There is No Post-Liberalism—Only Liberalism

Today, we are witnessing a growing sense of political, cultural, and moral confusion. A term that frequently arises in public discussions is ‘post-liberalism.’ Commentators from various perspectives use this term to describe a world where liberal norms appear to be eroding. We see an increase in censorship, a breakdown of social norms, the prevalence of identity politics in institutions, and fundamental truths—such as the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’—being challenged. However, this framing might be misleading. What we are experiencing today is not a collapse or corruption of liberalism; rather, it is its very essence. What many describe as illiberal or post-liberal is, I argue, in fact, the logical conclusion of liberalism’s foundational principles.

Liberalism, as a political philosophy, is grounded in several key ideas: the primacy of individual autonomy, the separation of public and private morality, procedural neutrality by the state, and freedom of speech and belief. For centuries, these principles were seen as bulwarks against tyranny and religious dogmatism. But carried to their natural ends, they have produced their own form of absolutism, complete with ideological policing, moral confusion, and soft totalitarian control.

Take the widely publicized censorship of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop in the weeks leading up to the 2020 U.S. election. The story, which has since been confirmed as accurate, was suppressed by major platforms like Facebook and Twitter at the urging of government officials. This act wasn’t an aberration from liberal principles; it was their enforcement. Liberalism claims to protect speech, but only insofar as that speech does not threaten the administrative order or prevailing cultural values. When speech is deemed harmful or destabilizing, it becomes subject to regulation under the guise of “preserving democracy” or “fighting misinformation.”

Consequently, the system that claims to support free speech now engages in institutional suppression, specifically targeting views that diverge from the dominant liberal consensus. In practice, the liberal state has transitioned from being a neutral referee to acting as a gatekeeper of acceptable opinion.

Consider Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime. Originally intended as a compassionate option for terminally ill patients, it has expanded to include those suffering from mental illness or even poverty. Liberalism defends this as respect for personal autonomy. But autonomy, detached from a moral framework that affirms the inherent worth of life, becomes a weapon. When people in despair are told that death is a valid medical choice, liberalism isn’t liberating them—it is abandoning them.

This does not deviate from liberalism but instead absolutizes autonomy: the notion that the individual is sovereign, even to the extent of self-destruction. In this context, liberalism presents itself as compassionate while facilitating a systemic devaluation of life.

Liberalism promises each person the right to define their own truth. But this promise leads to deep social rupture when applied to human nature. The question “What is a woman?” has become politically dangerous. Answer incorrectly and you may lose your job, your platform, or your social standing. This is not an instance of illiberal overreach; it is liberalism operating according to its logic.

In a society where personal identity is more important than objective truth, disagreements can be harmful. The system that claims to support personal opinions punishes people whose views differ from the dominant narrative. This is how liberal tolerance is used against traditional beliefs.

The sexual revolution, underpinned by liberal ideals of consent and freedom from constraint, promised a new era of fulfillment. Instead, it has delivered widespread loneliness, reduced sexual activity, fewer marriages, and plummeting birthrates. People are ‘free’ to have sex with whomever they choose, yet many choose no one at all. Commitment is optional. Meaning is unclear. Desire is fragmented. This isn’t a failure of liberalism, but its culmination. By severing sex from moral and social structures like family, fidelity, and purpose, liberalism has turned liberation into alienation. 

Liberalism is often praised for promoting consumer freedom. However, consider the contemporary focus on regulating meat consumption. Under the guise of climate responsibility, liberal elites suggest implementing taxes, restrictions, and moral pressure to encourage people to eat less meat or switch to synthetic alternatives. While you still have the ‘freedom’ to choose, it is limited to options curated by policymakers and shaped by ideological trends. This is not a betrayal of liberal ideals but their logical extension. Once freedom is defined by what’s permissible for the public good, personal choice becomes subject to soft totalitarianism: administered, nudged, and increasingly coerced.

Liberalism was meant to liberate. Instead, it has become a mechanism of control, confusion, and collapse. But this isn’t accidental. Liberalism’s emphasis on individual will, untethered from shared truths or natural law, was always going to erode the very freedoms it proclaimed. Once authority, tradition, and truth are cast aside, all that remains is bureaucratic management, cultural policing, and the tyranny of therapeutic politics.The result is a society where free speech is permitted only when it aligns with dominant values. Death is presented as a solution to suffering, and truth becomes subjective. At the same time, dissent is punished, sex is everywhere, yet genuine intimacy is rare. Choices are available, but only within narrowly defined acceptable limits. 

The crises we face are not evidence that liberalism has been hijacked or corrupted by external forces. They are signs that it is working exactly as designed. Its exaltation of autonomy, its procedural neutrality, its suspicion of shared moral orders—all lead to fragmentation, managerial overreach, and a society ruled by experts, algorithms, and ideology. Perhaps it is not liberalism we must save, but the truth, order, and solidarity it displaced. The world we live in is not a failure of liberalism. It is liberalism in full bloom. And that—not some phantom illiberalism—is the crisis of our age.