What do you think the Marshall Plan was about?

Your reactionary, violence-embracing, black-and-white thinking has ever been the source of suffering and misery while aspiring to perfection. Why should we expect it to be any better this time?

The problem with liberalism is not that it doesn't work when it's followed, but that it's hard to follow. It melds fabulously well with people's intrinsic desires, and it embraces reality and rationality as absolutely central to the endeavor so it never should stray into ideological fervor. Liberalism is perfectly okay with democratic socialism as in, say, Finland. That individual freedoms must be in some part curtailed has been understood for as long as liberalism has existed (see Locke or, like, anyone)--you just need a very good argument for it.

The weakness of liberalism is that it is predicated on having intelligent, well-educated, reasonably rational masses. We haven't managed that particularly well, so naturally, those things that liberalism solves by appeal to the wisdom of crowds can tend to fail when your crowds are foolish and emotional.

The solution for human flourishing is obvious, though: pour our effort into having well-educated and thoughtful masses. Having equal and free masses foolishly and impulsively bumbling into one disaster after another is no boon to humanity. And liberalism works just fine when your populace is wise and prudent.

The label "liberal" has increasingly--in part driven by political posturing--been used to describe things that do not comport with the liberal ideal.

Attacking the liberal worldview for these defects makes no more sense than attacking the Marxist worldview based on the atrocious bloodbath of Pol Pot's regime. That is, you can use it to warn you of the failure modes, but it doesn't tell you much about how it goes when it's working decently.