Recent political developments on both sides of the Atlantic highlight challenges facing contemporary liberalism, suggesting a need for renewed urgency and transformation within the ideology. In Britain, Andy Burnham—who promotes a concept of “business-friendly socialism”—is positioned as a leading contender to succeed Keir Starmer as prime minister. Meanwhile, in New York City, democratic socialists secured notable victories in Democratic primary elections, reflecting a surge of left-wing insurgency converting protest sentiments into political influence.

Despite these gains, the broader left remains divided. Outside New York City, many contested races favored moderate Democrats, such as Cait Conley, a military veteran who won decisively in a swing district. Nevertheless, a strain of liberalism appears to be losing resonance with its traditional base, struggling to maintain its relevance and effectiveness.

In his new book, “The Revolutionary Center,” political commentator Adrian Wooldridge traces the historical arc of liberalism from its Enlightenment roots to present-day manifestations. He emphasizes that liberalism was initially a radical force challenging entrenched privilege, monopoly power, censorship, aristocracy, clerical authority, and restrictive guilds. Yet, over time, the movement has come to be identified with established institutions—such as elite universities, foundations, major media, corporations, and bureaucracies—leading to significant shortcomings.

Wooldridge identifies two primary failures stemming from this shift. The first is a form of passivity within modern liberalism, which since the 1990s has championed deregulation in both economic and social spheres. This approach, he argues, has facilitated corporate consolidation and rising inequality while diminishing the willingness of liberals to confront socially harmful behaviors. Consequences include widespread homelessness compounded by addiction and mental illness, and public health crises linked to processed food consumption, issues often framed narrowly by liberals rather than addressed through systemic intervention.

To counteract this, Wooldridge calls for a revival of “liberal paternalism,” a concept that insists on balancing individual rights with corresponding responsibilities and acknowledges threats to freedom beyond state oppression—such as addiction, monopoly, crime, ignorance, and dependency. He warns that embracing free markets must mean fostering genuine competition that empowers new entrants and consumers, not entrenching dominant corporations that stifle challenge through legal and technological barriers.

The second major failure relates to the erosion of meritocracy within liberal circles. While liberalism traditionally championed advancement through talent and effort rather than birth or class, Wooldridge asserts that the meritocratic elite has hardened into a self-perpetuating aristocracy. This phenomenon is particularly evident in issues such as legacy admissions and resistance to affordable housing in affluent neighborhoods, as well as in diversity initiatives that sometimes prioritize group identity over individual merit. The education system, especially at the K-12 level, exemplifies these contradictions, where institutions meant to serve children often reinforce bureaucratic and union interests at the expense of educational outcomes.

This disconnection creates an opening for both democratic socialists and right-wing populists, who capitalize on public desire for advocacy against entrenched privilege. Though their responses differ—leftist policies may emphasize class struggles and state control, while the right may turn to ethnic nationalism and protectionism—both project an image of outsiders willing to fight on behalf of marginalized constituencies in a socio-political environment many perceive as chaotic.

Wooldridge contends that the remedy for liberalism’s crisis lies not in abandonment but in reclaiming its original radicalism. True liberalism, he argues, should actively oppose monopoly, inherited advantage, exclusionary systems, and manipulation of power. It must promote meaningful competition, authentic meritocracy, and genuine equality of opportunity, challenging corporate, governmental, and cultural forces that protect insiders and undermine individual dignity.

Ultimately, the future of liberalism depends on its capacity to be a transformative “revolutionary center,” not merely a centrist midpoint. The ideology’s historic promise was to equip individuals with the conditions and responsibilities to thrive, not to permit unchecked freedom to devolve into social decay. To endure, liberalism must once again position itself as a force opposing entrenched power and fostering societal renewal.