Extreme liberalism is little more than a flatulent philosophy made bloated by hyper-egotism, unrestrained self importance, and an over abundant sense of self. With such an array of flattering characteristics at its core, the common misnomer so often assigned to it is that much more incredible to hear. All too often I hear the misguided merging of two mutually exclusive terms, forming a paradoxical and decidedly undeserved union: the “liberal intellectual.” Though often used as a pejorative to demonstrate the inane state of our politicized institutions of higher learning currently held hostage by liberal ideology, the pairing is, nonetheless, incorrect.

At its roots, liberal ideology is more dependent on emotion to serve as its foundation than any true empirical  reasoning or logical constructs. Consider for a moment the last time you had engaged in debate with a leftist. Here I will take the  liberty of employing the politically incorrect technique (and, therefore, my language of choice) referred to as “sweeping generalization.” In all likelihood no debate would have actually occurred. Instead, what you had probably experienced was a one-sided, childish rant characterized by ever an increasing volume from the left side of the “debate.” This is a technique deliberately engaged to drown out the conservative point of view rather than confront it head on and triumph by merit. In other words, their position was vociferated while yours was lost through loud, boorish behavior. This does not result in a debate illustrating the differences between two ideologies. Instead, what is achieved is an emotionally-charged monologue that could be likened to that of a two-year throwing a fit. Such diarrheal argumentation, or perhaps more appropriately  “ideological self-gratification,” though effective in soothing the orator’s delicate sensibilities, does nothing to advance their argument’s intellectual credibility—status it would have enjoyed through honest debate, despite the certainty of inevitable defeat under said circumstances.

But it is not difficult to understand why those embroiled in the leftist movement abandon logic and reasoned premise during “debates” of ideology. Positions based solely on emotion and kaleidoscopic visions of fantastic utopian social constructs are necessarily repudiated by such critical thinking. The magnetism of liberalism, therefore, does not rest in its intellectual foundation. Instead, it resides in its emotional appeal of perceived fairness and the promise of egalitarian outcome for all to enjoy (the true dangers of which are best addressed in a separate, dedicated thesis).

So there it is. Though liberalism’s underlying promise is a feel-good alternative to the harsh realities of everyday life, pragmatism forces us to reject the purest of such ideals in favor of solutions wrought from the intellect. That is not to say, of course, that pragmatism is always, or even often, the victor in ideological application—political forces see to that. The conclusion then, is this: if liberal ideology is not the fruit of the intellect, then by definition the notion of the intellectual liberal rings false.