U.S. President Joe Biden refuses the “America first” principle, which was proclaimed by his predecessor Donald Trump. This was announced by Jake Sullivan, US national security advisor, CNN reports. Biden even pointed out that this slogan makes America the last, not the first. This is a very interesting statement that shows the growing ideologizing of the Democratic Party and its policies under the Biden administration. The current president is doing his best to distance himself from the Trumps’ policies, who has acted largely in the realpolitik vein.

America once again prioritizes the ideas of liberalism, the values of which know no borders or cultural differences. The most economically advanced countries of the West honor, with some reservations, the provisions of this social and political current as sacred, immutable dogmas and sternly reject the views of those actors who are not joint and several with it. The United States of America has taken on the role of the core of this ideology, its carrier in the world, proclaiming that it is the United States that will spread liberal values to other countries on the principle of “be with us and you will become like us,” meaning that communion with the ideology will simultaneously open access to socio-economic and socio-cultural development at the level of Western countries.

The U.S. establishment’s statements on the expansion of the liberal ideas have mostly been that the spread of the American-style liberal democracy around the world is an undeniable good for the countries of the world, and that the United States is just as undeniably successful in advancing its ideas. However, many experts and ordinary people have strong doubts about the truth of these judgments. America will not become the liberal hegemon of the world, no matter how much the Democratic elites want it.

In one case, we can demonstrate it through the fact that the U.S. will not be able to act as the political and moral leader of the entire humanity because of the anarchic nature of international relations. America cannot shape and rationally manage the new world order alone, and the future of the world order lies in the field of multipolarity. Another argument is that liberalism has exhausted the limits of its natural growth, and its artificial imposition leads to failure every time. The latter is clearly illustrated by the fall of the U.S.-backed regime in Afghanistan.

To draw an analogy, let us recall American political scientist John Mearsheimer, who formulated American foreign policy strategy in a realistic and rational way. He believes that the values of liberal democracies are not universal, in its aspirations to spread them around the world aiming to strengthen its world leadership, the U.S. will not succeed but will only expose its national budget to huge costs. Interference in the domestic affairs of other countries has not led to the establishment of the “correct” political regimes in those countries from the U.S. point of view, nor has it strengthened the U.S. position there. Instead, such policies have increased military destabilization in various regions of the world, and the United States Army is once again carrying American democratic values there. A vicious circle of chaos and high state budget spending for purposes that are not in the American national interest.

As an alternative, Mearsheimer suggests that the U.S. changes its foreign policy vector to a more rational one, pursue a strategy of containment rather than one of pervasive penetration, and focuses more on building a successful domestic policy. Unfortunately, his voice of reason was not heard amid shouts of the triumph of progressive values. The unhealthy ideological situation in the United States has been conditioned over the past decades by what liberalism has become as a principle of domestic politics.

The ideology of political correctness asserted in the modern United States has begun to deny the classical liberal freedoms of speech, assembly, the press, and conscience. If one does not have the right to say something harsh about minorities, it is not freedom of speech. If there is positive discrimination, it is not universal equality of citizens before the law, but something akin to class privilege. If a man is afraid of looking at a woman the wrong way for fear of being accused of “harassment,” then there is something akin to class restrictions. The burning by feminists and “black activists” of books by Kipling or Mark Twain is reminiscent of the 15th century bonfires on which the Florentine monk Savonarola ordered the burning of Renaissance art.

Liberalism in its original sense was one of the great achievements of political thought, setting Western civilization in the right direction for social, state, and economic development. But every invention has a limit to its development, and liberalism exhausted this limit at a certain moment. American liberalism has ceased to be an ideological tool for achieving peace and justice in the world. Its proliferation has become its self-purpose, and this is the main problem with the modern U.S. liberal idea. Liberalism has become the opposite of itself; it destroys the results of its own activity in order not to stop its action. One of mankind’s oldest symbols comes to mind: the serpent Ouroboros, a symbol of the cyclical nature of history, biting its own tail. It seems very logical from this point of view that American Democrats are not making any attempt to get out of this cycle, because they are, in a sense, this very serpent.