> The emergence of liberal democracies is associated with ideals of liberty and equality that may seem self-evident and irreversible. > In the second decade of

> The emergence of liberal democracies is associated with ideals of liberty and equality that may seem self-evident and irreversible. > In the second decade of the 21st century, liberalism has begun to lose credibility. Questions about the ability of liberal democracy to provide for the middle class have grown louder; Right off the bat, it sounds to me like the author is conflating the idea of democracy with economic liberalism. Democracy didn't fail the middle class-- economic neo-liberalism did. But democracy can and does exist without economic liberalism, and by the looks of Scandinavia, it is better for the middle class that way. > politics have grown more tribal; and in more and more countries, leaders are showing a penchant for demagoguery and autocracy. The causes of this political shift are complex, but they appear to be intertwined with current technological developments. I see this narrative a lot, but I have to wonder if this (which the author seems to just assume is the case) is this really true. 10 years ago, the narrative was "technology has given us democracy". The Arab Spring had Twitter and Facebook stamped all over it. This open forum was the ultimate expression of freedom. It seems to me that big political changes have people looking for explanations, pointing fingers, and the internet with all its new developments is a natural player to point to. I don't know if the Arab Spring wouldn't have happened --much like I don't know if Trump hadn't had happened-- were it not for Facebook, Twitter, etc. But I do believe that ultimately, from an outsiders perspective, the USA got a very American president that fits the ideas and attitudes of a large swath of the population. After years of being failed at by "establishment politicians", is it that surprising Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both whom were anti-NAFTA, anti-establishment, had a hard stance against the state of things, etc. exploded in popularity? Is it that surprising that Hilary Clinton's campaign was weak, when the message that most resonated with a lot of its supporters was that it was a vote "against Trump"? Has it been a newsfeed, or neo-liberalist policies that have failed the people and put us in this situation? IMO claiming it's the former is irresponsible and will just perpetuate a broken system, that will keep on corrupting all aspects of the economic machine of the world.