Do you mean to say liberalism is a process that will inevitably end? One thing I have noticed is that most liberals I talk with hate the concept of history as an ongoing struggle of elemental forces and especially sayings such "well, you know, nothing lasts forever (including liberalism )". Their conception of history seems to be one of man existing apart from nature or of becoming enlightened and overcoming nature rather than finding balance with it.
I think you've hit on the essential nature of the left. If we're allowed to talk as though there is a 'pure' left and a 'pure' right, from which all variants of the left/right derive their energy from, then for the left this is proposition that man exists apart from anything prior to man.
Theoretically this essential nature of leftism was expoused most recently (and elaborately) by Sartre and the continental existentialists (who gave way to critical theory, structuralism and post structuralism and all that guff anyone who has done tertiary education in any sociological/cultural area will have encountered. All this basically tries to impart the idea that there is no text independent (read Prior), to the interpretation - a text is the accidental result of the interplay of impersonal rules of discource and linguistic structures and the author is dead). The idea the "existence preceeds essence" in existentialism is the idea that everyone makes it all up as they go along. There is no fixed basis from which concepts like beauty, justice, morality (and increasingly, among the relativist strands of structualism you can glimpse in Foucault et al, even truth) are measured from. There is only you and your interpretation of your environment, and even this interpretation is a product of the environment. You can see how this ends in either newer interpretations of Buddhism or pyschosis.
I understand that Heidegger is the response from the right in the realm of the above schools (continental philosophy, existentialism, etc). For him in his books like being and time, life is preparation for death. There may not be the anthropomorphic entity known as 'God', but there is death. No one escapes death and so death is something prior to existence and something that gives life a meaninig
, independently of individual perspective. Only death is real.
It's interesting to ponder over what exactly is the cause of the left's incessant advance, whether it is the result of economic forces, biological, cultural; whether it can be traced to certain conscious interest groups or not or whether there is no one driving. ONe intersting digression is that the nature of liberalism has been usurped since it's conceptual birth in the 19th century with people like Locke etc. Liberalism used to mean freedom of association, respect for property rights and fairly free market economics. The defeat of scientific marxism in the west after communism's collapse saw the rise of the 'new left' and cultural marxism which is different from marxism proper (old left) in being concerned not with a deterministic theory about the necessary rise of the worker at a certain fixed stage in the relations of production underpinning capitalism but instead with new fuzzy notions such as human rights, gay marriage, minority groups and all that. Liberalism has experienced mission creep. The average fucking member of a liberal party 50 years ago would be expelled now. Hell, even the average member of a left wing marxist group 50 years ago would probably be expelled from a liberal party now as they were never concerned with gay marriage, minority groups and a general hatred of every single traditional cultural arrangement!
But yes, the nature of the left is humanism: man exists prior to any essence. The nature of the right is essentialism: man exists in relation to something absolute and prior to man (be that God (religion, perennialism), the will to power (Nietzscheanism), nature (science, romanticism), death (Metal, Heidegger) or whatever).
The question is: can you run a society totally devoid of an essential base (race, religion, nation?) or bound by only the most superficial, lowest common denominator base (sex, eating, wealth and pleasure). If it is physically possible, is such a society desirable?