“liberalism” refers not to left-leaning politics or the Democratic Party, but to the broader ideological framework that has long underpinned U.S. political institutions: a belief in market-based solutions, procedural governance, incremental reform, and the neutrality of civic institutions. Taken together, these principles form the tradition of classical liberalism. When updated for the modern age, classical liberalism evolves into neoliberalism, prioritizing individual freedoms, technocratic management, and faith in capitalism as the driving force of social progress. These values may clash with overt authoritarianism, but they remain deeply invested in preserving elite consensus, market discipline, and institutional continuity—even when those same institutions are being weaponized by the far right.

　　It’s an old pattern, familiar to anyone who has studied the rise of authoritarianism. The reactionary threat rarely arrives through the front door, goose-stepping in jackboots.It builds slowly, through the erosion of norms, the mobilization of resentment, and the repurposing of existing institutions.The more these shifts resemble “normal” political behavior, the easier it becomes for liberal institutions to rationalize them.

　　The media’s cult of balance:No institution exemplifies this dynamic more clearly than the mainstream press. In their determination to avoid charges of partisanship, liberal media outlets have internalized a doctrine of false balance that now distorts public understanding of fundamental realities. Thus, climate change becomes a “debate.” Racism becomes a matter of “opinion.” Election lies are weighed against voter turnout statistics as if both were equally credible. This is not objective journalism; it is institutional cowardice. And it has created a media landscape where outright authoritarian rhetoric can be laundered into mainstream discourse without ever being called what it is.Compounding this crisis is the media’s addiction to spectacle.By treating fascist-adjacent movements as entertaining content rather than existential threats, media platforms help normalize extremism and desensitize the public to its consequences. Outrage becomes ambient noise—the line between coverage and complicity blurs.

　　Universities as citadels of compromise:Higher education has long imagined itself as the vanguard of a democratic society, training critical thinkers, challenging dogma, and expanding access to knowledge. However, under neoliberalism, the university has been remade in the image of the market. In this environment, “controversy” is treated as a brand liability. When right-wing provocateurs target campus initiatives—from diversity programs to Palestinian solidarity groups—administrators often respond not with principled defense, but with risk assessments and PR strategies.They cancel events, investigate faculty, and issue hollow reassurances about “viewpoint diversity” that, in practice, mean capitulating to organized backlash. This isn’t free speech—it’s institutional surrender dressed in the language of civility.Worse still, elite universities have positioned themselves as bipartisan centers of discourse while continuing to accept money from authoritarian regimes, private equity firms, and fossil fuel conglomerates. Even within curricula, the danger is present. In the name of preparing students for the job market, universities are subtly abandoning their role as incubators of democratic consciousness.

　　Think tanks that think small:Centrist think tanks, too, have legitimized authoritarian drift—not through malice but through narrowness. Obsessed with “pragmatism,” these organizations often view politics as a technocratic adjustment rather than a structural transformation. They embrace bipartisanship as an end in itself. Their policy recommendations avoid challenging entrenched hierarchies, preferring modest reforms that keep existing power structures intact.

　　Moderation as ideology:The central delusion of liberal institutions is the belief that moderation is inherently stabilizing. But history suggests otherwise.Moderates bemoan polarization, scold activists for “divisive” rhetoric, and insist that we must return to a mythical center. However, when one side wants to dismantle democracy, there is no center—only acquiescence or resistance.

　　A different kind of courage:To challenge authoritarianism, we must organize around material conditions—wages, housing, healthcare, and education. These are not distractions from the culture war. They are its terrain. The right wins when it convinces ordinary people that liberal elites are contemptuous and indifferent—the left wins when it shows up with solidarity, not slogans.As the authoritarian tide rises, the question is not whether liberal institutions will be destroyed. It’s whether they will destroy themselves through inaction, cowardice, and complicity.

　　Editor: Zhong Yao  Wei Xiaoxue

　　From:https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/liberalisms-useful-idiots-how-moderate-institutions-enable-authoritarian-drift/（2025-5-29）