First of all, thanks for a breathtaking article.

Re. the quote, a further problem is a confusion regarding rationality. One of the salient features of the emergence of modernity was the substitution of ideology for theology in determining how governance should be governed. Ideologies are based on secular beliefs (or beliefs that can be secular as well as sacrally supported), however, as surely as religions are based on sacral beliefs. Ideologies are, as many have observed, secular religions.

Beliefs are non-rational. The 'rationality' of 'reason' based on believing in, say, equality and the existence of a priori 'Rights' such as "Natural Rights" sets the political process of democratic nations on a foundation of quicksand.

Worse, since conflicts involving beliefs can only be "contests of power" (Foucault), that is all politics based on ideology can be. Such conflicts encourage seeking total victory as the only way to avoid total defeat. Totalitarianism beckons.

The beginning of a solution to the problem would seem to be a strictly rational ethic of justice for governing the governance of society, involving no beliefs. As it happens, I have found one: 'mutual respect in effecting choices'. [Warren J. Samuels all but defined "social power" as the ability to effect choices.] For both individuals and communities effecting choices is integral to material existence.

I have learned that a society governed by that ethic would have the maximum liberty that coexisting people can share simultaneously and a democratic political process (the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole). It can also be applied to the existing economic system (of any nation), with money (for participation in the economy) as the equivalent of rights (for participation in the political process).

In short, this ethic would take us "Beyond Liberalism" (here in Medium, but not behind the paywall).

If anyone is still reading, I do appreciate your time and consideration.