Western hegemony and liberal policy have contributed to widespread issues worldwide, as I detailed in my earlier piece on this subject. This piece is a follow-up to a previous one. It maintains that, despite its potential benefits to society and humanity, Western liberalism has been a net negative since the fall of the Soviet Union. Liberty, progress, individualism, and equality are all tenets of Western liberalism as a political theory. This liberalism originated in the Enlightenment era of the Western world, around the year 1800. Liberalism in the West was shaped by theorists like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who advocated for individual rights and a social compact with the state. The ideals of freedom and equality advanced by the French Revolution of 1789 also significantly impacted the development of western liberalism. During the 19th century, liberals in the West pushed for free markets, constitutional government, individual rights, and capitalism. John Maynard Keynes and other 20th-century liberals like him pushed for government action to alleviate economic distress, unemployment, and poverty. Progressive taxation systems, healthcare reform, and combating climate change are popular causes among modern liberals in the West.
Various theories can be found when it comes to the seed from which western liberalism sprouted. Liberal thought can be traced back to the Enlightenment, according to some academics, or the Reformation, according to others. Others view liberalism as an offshoot of both of these historical currents. Western liberalism, whatever its specific beginnings, has undeniably changed the course of history. It is not just Western societies that Western liberal principles have influenced, but all societies around the globe. Whether we like it or not, western liberal principles have been the norm in international politics and cultural production in the last few centuries. Nothing can be said with certainty about liberalism's future, but its influence will undoubtedly remain widespread for decades. Despite the rise of socialism and fascism in the 20th century, liberalism has persisted as a significant political ideology.
There is no simple answer to whether Western liberalism is good or bad for global social progress and peace. It all depends on who you ask and their particular set of life experiences. Some claim that the spread of western liberal principles has led to more liberty and equality for all. In contrast, others believe they have led to cultural imperialism that has repressed minority communities. There's no simple solution but weighing each option's pros and disadvantages is critical. However, given the current global social, economic, and political structure, it appears that, while most components of liberalism are excellent, adopting this in different contexts through force and excessive use can be harmful to society, as we have seen over the past 30 years.
In the past few years, the topic of Western liberal ideals' hegemonic influence has received a great deal of attention. While some say these ideals are necessary for a harmonious and equitable society, others claim they are detrimental to communal harmony. To be sure, Western liberalism has been credited with bringing about many of the advantages of contemporary life. Examples of liberal ideals include the protection of free speech and the right to practise one's religion without interference from the government. More people now than ever are able to improve their socioeconomic standing, largely thanks to liberalism's facilitation of such upward mobility. Liberal ideas from the West have been praised for spreading freedom and human rights to countries all over the globe.
Nonetheless, there are several issues with Western liberalism that need to be taken into account. Individualism and competitiveness, two liberal virtues, are cited as reasons for the rise of inequality. Furthermore, many of the liberties praised by liberals can be exploited to promote discrimination and hate (such as hate speech). Again, there is an opinion that Western liberal democracies are highly vulnerable and liable to collapse (as we have seen in recent years with the rise of populism). Nonetheless, I am convinced that Western Liberalism is to blame for the current international crisis, particularly the war in Ukraine. That is true for several different reasons.
First, the concept of the rational individual serves as the cornerstone around which liberalism is built. This premise is erroneous because humans are not rational beings. Because we are primarily emotional beings, with rationality coming in second, liberalism typically results in adverse outcomes in most circumstances. Second, an open society is fundamental to the liberal worldview. This concept is also incorrect. People are good, and they can use their freedom to act in a morally commendable way. This is the premise upon which open societies are built. Individuality is the birth right of man. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each individual to make decisions regarding everything. This philosophical doctrine contains its own set of errors as well. Because, on the one hand, people are required to interact with others and undergo socialisation as part of society. Therefore, individual choices shouldn't result in negative consequences for other people. On the other hand, it is true that not all people are good, that many do not have the conscience, knowledge, or foresight to evaluate good and bad, and that there are certainly many people in society who, if given the opportunity, will make destructive use of their freedom. The current situation in Ukraine demonstrates how dangerous and unstable free democracies can be. In addition, liberalism shields individuals from the state's authority and fosters a social climate in which the government is held accountable to the people it serves. In recent years, we have observed that liberals emphasise the rights of the individual while simultaneously displaying an insufficient concern for the greater good. Opponents argue that this emphasis on individual rights has contributed to a decline in social cohesion and a rise in the number of social problems.
In addition, the liberal economic strategy is fraught with many difficulties and is frequently condemned for pursuing unequal economic practices. Some people think these policies have led to a greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a smaller number of people, while the rest of the population has been left behind. In the context of the situation in Ukraine, several observers have suggested that the liberal economic policies of the EU are to blame for the current instability in the region. Some people believe that because of the open-border policies of the European Union, oligarchs and other corrupt officials in Ukraine have been able to steal Ukraine's riches, which has contributed to the country's current economic catastrophe. Additionally, widespread poverty and social inequality have been brought about due to the European Union's reliance on neoliberal economic changes. The political unrest in Ukraine may be traced back to November 2013, when the country's then-President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. This resulted in demonstrations, which ultimately developed into a full-scale revolution. Russia's displeasure with Ukraine's new pro-Western government's swift acceptance of Ukraine's interest in partnerships with the European Union and NATO-led to the rapid escalation of the current situation.
The current situation in Ukraine can serve as a helpful example for illustrating how Western liberalism is deeply broken. First, there is a reluctance on the part of Western nations to take military action to safeguard their interests. The United States and its allies have not directly waged war against Russia other than through economic penalties since Russia grabbed Crimea and sponsored separatist insurgents in eastern Ukraine. Simply because a conflict with a superpower would almost certainly end in disaster. Even agreeing to send Ukraine heavy weaponry was not something it decided to do. This stance by the United States stood in stark contrast to the approach that NATO took toward Serbia in 2008. In a televised address, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that if the independence of Kosovo can be considered genuine, then the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia can also be regarded as acceptable. This dualistic approach to liberalism is a genuinely horrible and weak philosophical system.
Numerous academics, such as Noam Chomsky, political scientist John Mearsheimer, and former President Richard Nixon of the United States, have voiced harsh criticism of the EU's position towards Ukraine crisis. There is a widespread perception that the European Union's backing of Ukraine's neoliberal economic reforms contributes to the country's downward spiral towards extreme poverty, corruption, and social inequality. The current situation in Ukraine has brought into stark relief the significant ideological chasm between Western liberalism and Russian conservatism. Even though the West has taken a tough stance against Russian aggression, some detractors have characterised the European Union's (EU) support and promotion of democracy and human rights as hypocritical and insane. The people of Ukraine, who had corrupt administrations governed for many years, did not have the best interests of their country at heart when the democratic and libertarian values that the West promoted. As a result of the modern aspects of liberalism, many people believe that liberalism places excessive importance on the individual's freedom at the price of the common good. Their position is that liberalism is harmful to society because it destroys traditional values, which contributes to the breakdown of social cohesion. It promotes a consumerist culture that is centred on the individual and material goods. It is generally agreed that liberalism is the root cause of many of the issues that plague modern society, such as the decline of morality, the proliferation of social crime, and the instability of the economy.
Opponents of liberalism blame free markets and unrestricted movement of people and ideas for contributing to a decline in moral standards and increased criminal activity. We have been observing the tell-tale signals of instability in the world today for the better part of the past three decades. This kind of neoliberal philosophical model does not work well in many cultures. Not a consumerist philosophy but an aesthetic spirituality based not on the free market, but a balanced economic doctrine is required. A distinct approach or philosophy that is adapted to the local situation and emphasises not the individual, but the universal good is needed. In the alternative, this pernicious concept of liberalism will give rise to a fragmented and unstable society. Individualism will be celebrated, and people will be preoccupied with their wants and needs all the time, which will be detrimental to the general well-being of humankind.