There is no need here to invoke John Locke or Adam Smith; it would almost feel improper to compare them with today’s liberal currents. In fact, recalling great names from political philosophy seems unnecessary when the aim is to understand the now, where a loud chorus of voices proclaims they alone grasp reality better than anyone else. The discussion isn’t about dusty ideas from centuries past—it’s about how we define what it means to be human, how we place people within nature, and how that placement should guide our pursuit of freedom and prosperity. Yet the debate often veers into a carnival of half-baked cries rather than a sober search for practical answers, with people presenting themselves as enlightened while their rhetoric circles back on itself.
This is not just a Polish concern, though the current moment does cast a long shadow there as well. The cover of a major weekly magazine becomes a pretext for a broader claim: that elections are rigged by the governing party, and that a solitary figure embodies that assertion. Logical arguments, empirical learning, and the slow, careful work of understanding the world are eclipsed by quick retorts, forceful gestures, and a tendency to frame every setback as a triumph of some hidden conspiracy. The resulting spectacle reduces serious policy debates to a theater of shrill voices and partisan posturing, where those who defend national identity or traditional family structures are dismissed as obstacles to progress. The scene resembles a carnival of experts in tailored suits who, ironically, seem more interested in signaling alignment than in solving the problems at hand.
What stands out is not the absence of ideas but the erosion of effort. The days when scholars and pragmatic thinkers engaged in patient argument, testing hypotheses against real-world data, feel far in the rearview mirror. A prominent European professor warned that feeling superior to the other side does not by itself alter the course of events. It is not enough to blame the failures on opposing forces alone; the weight of a broad movement rests on more than sensational rhetoric. Since then, victories claimed by the political right are often described as the result of external meddling, or as the consequence of society’s immaturity, or as accidents of history. The contemporary liberal project is treated as an inevitable path rather than a contested endeavor, and every setback is framed as evidence of an ongoing, unstoppable crisis. The fear that if the “progress” project falters it will be due to fraud rather than inertia has become a recurring refrain, echoing through conferences, columns, and broadcasting studios.
Today liberalism appears to rest on a fragile scaffold. It leans on a narrative of dynamic achievement while depending heavily on financial and media power to sustain its institutions and its sense of orthodoxy. Yet such resources can mask a deeper unease: a failure to translate ambitious ideals into durable solutions. The faith that modern institutions will somehow regenerate themselves without persistent, honest work is fragile, and it invites questions about how progress is defined and implemented. The European Union’s gatherings, even after the drama of Brexit, frequently seem to pivot around promises to address ecological concerns while grappling with energy dependencies and geopolitical realities. The rhetoric of human rights, which once sounded like a universal march of justice, now hangs in the air alongside concerns about affordability, security, and the capacity to shield vulnerable populations from harm.
Whether liberalism was sterile from the outset or whether its successors to classic thought simply faltered under the pressure of modern life remains a subject of ongoing debate. What is clear is that liberalism is facing a crucial test: can it keep pace with the demands of a rapidly changing world without losing sight of the deeper critiques that conservatives raise? The answer today appears to be less about triumphal narratives and more about adaptation, accountability, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable realities. It is a moment that invites sober reflection on ends and means, on how to balance tolerance with practical governance, and on how to respond to the legitimate concerns of citizens across a broad spectrum of perspectives.
The degradation of discourse may continue, and authorities may increasingly look pompous or inconsistent as they tackle new challenges. Yet it would be a mistake to dismiss the broader pattern as mere noise. The signs point to a broader intellectual crisis within the mainstream—an era when loud slogans and formal rituals overshadow substantive debate. In such a climate, it is easy to grab onto extreme positions or to retreat into comfortable dogmas. For readers in North America and beyond, the lesson is plain: productive politics requires clear-eyed scrutiny, humility before complexity, and a readiness to rethink entrenched assumptions. The test is not whether liberalism can claim steadfast rhetorical dominance, but whether it can offer credible, humane, and practical responses to the real problems people face every day.
ALSO SEE:
NEWSWEEK ENGAGEMENT. THESE REJECTED BY EXPERTS (citation: wPolityce)