Where did the liberal world order begin, and why do those who agitate for such a system believe they are so noble?

In a research piece published last week titled “Challenging the Inevitability of the Liberal World Order,” Rodger Baker, Stratfor’s senior vice president of strategic analysis, noted it emerged from the post-World War II financial and trade system that prescribed democracy as the sole path for all societies. (That, despite Winston Churchill’s warning that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have tried from time to time.”)

Baker himself issued a stark warning to those who believe in the nobility of their cause above all others.

“Religions might assert universal truths, but there is no universally correct way of doing things in the political order. There is no irresistible march of history toward progress or liberal democracy, just as the future history espoused by Marxists proved to be an analysis, not an inevitability. Acknowledging this is key to understanding the world and, accordingly, how efforts to achieve goals such as the liberal world order may occasionally lead to division, separation, and chaos.”

In words that Israel’s Supreme Court might want to internalize before it rules out separate classes for chareidim, Baker added: “When the ideal is assumed to be the only path, the actions of its proponents often have the reverse effect, as the putative standard bearers of civilization fail to recognize the realities that lie beneath.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 744)