This is an excellent, if not entirely detailed and perfect, article and argument. People who are making negative comments seem overly concerned with arguing about the details in various countries and political situations without considering the significance of the over-all import of the piece.



The simple idea is, as I see it, that the process and implementation of "governing" is more and more disconnected from what people feel they can control (and do control), and what they like, and one result is that "the people" want to take back or assert control. There are cultural issues as well, and issues of what it means to be "liberal" in different times and different cultures. Trying to compare what a Tsar did compared to Woodrow Wilson is too comical: Liberal means, to some extent, out in front, as a leader, trying to make changes, compared to a conservative, hoping to maintain the (Cultural?) status quo.



One problem is that governments, in general, tend to make promises (to their perceived supporters and constituents) that they will do things better than the opposition. In the USA and other apparent or intended democracies "better" should mean providing equal rights and equal treatment and equal opportunity for all. And equal benefits. In the USA that's what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are all about. The reality is that such "equality" is difficult to define, let alone implement and achieve and measure. Worse still, it always looks to some people like certain groups get special treatment, at the expense of someone else. When someone has that negative personal perception of the situation it seems to them like they are being treated unfairly.



And certain groups are actually culturally disfavored. Being born black in the USA is a serious, long term handicap. As is being anything except a white male of indeterminate religion. Yes, "success" for a person in any such disfavored group is possible, as is happiness, but racism (for example) is an issue in the USA, leading to both sides feeling injured as "rights" are extended according to the laws and founding documents.



And people in general tend to think their personal success has been hard earned, and is well deserved, while tending to think those who are not so successful simply did not try or work hard enough. These issues, feelings, and the aspirations of outsiders (the "other") get very personal, and difficult to manage. People by nature tend to resist change when they perceive that they are doing well enough and they can see some risk in proposed policies. Resistance to change is not always entirely irrational or mean spirited.



To me a lot of this gets back to Adam Smith and the ideas he expressed about the linkage of the welfare of the land owners and investors and workers. In modern terms what I think is going on is in part a failure of the intellectual and governing elites to properly sell or promote their "Liberal" ideas and purposes to "The People"as good for everyone, not just some currently disfavored group. Coupled with that is of course the hypocrisy of the current leadership (if we want to call it that) of the USA. It is all very well to support "the people," but what about when it is a hoax or deceit?