First of all, thanks to this author for such a thoughtful and thought-provoking article.

I do think, though, that this author does continue a tradition within Liberalism of its being misunderstood by its adherents as much as its critics. The "liberal" morality described by the author is summed up in two words: mutual respect. That goes back to the original ‘Liberal’, John Locke, who could as easily have seen that mutual respect is the ethic of justice but opted instead to make liberty the predicate of justice, based on a radicalized individualism (his “State of Nature”) that is contrary to our nature as social beings.

Recognizing mutual respect as the ethic of justice would transcend 'left' and 'right' within Liberal society. That is especially evident in the outcomes that would result from applying that ethic to the existing economic system (specifically, instituting a “democratically distributed income” to supply money, as currency, for the economy): the economy would become fully self-regulating, with no unemployment, poverty, taxes, or public debt, but increased sustainability — all with, to be clear, no limit imposed on income/wealth.

Recognizing mutual respect as the ethic of justice would not represent the triumph of any of the political ideologies that Liberalism has spawned (i.e., libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, or democratic — non-Marxist — socialism). Rather, it would be an advance in our understanding of what justice is.

[The links are to articles in Medium, but none of my stuff is behind the paywall — so I’m not ‘piggybacking’ for personal gain (a disclaimer someone suggested I should employ).]