Years ago when framing my website (moralphilosophy.co.uk), I included an essay objecting to stuff about 'Western liberal assumptions'. This was both about the confusing mix of notions about what 'liberal' means, and suggesting that many people in the West don't follow the typical ones anyway.
These issues seem even more pertinent now than 10 to 15 years ago. In academia and some media circles, it is commonplace to be challenging 'liberal.....' but one can be left wondering just what the adjective 'liberal' is really about. What have 'liberal capitalism', 'liberal values', 'liberal democracy', etc., got in common? Suppose we change the adjective to 'illiberal' as Hungarian leader Orban does for democracy; what happens then? In media usage the liberal label is apt to be applied to anyone from free market deregulation enthusiasts to gender critical campaigners. (Not all of these would call themselves 'liberals'.)
These questions become especially relevant when, besides the Trump show in the US, we have recent surveys in Britain (once regarded as the seedbed of liberalism) showing that close to half of people under 30 say they prefer a dictator who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections. (Maybe that suggests school civics should include some study on how dictatorships actually operate.) It's fair enough to argue that these, and related developments in Europe, show that liberal democracy is failing, especially on handling migration. But we can still end up wondering who these liberals really are, and what they believe!