Honest to god, US liberals are in many ways politically stuck in the 19th century. Not a joke!

Listen to their arguments and notice the premises they take for granted: there's no acknowledgement of irreconcilable class conflict, and a stubborn belief that you can cram a society with this sort of class stratification into the mold of a democratic republic and not get a democracy of the capitalist minority. Liberals literally believe that socialism fails on its own merits because they often literally don't know the lengths western imperialists have taken to sabotage socialist projects (or worse, they do know about the coups but are fully gaslit and assume said coups were justified because the socialist projects were doomed utopian projects regardless). They rely on economic growth models that tend to ignore or de-emphasize trends Lenin identified a century ago, e.g. the emergence of oligopoly and imperialism as the inevitable response to the long-run tendency of profits to fall in the absence of market expansion.

We have reformists like Liz Warren proposing the government break up oligopolies, the same shit Teddy Roosevelt did a century ago in response to the conditions Lenin described, while completely ignoring that market concentration is the inevitable end state of any initially competitive market. We have neo-Keynesians running around like Andrew Yang and Paul Krugman who think doing demand stimulus for the working class forever is gonna be enough to stabilize capitalism forever, while completely ignoring the unique conditions that allowed the mid-century welfare state to exist in the first place: a glut of imperial surplus so great that the US working class got a big slice of the pie while US capitalists remained profitable, which inevitably started disappearing around 1968 and allowed the neoclassical Chicago economists to come out the woodwork to essentially argue that the Keynesians were playing with fire and can't anticipate the effects of their policies (and therefore they shouldn't bother with central planning at all and go back to the pre-1929 laissez-faire unplanned market anarchy). And of course we have the neoliberal austerity cult, represented by the likes of Reagan, Clinton, and Pelosi and rooted in that same neoclassical economic tradition, maintaining some form of soft denial that there's even a problem with the economy if GDP isn't decreasing, the U3 is close to NAIRU, and CPI inflation is close to 2% per year - never mind the fact that the US's fiscal policy has effectively continued to be completely Keynesian w.r.t. military spending while the welfare state has been dismantled over the same period; never mind that the Fed has by necessity gone full Keynesian for most of the time since the 2008 crisis, resorting to turning increasingly ridiculous monetary pressure valves to maintain the facade that the US economy isn't mostly exhausted.

If you're an educated US liberal and you've never read any Marxist economic literature - or, hell, even if you have but don't understand the implications because you've been taught that Marxist economics is a pseudoscientific historical curiosity discredited by the failures of 20th century revolutions, and interpret Marxist authors accordingly - you have to twist yourself into knots to even begin to make sense of politics and economics under capitalism in even the early 20th century, never mind the early 21st century. If you're in that position, you look at the material contradictions that inevitably crop up and either use the economic equivalent of a geocentric model (i.e. ignoring/downplaying class antagonism, the invisible dark-matter elephant in the room whose gravity affects everything else but is either written off as an anomaly or less important than it is) to try to understand what the hell is happening, or you hit a brick wall when that fails you you either fill up with blind rage like the blue-check twitter users and lash out against the people who actually know what the hell is going on but aren't credentialed, or you start listening to cryptofascist "classical liberals" or opportunist social democrats (or both!) in a desperate search for answers.