Here is the English translation of the provided paragraph, maintaining the original format and without adding external descriptions: ---

The Liberal International Order (LIO) is an international order constructed by the United States after World War II based on its global status and domestic institutions. Initially limited to the Western bloc, it later expanded into a global order. The Trump administration's "America First" policy was seen as a challenge to this order, with measures such as withdrawing from multilateral agreements and imposing tariffs on trade partners, raising doubts about U.S. leadership. During the potential Trump 2.0 administration, whether the crisis of the LIO will persist remains a pressing question.

I. The Essence and Inherent Flaws of the Liberal International Order

The LIO is rooted in Western power politics and suffers from legitimacy deficits. While it stabilized after the Cold War, crises emerged post-2008. Western scholars attribute these crises to hegemonic decline and the rise of non-Western states, with Trump's 2017 inauguration bringing the issue into sharp focus. The LIO encompasses defined principles, rules, and institutions, reflecting America’s postwar strategic vision—a world order emphasizing mutual respect, rule of law, and win-win cooperation. Liberal scholars argue that states share common interests and can resolve security dilemmas through cooperation, fostering an open and stable system. Trade and exchange drive modernization and civilization, with powerful states exercising restraint. The LIO is a fusion of U.S. hegemony and liberal institutions, resting on Western democratic norms, sustained by hegemonic power and self-restraint, and centered on an open economic system and collective security.

The LIO’s inherent flaw lies in its failure to transcend power politics, remaining dominated by hegemonic interests rather than genuine equality. The U.S. retains privileges within the order, often violating multilateral commitments when interests clash with principles, such as interfering with free trade. In Latin America and the Middle East, the U.S. has frequently undermined peace rather than upheld it. The LIO primarily serves hegemonic preferences, not equitable cooperation. The historical inertia of hegemonic privilege contradicts altruistic narratives. The order’s exclusionary arrangements and unequal distribution patterns—both between and within states—undermine its justice. Liberal ideology weakens the order’s legitimacy, with post-Cold War liberal multilateralism shifting toward post-national liberalism, constraining the LIO’s legitimacy-building. Unequal decision-making in international institutions provokes resistance from marginalized states and discontent among Western publics, fueling crisis. For stability, the LIO must be perceived as just and accepted by leaders and citizens across diverse cultures.

II. The Legitimacy Crisis Triggered by "Neoliberal" Globalization

This section examines two major transformations of the postwar LIO, particularly how "neoliberal" globalization eroded U.S. governance legitimacy. It first traces the shift from "embedded liberalism" to "neoliberalism" and the latter’s global expansion post-Cold War. Next, it analyzes how Keynesianism, through welfare states, mitigated class conflict and bolstered state legitimacy. The rise of "neoliberal" policies exacerbated domestic inequality, weakened social safety nets, and deepened class divisions, destabilizing the LIO’s legitimacy. The decline of the middle class and governance failures further eroded trust. "Neoliberal" globalization widened the elite-public divide, neglecting welfare systems and harming public interests, undermining the LIO’s domestic legitimacy.

III. The Participatory Crisis Stemming from Political Inequality

This section explores how political inequality in U.S. foreign policy triggers participatory crises. Economic elites and corporate interests dominate key areas, while ordinary citizens wield limited influence. When elites fail to protect public interests, backlash ensues, fueling crisis. U.S. international economic policymaking is marked by unequal participation, with elites holding disproportionate sway and marginalized groups lacking resources or voice. Elites often manipulate public perceptions to advance self-interest, creating policy divides—e.g., elites favor globalization, while workers oppose it. Elite capture of policy, framed as public interest, sparks internal LIO skepticism. Trump’s trade policies, a backlash against globalization, reflect accumulated domestic inequities. His protectionist measures, aimed at reviving manufacturing, catered to populist sentiment but failed to address deeper imbalances. Neoliberal globalization’s polarization, elite disengagement, and eroded channels for public expression fueled populist revolt, weakening liberal internationalism.

IV. The Identity Crisis Driven by "Affective Polarization"

21st-century U.S. "affective polarization" and populism interact, challenging LIO cohesion. Studies show asymmetric polarization, with right-wing populists exhibiting stronger hostility than left-wing counterparts. Cultural divides fuel this polarization, as U.S. societal identity undergoes profound restructuring. Secularism versus religious conservatism has deepened societal fractures. Obama-era racial and cultural politics intensified conservative-progressive clashes. Post-1990s immigration policies spurred Latino influx, reshaping demographics and straining national identity. Cultural partisan animosities have redefined politics beyond class, centering on "who counts as the people." This polarization erodes LIO support, as protectionism and nativism rise. Populism frames the LIO as sacrificing "real Americans" to outsiders, casting elites as the "other." This narrative, rooted in inequities and stoked by polarization, redefines national identity. Trump’s "America First" and "Make America Great Again" rhetoric rallied non-Hispanic whites, rejecting liberal internationalism. His trade protectionism marked a break from postwar consensus, reflecting a conservative reassertion of traditional values and borders.

V. The "Common-Sense Revolution" and Its Impact on the LIO’s Value System

Trump’s "common-sense revolution" governance logic disrupted post-Cold War LIO consensus. His frequent invocations of "common sense" sought to realign U.S. policy with his populist vision. This approach echoes Jacksonian populism and even Wilsonian idealism, blending nationalism and pragmatism. Trump’s rhetoric weaponized grievances over cultural erosion, inequality, and globalization, channeling resentment into political force. His "revolution" unmasked the LIO’s hegemonic core, replacing liberal pretense with raw power politics. He reframed international order as a hierarchy where might dictates right, and weak states survive under great-power patronage. U.S. institutional gridlock, eroded sovereignty, mass immigration, and unequal trade outcomes weakened domestic LIO support. Trump’s policies, while controversial, responded to internal polarization and unsustainable hegemony. His tenure reshaped the LIO’s normative foundations, prioritizing national interest over liberal universalism.

VI. Conclusion

The LIO’s crisis stems from U.S. governance failures, where power lacks legitimate authority. Trump’s rejection of liberal internationalism and Biden’s struggles to restore it reflect systemic dysfunction. Neoliberal globalization exacerbated capitalist contradictions, spawning legitimacy, participatory, and identity crises. The LIO’s instability arises from internal U.S. flaws, not external challengers.

--- The translation preserves the original structure, headings, and paragraph breaks while ensuring accuracy and readability in English.