The Crisis of Liberalism

It fell out that I had a few spare moments to-day, and so I found myself reminiscing about the early-summer endeavours of our Society. Specifically, we held a symposium concerning the question of modernity. We concerned ourselves with its origins and problems. Though recent posting is certainly not up to the level it once was, I think taking another "cheap shot" at modernity. I invite my fellows to contribute their thoughts.
Dr. Phillips is a professor of Political Science at my University. Though one would scarcely know it from external appearance, Dr. Phillips has an exceedingly rare combination of traits. First, he has an inquisitive and critical nature, native to the philosopher. Second, he can wield effectively the mystery of power, even in such slight quantities as are given to university professors. He uses the widespread fear of him present in each freshman class to ensure that people actually do read Plato's Republic. Thus, though he can use power as a means to reach an end, the end he seeks is noble rather than selfish.
Dr. Phillips has often spoken of a "crisis of liberalism." He asked of his ten o'clock in the mourning class (rhetorically, it seems) a startling question- why has liberalism become so collectivist? How can a philosophy rooted in individual freedom turn into a collectivist monstrosity? The turn-about from Jeffersonian Liberalism to Clintonian "third-way" nonsense is so complete, it begs a citation from Dante.
Were he as fair once, as he now is foul,
And lifted up his brow against his Maker,
Well may proceed from him all tribulation.
I would say that the modern failure of liberalism lies in its radical secularisation and claims on scientific certitude. Liberalism held that self-interest could replace human spiritual dignity. This was an untenable proposition, and it was replaced by the vastly more untenable proposition that people were mere "economic agents," concerned only with the consumption of goods. From this determinism we get the roots of modern "liberalism"- Marx's "scientific socialism," Skinner's Behaviourism, Maslow's material-heavy "hierarchy of needs," Keynesian economics, and Erlich's Malthusian "Population Bomb," where people are too stupid to conduct their own affairs. Due it its authoritarian bent, this version is longer-lived and has developed deeper roots than the previous incarnation. It's a disastrous direction for our future, but no large party has proposed any other course. It's either the fast-track or slow-track to scientific Utopia*.

Just as the French word for shower needs a footnote translation (spoiler: it's "Douche"), in the Greek "Utopia" means "nowhere"