Make America Liberal Again

I can never forgive Rush Limbaugh. For those too young to be familiar, Limbaugh was arguably the progenitor of the long-form, rage-bait style of political punditry that is ubiquitous in modern alternative news outlets such as podcasts and political streaming channels. His strident bloviating over the airwaves in the 80s and 90s contributed to the bastardization of the term “liberal,” which became synonymous in the United States with a political position that is “broadly left wing,” often used pejoratively. As a liberal, this colloquial, pejorative use of the term is symptomatic of a fundamental and increasingly pervasive inability to identify and express our shared values as a country. Without the ability to agree on some set of foundational values, the American experiment is doomed to fail. We must  reclaim liberalism as the shared philosophical foundation of our civic life, before ideological absolutism renders free expression and ultimately coexistence impossible.

A cursory glance may suggest our country is cracking along cultural and political fault lines, and, to some extent, this is true. Despite this, I’m convinced a majority of Americans — regardless of their self-identified position on the multidimensional political landscape — still believe in the ideals of free expression, pluralism and rule of law. Those who reject extremism must rally under the banner of liberalism and defend it from those who enjoy the protection of liberal values while actively attempting to undermine it.

While liberalism may encompass certain positions that are nominally progressive or broadly ideologically left, liberalism has historically provided the foundation for both left-leaning and right-leaning political movements. For example, many conservatives may be surprised to learn that gun ownership, free markets and property rights are rooted in a liberal tradition. Liberalism was conceived in the 17^th century by philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Montesquieu, who existed in a cultural milieu that increasingly believed a sovereign’s right to rule came not from God but from the consent of the people over which he ruled. This concept, in addition to an increased emphasis on individual rights and liberties, directly inspired the founders of our own constitution and subsequent liberal democracies around the world. Until recently, the core tenets of liberalism, which include freedom of expression, right to due process and equality before the law remained largely intact, with people the world over reaping the societal benefits of these ideas. However, the increasing influence of illiberal elements from diverse political vectors threaten to undermine the freedoms we have taken for granted.

Liberalism has consistently delivered objectively better outcomes, empirically measured in prosperity, quality of life, freedom and economic opportunities, than any competing system. Most importantly, the entirety of the 20^th century was a harsh lesson on the consequences of societal rejection of liberalism. Genocides, political purges, brutal suppression of speech and expression and the replacement of a person’s right to a private life with the omnipresent specter of totalitarianism are all direct consequences of fascist and authoritarian socialist policies. Unlike these totalitarian ideologies, which necessarily cannot tolerate dissent, one of the greatest strengths of liberalism is in its unique ability to not only host its own criticisms, but to incorporate them as a method of self-correction. Our own system is uniquely structured to do just this through congressional amendments to the constitution. Yet, while the fruits of liberalism have been enjoyed for centuries, its cultural primacy in the United States and elsewhere is weakening in an era of polarization and entrenchment.

There has been an apparent shift away from a mainstream political discourse that was, at times, acrimonious and contentious but ultimately rooted in shared liberal values. Over the past decade or so, we have arrived at the current paradigm, where principles are ethereal and amorphous and different sides of any given debate can’t seem to agree on a common view of reality, let alone find common ground. Pundits and politicians alike invoke liberal values such as freedom of speech when it’s politically expedient, only to discard them when those values impede their ideological goals. While the context and degree vary, both the political left and right are guilty of these sins, and both have contributed to a cultural paradigm where a rejection of liberal values is not only tolerated, but is socially beneficial. This creates an environment where political identity often functions like a Jenga tower: pull out a single belief, and the whole structure collapses. Try entering a staunch, pro-Trump, right-wing space and accept almost all the required precepts but claim the result of the 2020 election was legitimate or that vaccines are safe and effective. These contrary beliefs directly challenge the propositions supporting all others and would be intolerable in such spaces. Alternatively, try finding acceptance in a very left-wing space but express a belief that Israel has the right to exist. Rejection of even a single cultural or political axiom results in social exile, creating epistemic bubbles from which it is difficult to escape. This environment breeds blindly ideological, unprincipled, and ultimately anti-liberal thinking through a rejection of open intellectual exploration and discourse.

The rejection of liberal principles — whether through deliberate echo chambers or the passive retreat into epistemic bubbles — has had serious cultural and institutional consequences. This has manifested on the left, who were once seen as the champions of free inquiry and expression. In recent years anti-liberal thought arising from radical elements on the left has been remarkably successful at infiltrating left-leaning spaces. These ideologies begin by appealing to liberal sensibilities of equality and justice, but quickly shift towards enforcing moral purity and conformity, undermining the freedoms they claimed to champion. Speech is now akin to violence and disagreement is inseparable from harm. Such methods of coercion are wielded to silence dissent and deliberately construct ideologically pure spaces, resulting in a leftist strain of anti-intellectualism. There has been a spate of high-profile incidents of attempts to silence and harass intellectuals, sometimes under the threat of violence, for benign offenses or expressing thought that is heretical to the leftist orthodoxy. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, evolutionary biologists and former professors at Evergreen State College, faced harassment and threats of physical threats of violence in 2017 for objecting on liberal grounds to the suggestion of a “day of absence” where white students and faculty were encouraged to stay off campus. Carole Hooven, an evolutionary biologist then at Harvard University, participated in an interview in which she claimed sex is biologically determined by the types of gametes an individual produces. Despite her emphasis that gender identities should be respected, she too faced harsh backlash and threats of violence and felt compelled to resign from her position at Harvard. These cases highlight an apparent trend in higher education, where at least 1,000 attempts to silence university professors were recorded by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression between 2014 and 2023. One in five of these attempts resulted in termination, a rate higher than those fired for communist sympathies during the McCarthy era. Combined with disinvitation campaigns, physical disruptions and violent threats against invited speakers deemed too problematic, much of higher education as an institution has been thoroughly ideologically captured by illiberal influence from the left.

Academia is not a self-contained environment, however. The ideological frameworks incubated on campus follow graduates, where they influence industries, government institutions and public discourse through alternative media. Illiberal, leftist anti-intellectualism pervades foreign policy discourse, where every global conflict is reduced to the binary of oppressor and oppressed. Under this framework, moral responsibility is determined not by actions, but by perceived power dynamics, which leads to incoherent stances. Taken to its logical extremes, actions by authoritarian actors like Russia are excused or equivocated on because they oppose NATO and Western hegemony, while atrocities committed by groups like Hamas and other regional actors are downplayed or justified because Israel is framed as the oppressor. Complexity is flattened, and the result is simply a justification for enacting violence against those perceived as more powerful.

As corrosive as these illiberal leftist tendencies are to intellectual and cultural life, they currently lack the political capability to impose their will on the nation through policy. The illiberalism ascendant on the right, by contrast, is not confined to non-governmental institutions, but is aimed squarely at centralizing political influence. What makes this threat more urgent is not a fundamental difference in how ideological purity is achieved, but in its goals. Instead of critiquing power, it is directed towards the ruthless concentration and preservation of it. The result is a mainstream Republican Party and a supporting media environment that is purged of voices that don’t express unquestioning support for Donald Trump, which has led to immense electoral success. Though the long-term consequences of this synchronized illiberal front from the right are yet to be realized, we have already witnessed an unprecedented erosion of the very principles on which this country was founded.

By stepping down from the presidency in 1797, George Washington established the precedent of a peaceful transfer of power, an act that became the cornerstone of American democracy that was upheld through wars, economic turbulence and social upheaval. That tradition was not merely challenged but brutalized by Donald Trump and his legal team. The refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election marked the first major indication of how far the Republican Party was willing to go to undermine democratic liberal institutions to retain power, and how willingly a significant portion of the electorate was to tolerate and explicitly support such abuse. While many Americans now view January 6, 2021 as a brief outburst, it was in fact the culmination of months of calculated legal and political maneuvering. Coordinated by attorneys John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and others, the plan aimed to illegally install a false slate of electors in key battleground states, subverting both state authority and the will of the voters. This scheme rested on the ability of the mob, incited by Trump himself, to delay the certification of the electoral votes and pressure Vice President Mike Pence to accept the fraudulent electors. Only a principled commitment to the constitution exhibited by Pence prevented a collapse of the democratic process and would ultimately cost him his standing in the Republican Party for defying Trump. Though one of many serious violations, this episode alone should be enough to disqualify Trump from seeking office. The refusal to acknowledge the facts of this event and the extent of its implications on the democratic process exposed the hypocrisy and illiberal rot festering within the Republican Party and its base.  

Since the events of January 6, the mask has thoroughly slipped on the conservative, libertarian and right-wing base that had previously claimed to be the bulwark against government overreach and tyranny. The same isolationist political front that endlessly praised Trump for his dubious claim of not involving the U.S. in any foreign conflicts are now giddy at the suggestion that military force or coercion be used to annex Canada and Greenland. The pro-second amendment advocates, who often cite the right to bear arms as essential in preventing the rise of tyranny, are now supporting the only modern president to have used executive orders to expand firearm restrictions and who has expressed a desire to expand red-flag laws. The fear of foreign influence from globalist elites over our internal affairs appears to have vanished overnight, as the same voices expressing concern over George Soros are now praising Elon Musk, a foreign, unelected billionaire bureaucrat who has led a concerted effort to subvert the will of congress, and thus the voters they represent. The most ardent, vocal advocates for free speech in the wake of a rise in leftist “cancel culture,” including the MAGA base, political pundits such as Charlie Kirk and Bill Ackman and mainstream politicians such as Tom Cotton and Ron DeSantis are now gleefully cheering the revocation of visas and calling for deportation of pro-Gaza protestors. It appears the mantra “I don’t agree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it” was nothing more than an empty platitude.

Beyond the poisoning of broad political discourse, the indifference and outright disdain for liberal institutions is structurally embedded in the current Republican Party. Any dissent within the party has been thoroughly purged, with moderate conservatives being cast out as a Republican In Name Only, or RINO. This political loyalty testing has been used to withhold endorsements or positions within the party if candidates refused to assert that the result of the 2020 election was illegitimate, despite no credible evidence to this day that the election was rigged. The absence of dissenting voices, once a critical check on Trump’s worst instincts during his first term, combined with his consolidation of executive power bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling granting him absolute immunity for official acts, has formed a political machine that is steadily eroding the checks and balances designed to prevent authoritarian rule. The irony of a movement that flies the Gadsden flag, a Revolutionary symbol of liberty and anti-monarchism, while embracing the rise of an American king, is hard to overstate.

The cracks in the liberal foundations of our society are evident, but they need not lead to collapse, if we can agree to preserve these shared foundations. Beyond the realm of politics and toxic online discourse, the capacity for Americans to coexist and share in the joys of a free and liberal society is abundant. Walk along the Chicago Lakefront Trail on a warm, sunny day, and you’ll find people of every imaginable background laughing, playing and enjoying life together. It’s easy to shed the mask of tribalism when confronted with such moments of harmony and snapshots of a society that, while flawed, still works.

To the leftists and progressives: the movements that have expanded and secured the rights of historically oppressed groups, from abolition and women’s suffrage to civil rights and marriage equality, were won on liberal grounds. They succeeded by affirming that a person’s moral worth is not dictated by immutable characteristics, but by their shared humanity. Be proud of the progress that liberalism has made in security equality for the marginalized.

To the conservatives, right wingers, and MAGA faithful: I implore you not to be seduced by the gaudy, insincere veneer of patriotism used to disguise a fundamentally anti-American, illiberal and authoritarian movement. Wear the label liberal with pride, not as a partisan identity, but as a commitment to the freedom that lets you live your life as you see fit in a society grounded in law and fairness, and yes, affords you the right to buy that shiny new glock.

If we truly want to make America great again, we must first make America liberal again.

The image featured in this article is licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. No changes were made to the original image, which can be found here.