All in all, a critique and deconstruction of the American liberal and their ideology must also propound the fact that “American identity does not revolve only around liberalism…but is inextricably bound up by nationalism.” Liberalism as conceived and put into practice by the American liberal “cannot be the sole basis of national identity” even if liberalism is a component of American culture. Liberalism is also quite divisive. To borrow from Mearsheimer:
“[Liberalism] does not simply fail to provide the bonds to keep a society intact; it also has the potential to eat away at those bonds and ultimately damage the society’s foundations. The taproot of the problem is liberalism’s radical individualism and its emphasis on utility maximization. It places virtually no emphasis on the importance of fostering a sense of community and caring about fellow citizens. Instead, everyone is encouraged to pursue his own self-interest, based on the assumptions that the sum of all individuals’ selfish behavior will be the common good. This self-regarding behavior is somewhat countered by contemporary liberalism’s emphasis on ensuring equal opportunity for everyone, although not all liberals support that goal. In brief, liberalism not only contributes little to building societies but also has features that undermine social cohesion.”
Liberalism is both divisive and a hindrance to social cohesion and social mobility, to put it simply. And of course, personal experience can corroborate this argument or claim in regard to American liberal thought. There are perhaps variations in terms of the way liberal thought has manifested in various parts of the Western world. We have the Canadian variation, the British variation, the French variation, the Dutch variation, and even the German variation in terms of how liberal thought has been conceived and then has manifested into practice. But in terms of the American variation and how liberal thought has been conceived and then manifested into practice in America, liberal thought has proven to be both divisive and a hindrance to social cohesion and social mobility.
Liberalism as both divisive and a hindrance to social cohesion and social mobility has also been a bane to the “deep state.” Theoretically, the “deep state” was supposed to get stronger over time, but as we find now as a result of the American liberal, the “deep state” is very much “in the red.” To borrow from Mearsheimer: “The more time passes, the more interdependent a society’s members become; the more they will be exposed to nation-building; and the stronger the deep state will become.”
Yet, we find that members of society have become more and more splintered rather than interdependent, less exposed to nation-building and more inclined towards polarization, and prone towards the weakening of the “deep state” as opposed to the strengthening of it. And aside from their divisiveness and their hindrance to social cohesion and social mobility, American liberals also proved to be highly militaristic and violent. To borrow from Mearsheimer yet again: “Because liberals so often speak about the evils of war and the importance of moving beyond power politics to create a peaceful world, it might seem odd to describe them as militarists. But many are militarists, deeply committed to a remarkably ambitious foreign policy agenda and not shy about using military force to advance it.”
Hegemonic, militaristic, violent, undiplomatic, frenzied and hysterical in terms of their worship of money, divisive, and a hindrance to both social cohesion and social mobility are just some of the ways to describe the American liberal. And of course, an even broader and deeper critique and deconstruction of the American liberal took place even before we arrived at this particular piece.
Adam A. Azim 