Is Western liberalism obsolete?

Western liberalism creates wealthier countries

Question: Is Western liberalism obsolete?
Position‹2 of 4›: Western liberalism is not obsolete, but under threat.
Argument1 of 2›: Western liberalism creates wealthier countries

Liberalism may be under threat, but most wealthy countries are still liberal market democracies.

The argument

Liberalism had been seen as the "norm" in many countries. Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at LSE, tells the BBC that "overall, we still live in a liberal world economy and most countries in the world are liberal democracies, not authoritarian ones" - although he believes liberalism does need to work to address issues like wage stagnation and a loss of a sense of community.

Premises

[P1]Liberalism remains the global norm: as LSE professor Michael Cox notes, we still live in a liberal world economy and most countries are liberal democracies rather than authoritarian states. [P2] Its persistence as the dominant model—even as it must address problems like wage stagnation and a lost sense of community—shows it has not been superseded. [C] Therefore Western liberalism is not obsolete, but under threat.

Counter-arguments

A lot of people believe liberalism could be in decline - as evidenced by support for Brexit in the UK, or support for populist leaders including Donald Trump in the US, or Matteo Salvini in Italy. The financial downturn in 2008 was a major turning point, and the fact that markets were allowed to determine everything also brought about larger questions of identity and culture within the country, with people feeling that it was no longer their own.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Prevalence is not vitality, and the premise's two measures pull apart. A liberal world economy can persist while liberal politics erode, since open trade and capital movement are compatible with governments that curtail courts, press and elections. Whether "most countries are liberal democracies rather than authoritarian states" also depends on where the line is drawn, and the indices that draw it have recorded movement in one direction over a number of years. [Rejecting P2] The step from "still dominant" to "not superseded" is close to tautological: a model is not superseded until it is, so the premise cannot distinguish a system that is stable from one declining slowly. Wage stagnation and a lost sense of community are listed as problems to be addressed, but they are also the conditions the argument's opponents name as causes of the decline, so citing them concedes the point rather than answering it. [Rejecting C] The conclusion joins two claims of different strengths and defends only the weaker. "Under threat" would need an account of the threat's source and severity, which the premises never supply — leaving a position that resists refutation partly because it asserts so little.