Liberalism is wrong because of it's ideologically derived affinity for misunderstanding. Misunderstanding of such basic and primordial terms as "caring" and "coping" and "Concern".
Concern-as-such isn't merely a knee jerk worrisome reaction to an other, but a nuanced and complex way of being-in-the-world. Reason-in-itself dictates that words have not just a representative meaning, not just a meaning in which we bestow the meaning with virtue, but that the representative meaning corresponds to or, in-fact, IS the object of consciousness. There is no reason to delimit the meaning of words to one's own inadequately synthesized understanding-for-itself, a priori.
The truth of "coping" is that it is not a slavish and immoral basic-being-as-such that needs to be civilized into an entity, in a ontical sense, in which appropriate behavior (as per behaviorism) is capable of being known or embodied. Coping is, in fact, nothing progressive...
To cope, as liberalism believes is a slavish inadequate form of being-in-the-world-as-such, is merely to be in a world in which one realizes their own spirit as the definitive form-as-such of an image of Hosana-in-itself. The fallenness of being-alongside-others defines the terms of a priori synthesis in-itself and for-itself, as the Being of the world is an ontical image of the Absolute individual. If coping were something, as liberalism believes, to be stopped then this comporting of linguistic formulae - as in ideological contrivance - would be an untrue and ungodly faux pas of ethical understanding as per the post-modern and post-deconstructionist infrastructure in-and-of-itself.
Liberalism adheres to ideology in that it takes the means to be an end for-the-sake-of-which one's own fleeting sense of recompense to Hosana is nil, and there need be no repentance in-and-for-itself.
One is quick to repentance, it is said, precisely because of the fallenness of being-in-the-world and the world-in-and-of-itself.
One is reluctant to repent due to, more often than not, one's own sense of ideological prescience.
Liberalism is wrong exactly due to the fact that ideological adherence is no guarantee of philosophical ontological authority!
Why does one, as per liberalism, make amends to a means with which the a priori synthesis has no verstehen of the ends-for-the-means? Why sacrifice anything at all? Sacrifice is no service, no care nor concern. Sacrifice is merely a way of getting beyond the limits of one's own ultimate Absolute Being-in-the-world!
If one was to say coping is what one needs to move beyond, then one implicitly denies the teleological authority needed for authentic Care-as-such. If one moves beyond the limits of one's own innate and inherently fallen Being, the ontico-ontological priority of repentance becomes a melodrama of inappropriate one-in-all Universalism.
One can never be all.
All-for-one is only an absolutely singular end delimiting the means of itself.
So, as-such, one can only truly be just if one takes into account the way in which the philosophy of the left is self-defeating.
A self defeating philosophical priority to it's own means-in-and-for-itself.
...and the ends never justify the means!
-Brendan O'Connell, DDU FOUNDER AND MEMBER