutions, subtly shifting the societal zeitgeist.
While Dr. Cole attributes the success of pluralism to the adaptability and cooperative potential of human beings, he fails to recognize that the form of pluralism being propagated today is one influenced by these neo-Marxist theories. It’s not merely about celebrating diversity, but rather fostering divisions and emphasizing differences.
Furthermore, attributing economic growth over the past 60 years to liberalism alone is an oversimplification. Economic growth has occurred in tandem with many other variables, such as technological advancements, global trade expansion, and market dynamics.
Consequently, to suggest that liberalism has remained successful due to its inherent merit overlooks the external influences that have reshaped society. Liberalism has not failed on its own; it has been eroded and transformed by this neo-Marxist march through institutions. Instead of heralding the longevity of liberalism, it may be more accurate to acknowledge that what exists today is a version of liberalism that has been deeply influenced by other ideologies.