Interesting, but it seems you're coming from the position of having already concluded what the answer is, and then going back and fitting everything to that precondition.
I've been spending lots of time on Quora, I eventually learned that not a single way of thinking about events I had when I was younger was anywhere close to truth. Ignorance is the norm rather than the exception. You have to reify past events to fit current conclusions because you have no past understanding of those events that's reliable.
I'd call it "post-history" but if anything history is more important.
Let's say there is a historical event, and you know of 3 different possible explanations. Explanation 1 is what you learned as a child and it's clearly wrong now because of new evidence. Explanation 2 and 3 both fit all known facts and either one could be correct -- but only explanation 2 fits with your conclusion that the world is always heading towards liberalism (or conservatism or whatever you believe).
Do you pick explanation 2? Human nature says you do, and it's something we need to be aware of.
> You have to reify past events to fit current conclusions because you have no past understanding of those events that's reliable.
Do you really have to?
Think about it. You have an understanding of history. You can't not have an understanding of history, unless you live under a rock. As you study history more and more, you realize that all of your prior understandings of history are wrong.
What do you do then? You don't have a past anymore. The only thing that's making sense is the present. So you re-examine the past in light of the present. That's reifying. It's your only option. You're reifying today, you're going to reify again tomorrow. Because the thing doing the understanding is changing every day, so you need new understandings. You're not building, you're constantly demolishing.
Logic is only as good as your premises. If your premises can't be trusted, you need to go back to the drawing board.