The question is not whether the state is "strong" but whether it is trusted.

> What follows from this analysis, one that few serious observers now challenge? That we must develop a political vision that moves on from the failures of liberalism, one rooted in the timeless ideals of Western civilisation and culture — notions of political virtue, the common good and human dignity.

It’s a reliable collection of ideas to have as a fall back, but Western intelligentsia (both in the past and present) has made an oversight in not acknowledging whose shoulders they stood on to be able to look over the fogs of disorder and chaos—it was Eastern philosophy (such as it can be called). The cradle of civilization is in the Middle East, and understanding why in a complete and objective sense is important for determining the absolute fundamentals which govern and drive the behavior of groups of human. What drove those progenitors to build (I mean both in an actual and metaphysical sense) the things they did.

I think the obvious reasons for this oversight are wrong, it wasn’t racism (always) or differences in cultural values which prevented Western thinkers from fully acknowledging or crediting their Eastern (middle or far) counterparts. I think it’s more to do with the fact that Middle Eastern thought has always been rooted in spiritualism, and the practicality of Far Eastern thought unfairly made it appear mundane to the observer. Note that I am using western-centric terms like “Far East” on purpose because that’s how the nexus of philosophical thought on which we base most of our current mental models viewed their contemporaries, so it’s easier then to frame historical efforts into a given context.

We don’t need to go back to the basics because there’s a lot we’ve sussed out since then that’s more insightful. But current political ideologies which want to dominate the next phase of human civilization want to convince us all that everything we’ve built is based on oppression/chauvinism on one side, and detrimental multiculturalism on the other. At the root of it, there are fundamental properties which drive human behaviors, and a more serious and unbiased contemporary examination of such properties is warranted lest we get taken advantage of by opportunists.

> What of course does not exist in these societies is government by the people, free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to privacy, or any number of cherished liberal norms.

For now maybe that’s for the best because geopolitics (realpolitiks) cannot allow organic flourishing or destruction of nation states.

> His call for a “strong state” fails to reflect the fact that truly strong and sustainable states, capable of self-renewal, rely on strong national and civic cultures.

You can’t ensure this in populations where there’s a normal distribution of intellect and ability. The extremes will overpower in one way or another, either by dominating, or by being the dominant victim. I am not sure what’s the solution to this.