As a political philosophy, liberalism throughout history has sought to secure individual rights, promote the rule of law, balance market forces with social protections, reduce inequality, and advance international security.
As a conservative with libertarian instincts, my impression is that Trump incited a period of gross illiberalism on the left to the point there were no liberals left in the last decade, at least not among those with their hands on the levers of power. If you view the machinations of Obama/Hillary Democrats in attempting to deal with Trump in his first campaign and term as president, you see fascist or Bolshevik tactics deployed to destroy him. This continued throughout his first term and during the four years of Biden in which he was subjected to lawfare, the utter politicization of the legal system to destroy opponents. This was devious illiberalism in which the power of the state was used to destroy the leader of a surging political movement that began with the Tea Party uprising during Obama's first term.
Trump and Musk are what i call working libertarians in style and in most of their policies. Their hostility to leviathan government is pronounced because they have experienced it on many levels. As Trump said in his debate with Hillary, "I know the system is corrupt because I use it." Now he's getting his revenge of sorts and to my mind, restoring central government (which has become a Swamp) to something more in line with the American character, which is largely hostile to creeping European socialism.
I think Trump's movement will last because its younger stalwarts like Vance, DeSantis, Rubio and others will be fully prepared to continue what is, if not a revolution, a rapid restructuring of the current state of federalism. Remember, Bill Clinton did the same thing in a much more quiet way when he reduced the federal bureaucracy by over 400,000 jobs, many of them managerial, between 1993 and 1999. It was a more gradual than what appears to be going on now, but it was still a dramatic reduction in bureaucracy, which is what Americans generally want.
If you are indeed a libertarian, I am 100% sure you are against DOGE in its present form. You simply don’t realize it yet.
Imagine:
A.) The worst, most anti-libertarian person you can think of being elected President in 2028.
B.) Him/her appointing the most corrupt and mendacious billionaire you can think of to an advisory board that he unilaterally gives the powers of actual cabinet-level departments like the CIA, without the consent of Congress
C.) Said billionaire being given a free hand to reshape the bureaucracy of the state as he sees fit, ignoring the courts, and being given unmonitored access to the Treasury and all your tax information.
…that is, in essence, what you are supporting if you approve of Trump and Musk’s implementation of DOGE in its present form. I doubt very much it has much appeal to a libertarian.
There are few people on this earth who have enjoyed more the benefits and blessings of liberty than Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They know that freedom is the essence of creation and prosperity. They owe their station in life to liberty and constitutional rights.
Musk is an advisor to the president. The president writes the orders and makes the changes based on Musk's findings. Musk is issuing no orders to departments within the executive branch. He is uncovering political bias, corruption, greed, favoritism, and entropy in these departments and he is reporting to the president, who is issuing the orders.
They are not ignoring the courts, they are contesting petty complaints and lawsuits in the courts, which is how the system works. And they are winning because all presidents have had the power to re-orient the executive branch to suit their vision of how government should work. Biden did it, Obama did it and as I related above, Clinton did it.
You speaking for libertarians is a stretch. There are some things libertarians will oppose because mostly they oppose everything the federal government does. Most of them sit home in their dens reading books and writing whiny impotent letters. Trump and Musk are what I call working libertarians. They are making much of what libertarians complain about disappear. It is their right and their duty.
***"Most of them sit home in their dens reading books and writing whiny impotent letters. Trump and Musk are what I call working libertarians. They are making much of what libertarians complain about disappear. It is their right and their duty."***
Thus the original thesis holds--you're definitely not a libertarian. "Ends justify the means" strongman politics is what you're essentially describing. That belongs to a different, anti-libertarian philosophy. One that was pioneered in interwar Italy.
***"Musk is an advisor to the president. The president writes the orders and makes the changes based on Musk's findings."***
Firstly, it's Congress that apportions the government's funds--it can't be done via executive order. Trump is trying to ignore that fact--and in so doing has come to the brink (which it looks like he will cross soon) of ignoring the courts in the process.
Secondly, advisors don't get access to the treasury. Musk has not been elected to any government office, nor been appointed to a formal cabinet position. Those are the only parties formally authorized to access the information inside the treasury.
Would you want the most anti-libertarian president in the U.S. giving the most nefarious billionaire you can think of access to the U.S. treasury and all your tax information, without said billionaire holding elected office? Would you want both of them to make attempts to get their executive orders to bypass the checks of both the legislative and judicial branch? Even with your anti-libertarian disposition, I doubt you would. Yet that is essentially what you support--although it may take a bit for you to understand that fact.
I think these are great questions that definitely need answering. My fear is that liberals will have to work out the answers not in a calm, year-long period of retreat and reflection but instead under an intense blitzkrieg against the constitutional order, here and now, on a timetable of months. The collective body of work of the New Right intellectuals at the heart of administration policy suggests to me a concrete plan unfolding over the course of this calendar year. The plan is evident, I would argue, in the longtime record of statements by, among others, J.D. Vance, Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, Michael Anton, and their associates outside of government, like Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule, Curtis Yarvin, and Steve Bannon.
The plan, roughly, is to: (1) seize control of the executive branch, unfettered by serious legal constraints; (2) use executive branch power, in the form of fiscal policy, regulations, investigations, and litigation, to break, dominate, and replace the leadership of private sector institutions like universities, professional associations, corporate management, NGOs, philanthropies, and media. From what I can tell, stage (1) is slated for implementation largely in this calendar year, probably culminating in either favorable Supreme Court decisions or creative evasion, subversion, and defiance of same. Stage (2) would then unfold over the remainder of the current Trump term.
Success in that effort would make the executive branch the dominant arbiter of legality and economic power in American life, displacing Congress, the courts, and private sector actors. It's doubtful to me that free and fair elections could unfold under those circumstances. John's essay above seems to assume that such elections will be possible. Maybe they will, but approaching this problem like an intelligence analyst trying to divine enemy intent in wartime, I infer that the Trump inner circle likely wants to eliminate its enemies from serious contention for national electoral success. I would expect state GOP leaders to emulate the national leadership in this regard.
As this situation becomes clearer, there will likely be at least an attempt at large-scale street protests by the progressive left (i.e. "the Groups") and its logistical backers among billionaires and elements of corporate America. The Trump administration, according to media accounts, seems willing to use force against such protests, including domestic deployment of US military forces. How the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commands react to such a scenario will be a key variable.
In sum, the questions John sets forth for American liberalism will probably have to be answered not in a period of retreat and reflection, anticipating future elections, but instead under pressure of time, resources, and uncertainty in a constitutional crisis, fraught with potential for mass violence and extreme scenarios without precedent in the history of the United States -- but with plenty of precedent in the history of other countries. This is a dark conclusion, which I've found echoed by commentators like Yascha Mounk, Larry Diamond, and Damon Linker. I think it has to be the starting point for planning, though. This isn't 1985, after Mondale's defeat, or 1973, after McGovern's. It's the 1780s, 1860s, or 1930s. A new order for the ages is here, for better or worse.
Do you really think "the people" will take to the streets to defend fraud and wasteful spending? And that American soldiers will use force against them?
Some of what you describe is the rough and tumble of American politics that happens every time there is an ideological change in control of the government. The other part of it is the paranoid fantasies of the left. The country is evenly divided politically and neither side is going to be able to extinguish the other. Trump's revolution will not be much different than the Reagan revolution which lasted for 12 years. It's possible Trump's will be shorter. Often that will depend on external events as much as the political inclinations of Americans. And, of course it will depend on the effectiveness of Republican rule in general, the power of which could be altered in the next election if, say, Trump loses both houses in the off-year election.
Regardless the idea he and he and his plotters can "replace the leadership of private sector institutions like universities, professional associations, corporate management, NGOs, philanthropies, and media" is not going to happen. More likely is that the leaders of those institutions will also feel the pressure of public opinion as expressed in the election and will respond accordingly to keep themselves relevant. And yet, the vast majority of them won't change at all and will continue the trend toward illiberalism in those institutions that are controlled by the left. As James Carville advised the other day, they will just lay low and go silent.
I agree that is the most realistic scenario, but I won't give up my fantasies of seeing the woke cult go down in flames like most other cults eventually do.
I wonder if you had similar 'dark conclusions' after witnessing how the folks that Trump defeated lied continually, until the debate wouldn't allow them to anymore, about the mental capacity of a sitting President (no constitutional crisis to see here), or was the Afghan retreat that you and I could have arguably planned better, leaving our enemies with billions in wares, including a functional air field, and 13 senseless soldier deaths, not particularly extreme, as events go, to you? I see this type of sentiment quite often, it bangs the drum that Trump will inevitably bring about a 'dark' future, with very little acknowledgement, if any, that the left has already showed us, quite clearly, how dark government can be (your body, your choice unless it's an experimental, no long-term history vaccine, racist DEI policies, anything goes abortion, zero respect for those that legally immigrated here, two separate applications of law depending on who you are, and on, and on. . ).
They've even literally shown us the optics of how dark government can be, do you recall Biden's 2022 'Blood red' speech?
This is an excellent example of projection, the Left wants authoritarian control over all the institutions in our society, and they were well on the way to getting it, supported by their state-sponsored censorship of any dissent. Because the Left believes falsely that it is "liberal", it projects its own authoritarian impulses onto the Right which it regards not as the opposition but the enemy which must be destroyed at all costs. The Right is not instinctively authoritarian, but recognizes that the hard Left authoritarians in our institutions must be yanked out by the roots and put where they have no power so that our society can again begin to function with free speech and open discussion of ideas. We on the Right can work with traditional liberals who will discuss, debate, and compromise on ideas and policies, like they used to do. The Left brooks no discussion, compromise, or any resistance to its dictates. Former Leftists describe the Left as a cult, no dissent allowed or severe punishment will result. That is why the country is finally pushing back against these would-be dictators, and Trump is the one who is tough enough to clean out the swamp.
Nothing would be sweeter to me than to see Trump and his associates break the hegemonic power of my professional association, the academic departments to which that association grants accreditation, and the state licensing authorities that enforce the dictates of that association on all members of my profession, and in doing so victimize millions of vulnerable, unsuspecting Americans. May I be blessed to see not only my profession but my entire country liberated in my life time.
I agree. We don't have much time for deliberation. The Trump/Musk intent is clear: remove all obstacles to authoritarian rule. Anyone who doesn't see it is either not paying attention or intentionally ignoring the obvious. This is a planned, deliberate, and powerful attempt to take over the American government. Like any coup, it aims to achieve complete control quickly and prevent any effective opposition the time to form and organize. Protests and demonstrations will be useless, unless they can actually impede the coup.
The above is an excellent theoretical tutorial, but ignores, in reality, Liberals have not controlled the US Democratic Party, since Obama. Progressives have governed. Whatever their historical origin, Progressives believe a small, highly educated and morally superior ruling class, should govern nations, in a manner that benefits the world, not necessarily their voters.
Progressives believe no price is too great to effect Climate Change, except for a ruling class, exempt from all restrictions. Thus attendees of important conclaves like Davos, can arrive via private jet, and enjoy the finest food and drink on earth, in the name of saving the planet. Progressive Climate Change advocates have a spectrum. Some seek only to deny citizens fireplaces, gas stoves, and ICE vehicles. Zealots demand a world where bugs are food, and only movement by mass transit is allowed. All Climate Warriors agree, however, the ruling class is exempt from all restrictions.
Progressives also seek Universal Healthcare for the masses. In theory, Universal healthcare brings equal healthcare to all. It requires a small ruling class to administer the program. They decide what healthcare is available and what limits are necessary, to curtail costs. As with Climate Change, Universal Healthcare is only applicable to the masses, not the ruling class. Progressives reserve the right to retain their personal, concierge doctors and specialists, and to enjoy a tax break for their costs.
Like Climate Change and Universal Healthcare, Progressives are devoted to Public Education, even as US test scores have reverted back, 3 decades. Progressives believe in Public Education, to such a degree, they repeatedly demand more spending, even as the US per pupil outlays, exceed nearly every other nation one earth, with some of the worst outcomes. Interestingly, the worse the educational outcomes, the more money Progressives demand for education.
Like Climate Change and Universal Healthcare, Public Education is not applicable to the ruling class. Their progeny are nearly exclusively, privately educated, even in multimillion dollar neighbors. In irony, completely lost on Progressives, the Americans most devoted to public schools, will crawl thru broken glass, to keep their own kids from getting anywhere near one.
Progressive ideology is always bound by one overriding theme. A small, well educated and morally superior class, will govern, with a class of federal employees, implementing their edicts, for everyone but the ruling class, who are always exempt.
Dems have been so busy squealing and singing about Trump and Musk, and the end of days, they have not stopped to ask, how Trump arrived back in the WH. Americans no longer live in different parts of the country, we occupy different planets. Trillions in needless spending by Dems, just generated life changing wealth for the top quintile of US earners, while leveling the living standards of most other Americans.
10 million unvetted migrants are a gift to the ruling class, who often require armies of cheap domestics. For Americans lacking servants and college degrees, the migrants have driven up affordable housing costs and driven down Blue Collar wages. They will do so, for decades to come. For working and middle class Americans, 10 million migrants have been yet another nail in their, Progressive provided, economic coffins.
The list goes on and on, but until Dems purge Progressives and end "rules for thee, but not for me" governance, they can debate Liberalism all they want,Trump and Rep rule are not going anywhere.
I'd say we are passed the heyday of pragmatic liberalism, or maybe Clinton and Obama implemented poorly. We are fifty years on into a declining working class in America, and the working class embodies all of that economic mobility stuff. If it's impossible to get ahead and imagine a better life for one's progeny, well that's a dangerous situation.
The US has done very well, but prosperity hasn't been shared.
I'm also not sure anything Trump is doing will lead to very many improvements in the lives of the middle three quintiles of income. Trump wants to lower taxes also, and other than SS and Medicare half the people pay almost no taxes, there isn't much to lower. Slashing USAID etc is a drop in the bucket.
Today I go in to get our returns from the CPA. We still live an extremely frugal life but I know actually we are very well off, especially in unearned and unrealized income. It seems like wages for my neighbors should be much higher, as most people depend on wages. There is a vast difference in income between those salaried employees at "the groups" and those they claim to be fighting for.
OMG I have been waiting *soooooo* long for TLP to actually get to this. Squabble all you want about narrower ancillary issues, the assault on liberalism coming from elements of both the left and the right is *the* story of the 21st century, and is the central animating conflict that underpins all the other ones we talk about. I was beginning to lose faith that we'd ever get an article on the issue...glad I stuck with it, and it is a good article indeed.
"Biden had a chance to usher in a new era of pragmatic liberalism after the first Trump presidency but flopped dramatically leaving liberals with no clear leadership, vision, or political strategy for future success." -- John Halpin
Interestingly, Democrats in 2020 marketed Vice President Biden as the party's "pragmatic liberal" and a needed reprieve from both Trump's combative and erratic political manner and an emergent Democratic Left so clearly put of touch with mainstream America.The 2020 election showed a majority of voters yearned for some political calm.
In 2025 we are left to ponder whether Democrats knew of Biden's cognitive impairment, thus the Covid era "basement campaign." Or did Biden's condition worsen rapidly, while the party, with the help of a partisan friendly press, sought to conceal his decline?
This may be a case of having to go back if there is going to be any credible chance of moving forward. Once these critical past questions are addressed, and Democrats suffer perhaps a punishing midterm for any political transgressions and coverup, John Halpin offers some sound advice for recovery by, say, 2028 if the Democratic Party possesses the wisdom to listen.
I think the first step to understanding anything is being clear about language. The term “liberal” has been heavily misused in US politics, for decades. Actual classical liberalism, as understood in the rest of the world, has its purest expression in the Libertarian Party, not the Democratic Party. Big government, and the economic policies of FDR and LBJ, are extremely illiberal. Reagan restored economic liberalism. It is true that classical liberalism has taken a (partial) hit, but that’s a separate subject from the Democrats.
You cannot untangle the mess of The Democratic Party without using the term Progressivism. Pretending that it is not the dominant ideology of the party, and that “liberalism” is, or that they are the same thing, is not reality. The real razor’s edge in current Democrat ideology is extreme egalitarianism, which demands not only equal treatment under the law, but equal outcomes.“Social justice”, which means forcible redistribution based on “identity”. They have largely abandoned that Marxist agenda of retribution through redistribution on economic policy, but it is the core of the party’s agenda on social policy. It has economic outcomes, but oppressed/oppressor is based on identity and not class. That’s pretty well understood, but until or unless the Democrats cut that out of the party, they cannot move forward.
The second, and even bigger subject is Progressivism writ large, which is the tree from which “Wokeness”, Socialism, Communism, Fascism and Nazism are all branches. That term was dead in US politics for almost 80 years, because it had met its apotheosis in WWII and the Cold War, before the Democrats began to resurrect it in the early 00s - once the people who remembered its history had begun to pass away. It had a new run on the back of Silicon Valley, the New Atheists and Barack Obama.
Progressivism, simply put, asserts that human society can be engineered and perfected through “science” - which mainly means the “soft sciences”, the “social sciences”, although it piggybacks on actual science and technology. It uses the notion of endless technological advancement to push social engineering, carried out by “experts” (academics) running a government that is given as much power as it needs to accomplish their goals. It is the ideological foundation of totalitarianism. It is consciously, comprehensively, illiberal. It rejects classical liberalism. And because it arises from atheism, its Utopian fantasies serve as the source of meaning in life for its adherents, and it takes on the fanatical, religious dimensions that enable atrocities. That is what has gripped the Democrats. “Progress” is their god, and Barack Obama was their messiah. Does no one remember him complaining, as a law professor, that the Constitution only guarantees “negative liberties”? That was Progressivism speaking. And as much as the left wails about “Fascism”, the closest the country ever came was under FDR, driven by his anti-liberal “four freedoms”. The movement to divorce the government and the country from Christianity, driven by the New Atheists and the rainbow flag, opened Pandora’s box, and the religion of “Wokeness” took its place.
Progressivism is barely mentioned in the article, but it is the real monster controlling the Democratic Party. And the real key to understanding the current environment is that Progressivism has utterly crashed. There are many steps along the way, but it met its Waterloo in Covid. There’s a phrase that could be called the motto of modern Progressivism, which has suddenly disappeared from usage: “Trust The Science”. The idea that Big Government should be trusted to make the world a better place is in utter disgrace. You see that reality in action, right now, by Trump and Musk. And if you’re a leftist who really wants to melt down, you can realize that it extends to other suspect “science” in general. Global Warming is on its absolute last leg of credibility. ESG is going away. And if the trend continues, evolution is next.
“Science” has made too many claims that strain credulity, and things like systematizing the “transition” of minors, justified by medicine, biology and psychology, have destroyed its credibility. We’re not talking about the scientific method here, by the way, we’re talking about academia and its practitioners. Their credibility is gone. They are no longer trusted. On anything. “Wokeness”, Covid (lockdowns, vaccine mandates, censorship of online dissent), all roll into a deadly stew for Big Government Progressivism, and its source, academia.
I doubt the Democrats’ ability to truly “pivot” from Progressivism, but that is the magnitude of what’s happened. Progressivism and everything it represents is now a dead letter with the people, and will remain so until the last person who remembers Covid is gone. That’s how big this truly is.
Continuing to confuse Progressivism with liberalism, when the two things are incompatible, will only prolong the calamity. It’s not just semantics. “Selective liberalism” is the most you could say about the Democrats’ agenda. And that part of it has been dwindling. The Republicans are far more liberal, and the Libertarians even more. What we are seeing in Trump and within the GOP in general, is a push and pull between conservatism and liberalism - when those terms are properly understood and used. The Democrats are almost entirely Progressive, and the areas in which you could argue they are being liberal, while driven by Progressive ideology, are things like immigration and crime - which is a disaster for them.
You are right on, couldn't agree more. I didn't hit Progressivism in my comments as hard as you have but I know it's the dominant evil in the Democratic Party and in all the institutions they have managed to infest.
You don't mention the most glaringly obvious problems of the so-called "pragmatic liberal order" which include the rampant graft, corruption, and crony capitalism that has stolen untold billions from taxpayers for projects like the advancement of useless and dangerous policies such as "energy transition" and "net zero" which have nothing to do with actual liberalism but everything to do with corrupt insiders with their hands out for government money with no strings or accountability. There has been a great deal more corruption in supposedly "liberal" policies such as more billions to unaccountable NGOs for vague projects domestically and overseas that supposedly have some liberal purpose but there is again no accountability or even any idea whether the project accomplished anything at all. The public hates this with good reason. They also hate that it's been quite obvious the "liberal order" is only allowing people to be "free" to practice the most destructive forms of deviant behavior, at the expense of social order, our infrastructure, and the rights of non-deviant "normie" citizens, while "normies" were not allowed to stop the deviants, protect themselves or their property, or even to complain about it. And of course the foreign invasion of illegals changing the character of neighborhoods, sucking up public resources, and causing great harm with their criminal behavior That is changing under Trump, and I hope we never go back.
The "pragmatic liberal order" has been a miserable failure at basic delivery of public services and safety, governance, protection of the people from abuse by renegade government, and prudent management of public finances. So what, actually, is there to salvage from this? I say nothing at all. I see the Trump approach as giving freedom back to the people, and what can be more liberal than that? He is going to stop the weaponization of government against the people, stop government censorship so we can exercise our free speech rights without punishment or cancelation, round up and deport the illegals, get rid of the bans on fossil fuel powered cars, appliances, reliable electricity, and everything else, so we are free to buy the products that work best for us. He is banning men in women's sports and spaces, so women can be free and safe. He is banning DEI so people can be treated as individuals with dignity and respect instead of anonymous members of groups.
I agree as you say that nothing will save "pragmatic liberals" (which I posit are now not pragmatic or liberal) if Americans do not fundamentally agree with their values or agenda. I have outlined some of the toxic elements of their values and agenda above. What about their agenda is actually positive? I can't think of anything in practice now, maybe some floaty vague rhetoric. They may call themselves "liberals" but they are not in the least liberal. They are authoritarians with no liberalism at all in what they are actually doing.
What we see is that the massive dark money that has flowed to NGOs and media and corporations for American soft power... that foments instability in other countries for election influence... was turned on the US internally about 10-12 year ago beginning with the Obama admin... and this provided an artificial and inaccurate indication that left liberal progressive has become suddenly the populist ideological domain. The people figured this out and voted it into the landfill of American mistakes. To keep clutching that myth is a behavior in political futility.
The current liberal progressive domain that adopted woke is dead. It was put on life support from the election, and DOGE is ending its life and burying it six ft deep.
The only way for Democrats to emerge again as a viable party is to basically adopt most of Trump's platform.
Boomers are a selfish self indulging group. They have been screwing the other age groups for years if not decades. They never really consider what the down road consequences. It is what one has come to expect from old mainly white people. We now see through DOGE that the younger generations are very willing and able to participate in our government to clean up the mess Boomers were leaving for them. Yet then Dems are doing all they can to keep those younger generations out of government and on the sidelines unless they "bend the knee" , god I hate that phrase, to the Dems ideology. Until the Dems learn to be flexible and start accepting these younger generation activists, they will be lost until the old ones die and they have no choice to allow in the younger, not ideological pure, members they need.
When Trump became predominate in the Republican party, every one predicted the death of the Republican party. Instead, he rebuilt and modernized it. I'm surprised few mention this. It is something the Democrat party will have to go though also. I see no one who can do for the Dems what Trump did for then Repubs.
What I see are 80 year olds who think singing and fear mongering are the way to go. What the Dems do with such embarrassing displays is the lower the bar for what Trump needs to accomplish to look good.
As an independent, I won't even consider the Democrats as long as they show no ability to be adults and more for something than against something. My wife and I owned a daycare for 6n years, the toddlers in that daycare would be preferable to the current Democrat leadership.
You people suck. I say that not to be mean but to show the utterly uselessness of those who lead the current Dem party.
The woke cult is primarily a creation of young white women from affluent professional or wealthier families. The geriatric elite has certainly exploited the Gen Z woke cultists for their own purposes, but this movement has been driven by mostly female adolescents on social media. These young women hold the Democratic Party in contempt, as one of many other "white male supremacist" institutions. They are tyrannical, authoritarian, highly aggressive people who relish silencing dissent and destroying the lives of people who disagree with them. Their parents, educators and other elder supporters smile indulgently while they burn cities like spoiled toddlers smashing toys. When they rise to full power the dissenters within their generation and earlier ones had best be ready, because Gen Z radicals have very clear ideas about how to "disrupt, deconstruct and destroy" every institution that they themselves didn't create, which is all of them.
A word that has traditionally been applied primarily to misbehaving school children–disruptive–is currently being widely used to describe what the Trump administration is doing to US politics, policies and government institutions. Many, especially Democratic Party partisans, are condemning these initiatives as undemocratic and dangerous. Time will tell if they are right.
In the meantime, a closer look at how a more particular application of the phenomenon of disruption offers useful insights, and may offer scenarios for how the Democratic Party might lift itself out of its current torpor.
The Harvard Business School’s late Clayton Christensen developed and popularized a “theory of disruption” that he applied to business enterprises. He was specifically interested in explaining how new, startup businesses were able to break into an existing market and be successful–in many cases, forcing existing legacy businesses to fail. In simplest terms he argues that disruption occurs when an entrepreneur identifies an unmet need that the current market is not serving–even a need that the public itself doesn’t realize it has.
His early example and the focus of much of his early work was the initiatives of Steve Jobs and Apple. Jobs intuited that there was a market for personal, desktop computers that the general public needed and would want. He also intuited that the public would want this equipment to be stylish. The existing computer industry was not serving that need. Apple filled the need and in the process drove competing computer companies out of business.
So what is the relevance of this theory of disruption to American politics, and especially the fortunes of the Democratic Party? Like it or not, whether by design or simply native intuition, Donald Trump sensed that a significant segment of the public–something close to a majority– yearns for disruption of the political landscape. He is providing it in spades. Aside from whether we like his initiatives, much less his style, he is meeting a demand for disruptive change–misguided maybe, stupidly in the opinion of many, perhaps demonstrably dangerous. But the demand for change is there. He has discovered it and is exploiting it, cashing in on the political gains.
The question is, should Democrats be cashing in on this desire for disruption too? And how can they best do so? The national Democratic Party recently chose a new party leader, Ken Martin of Minnesota. Upon his selection he gave a fiery speech to cheering Democrats, but it contained little that was disruptive: taking the fight to Donald Trump, defending Democratic party values and fighting for the working class. In short, he was calling for a continuation of a platform that Kamala Harris ran on, and lost.
Nor will simply devising new policy gimmicks, no matter how original, really translate into disruption. Harris’s proposed innovations concerning small businesses and tax breaks on tips didn’t move the needle. To be genuinely disruptive, the Democratic Party needs to dramatically initiate an alteration in how politics is played in this country.
The Democrats could learn from the British parliamentary system where there is an official “loyal opposition” including a “shadow government” sitting in Parliament with an opposition party leader able to stand and object, criticize, even demolish the arguments of the government on a continuing basis. Their speeches are covered by the press. And in an election season, this opposition leader will become the prime minister if the opposition party wins the election. In other words, there is a nationally recognized spokesperson whose voice is singular and authoritative and focused. We have no such figure on our political system until a primary is held and a nominee for an upcoming presidential election is chosen. At that time the party finally has a leader, an official spokesperson for the party to rally round. The voice of the nominee becomes the voice of the opposition.
Political scientists have longed for a parliamentary system for decades. But moving to a parliamentary system would require a new constitution. This would certainly a disruption, but not one that the Democrats could single handedly bring to pass.
So what could the Democratic Party do? Simply this: Hold their primary early, hopefully within the coming year. Let the presidential hopefuls campaign, develop their platforms, establish their credibility, and demonstrate their support with the public.They could take on, in a focused and distinguishable manner, the existing regime. The national debate over public policy would be clear and effective. There would be time for policies to be declared, examined, challenged and modified.
Theoretically, members of Congress do some of these things now. But the voices of Congress are diffuse. They are often ignored by the general public. There is no certainty where their criticisms will lead. Unfortunately, they are seen simply as a gaggle of blowhards hoping to hang on to their sumptuous salaries, offices, perks and benefits, not as an effective, much less official, opposition. An elected leader of the opposition as an ordained presidential candidate would provide the focus, leadership and effective opposition that our country needs–NOW. Not three years from now.
Merlyn Clarke, Professor emeritus of Political Science, East Stroudsburg University
Wow, this inches toward a common sense approach that is needed. By "ditching" the cultural liberalism, though, I think a full rebuke of the transoid/woke, pro-homosexual, anti-marriage, anti-men policies will be required. I don't know if Democrats can do that. We must return to the so-called "conservative" values of a two-parent family consisting of a man and woman; that there are only two sexes; that trans-ism in all its iterations is an aberration; and that, yes, the government must reflect those values. Any future for the Democrat Party must embrace actual free speech not censored cancel culture; must entertain alternate ways of doing things; and above all must be pro-life in all its iterations Again, I don't see this as happening.
Liberalism requires the political subordination of political leaders and organizations to a universal rule of law, a dedication to free inquiry, and a state oriented towards support for individual freedom and self-determination. It is unconcerned with sexual mores, or what a household should look like, except as they relate to these. You are reading narrow cultural grievances into something whose foundations rest in more important, higher-order values.
Agreed - old-style "conservative" social values aren't coming back, nor should they. I prefer a more libertarian approach, where everyone should be free to be themselves except when their actions infringe on the rights of others. Don't mess with children at any time, or anyone else's family ever!
That is the liberal impulse, and we'd be living in a far better world if our political debates were focused solely on the complex question of how to implement it. We seemed to get a glimpse of what that might look like in the first few years after the close of the first Cold War. But the central political struggle that is going on now is not between rival factions within liberal philosophy, but between liberal politics and illiberal forces that have sprung up on the left and the right. And I fear the acolytes of illiberal politics are winning at the moment.
Trump is playing to his Base--the working class. He channels them and represents their 'values' and preferences. They, who have the vote, are responsible for his election and lots of bad stuff in the US. Recognize that. Don't go on about Musk and billionaires--they are representing the working class, doing their bidding. Now what we gonna do about that? That should be the focus. And making a case for true economic populism, strengthening unions, or whatever, won't persuade them. They want patronage and want us put down. They want a world were women breed (note Vance's remarks about childless cat women), men fight, and Big Men rule. And that's what they're going to get.
Pointing out the economic, labor, and social impacts of low birth rates on a country is not the same thing as demanding that 'women breed.' That's why it's so hard to have a serious conversation about vital issues these days.
That isn’t the primary issue. And BTW I’ve done my share—I have 3 kids. The issue is that they want to maintain traditional sex roles. If they want women to breed then they need to make childcare more affordable. And I speak from experience.
Good analysis of where we are and the questions that liberals need to ask themselves. I would add "What is the proper role for the courts". Hamilton famously described them as the weakest branch but it sure hasn't seemed that way for the last 3 generations. The Aspen Institute, that bastion of the Left, has been asking that question of late and you should too. This is probably just a reaction to Trumpian (partial) success in changing the ideological balance after liberal success in for most of the preceding century but it is a question that must be faced. The Groups on Right and Left are unhappy about the Supreme Court dumping abortion policy back on the states so I don't expect that decision to hold. RBG thought Rowe was bad law and would have preferred an equal protection rationale but went with it as a preferred policy outcome. And that is the problem, courts shouldn't be doing policy. Most conservatives cheered the overturning of the Chevron doctrine but in my opinion that will come back and bite them. Instead of the bureaucratic tyranny they perceive, we are going to get judicial tyranny. That will be worse because whatever your feelings about bureaucrats, judges are worse. They are ignorant about the subject matter of the policy, supremely arrogant and completely unaccountable. Ideally, this should be done as a Congressional strike on their powers but partisanship will probably get in the way.
Couple of caveats though. What you call pragmatic liberalism, others on the Left and Right have called The Long March through the Institutions. Ponder this in any redesign. Second, don't let the gauzy memory of Democratic ascendency get in the way of your analysis. Both Clinton and Obama were political geniuses running against morons who did not have support of their base. Clinton was a plurality President both times. And both crashed and burned in their first midterm.
There is a third option coming into view that Trump is on the verge of pursuing, which is that the executive branch can simply ignore the courts, which will bestow it unitary power to essentially run every aspect of the government and set its policies. (who is going to stop it? A captive Congress won't. The army is led by the CiC, who runs the executive branch. So who?)
Sounds good when someone you favor is the executive...not so much when someone you don't is. And it looks a lot like the fascism that MAGA critics have been warning against.
Biden ignored the courts. Trump is fighting back and winning. Big difference. The totalitarian Left is always projecting their impulses onto their "enemies" but that doesn't make it true.
We need compromise and coalition between the center-left and center-right. I like Mr. Halpin's guidelines as a starting point, but compromise is key. For years, the far left has refused to compromise on anything (I'm not implying the right is blameless or better). If compromise is impossible, the only way to change things is to break things. For example, there has been a lot of noise around grant funding for universities. I disagree with Trump's approach, but if universities refuse to change and respond to mainstream concerns, there is a good chance they will be broken. Of course, the consequences for research could be devastating, but something has to give.
I would prefer a coalition between the far right and far left-populist fusion. The Establishment party-center right and center left- has been an utter failure, not only here but throughout the West. The fringes need to get over traditional partisanship and cooperate on items of common interest, of which there are quite a few.
As a conservative with libertarian instincts, my impression is that Trump incited a period of gross illiberalism on the left to the point there were no liberals left in the last decade, at least not among those with their hands on the levers of power. If you view the machinations of Obama/Hillary Democrats in attempting to deal with Trump in his first campaign and term as president, you see fascist or Bolshevik tactics deployed to destroy him. This continued throughout his first term and during the four years of Biden in which he was subjected to lawfare, the utter politicization of the legal system to destroy opponents. This was devious illiberalism in which the power of the state was used to destroy the leader of a surging political movement that began with the Tea Party uprising during Obama's first term.
Trump and Musk are what i call working libertarians in style and in most of their policies. Their hostility to leviathan government is pronounced because they have experienced it on many levels. As Trump said in his debate with Hillary, "I know the system is corrupt because I use it." Now he's getting his revenge of sorts and to my mind, restoring central government (which has become a Swamp) to something more in line with the American character, which is largely hostile to creeping European socialism.
I think Trump's movement will last because its younger stalwarts like Vance, DeSantis, Rubio and others will be fully prepared to continue what is, if not a revolution, a rapid restructuring of the current state of federalism. Remember, Bill Clinton did the same thing in a much more quiet way when he reduced the federal bureaucracy by over 400,000 jobs, many of them managerial, between 1993 and 1999. It was a more gradual than what appears to be going on now, but it was still a dramatic reduction in bureaucracy, which is what Americans generally want.
If you are indeed a libertarian, I am 100% sure you are against DOGE in its present form. You simply don’t realize it yet.
Imagine:
A.) The worst, most anti-libertarian person you can think of being elected President in 2028.
B.) Him/her appointing the most corrupt and mendacious billionaire you can think of to an advisory board that he unilaterally gives the powers of actual cabinet-level departments like the CIA, without the consent of Congress
C.) Said billionaire being given a free hand to reshape the bureaucracy of the state as he sees fit, ignoring the courts, and being given unmonitored access to the Treasury and all your tax information.
…that is, in essence, what you are supporting if you approve of Trump and Musk’s implementation of DOGE in its present form. I doubt very much it has much appeal to a libertarian.
Actually, Mr. Minsky, you are 100% wrong.
There are few people on this earth who have enjoyed more the benefits and blessings of liberty than Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They know that freedom is the essence of creation and prosperity. They owe their station in life to liberty and constitutional rights.
Musk is an advisor to the president. The president writes the orders and makes the changes based on Musk's findings. Musk is issuing no orders to departments within the executive branch. He is uncovering political bias, corruption, greed, favoritism, and entropy in these departments and he is reporting to the president, who is issuing the orders.
They are not ignoring the courts, they are contesting petty complaints and lawsuits in the courts, which is how the system works. And they are winning because all presidents have had the power to re-orient the executive branch to suit their vision of how government should work. Biden did it, Obama did it and as I related above, Clinton did it.
You speaking for libertarians is a stretch. There are some things libertarians will oppose because mostly they oppose everything the federal government does. Most of them sit home in their dens reading books and writing whiny impotent letters. Trump and Musk are what I call working libertarians. They are making much of what libertarians complain about disappear. It is their right and their duty.
***"Most of them sit home in their dens reading books and writing whiny impotent letters. Trump and Musk are what I call working libertarians. They are making much of what libertarians complain about disappear. It is their right and their duty."***
Thus the original thesis holds--you're definitely not a libertarian. "Ends justify the means" strongman politics is what you're essentially describing. That belongs to a different, anti-libertarian philosophy. One that was pioneered in interwar Italy.
***"Musk is an advisor to the president. The president writes the orders and makes the changes based on Musk's findings."***
Firstly, it's Congress that apportions the government's funds--it can't be done via executive order. Trump is trying to ignore that fact--and in so doing has come to the brink (which it looks like he will cross soon) of ignoring the courts in the process.
Secondly, advisors don't get access to the treasury. Musk has not been elected to any government office, nor been appointed to a formal cabinet position. Those are the only parties formally authorized to access the information inside the treasury.
Would you want the most anti-libertarian president in the U.S. giving the most nefarious billionaire you can think of access to the U.S. treasury and all your tax information, without said billionaire holding elected office? Would you want both of them to make attempts to get their executive orders to bypass the checks of both the legislative and judicial branch? Even with your anti-libertarian disposition, I doubt you would. Yet that is essentially what you support--although it may take a bit for you to understand that fact.
I think these are great questions that definitely need answering. My fear is that liberals will have to work out the answers not in a calm, year-long period of retreat and reflection but instead under an intense blitzkrieg against the constitutional order, here and now, on a timetable of months. The collective body of work of the New Right intellectuals at the heart of administration policy suggests to me a concrete plan unfolding over the course of this calendar year. The plan is evident, I would argue, in the longtime record of statements by, among others, J.D. Vance, Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, Michael Anton, and their associates outside of government, like Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule, Curtis Yarvin, and Steve Bannon.
The plan, roughly, is to: (1) seize control of the executive branch, unfettered by serious legal constraints; (2) use executive branch power, in the form of fiscal policy, regulations, investigations, and litigation, to break, dominate, and replace the leadership of private sector institutions like universities, professional associations, corporate management, NGOs, philanthropies, and media. From what I can tell, stage (1) is slated for implementation largely in this calendar year, probably culminating in either favorable Supreme Court decisions or creative evasion, subversion, and defiance of same. Stage (2) would then unfold over the remainder of the current Trump term.
Success in that effort would make the executive branch the dominant arbiter of legality and economic power in American life, displacing Congress, the courts, and private sector actors. It's doubtful to me that free and fair elections could unfold under those circumstances. John's essay above seems to assume that such elections will be possible. Maybe they will, but approaching this problem like an intelligence analyst trying to divine enemy intent in wartime, I infer that the Trump inner circle likely wants to eliminate its enemies from serious contention for national electoral success. I would expect state GOP leaders to emulate the national leadership in this regard.
As this situation becomes clearer, there will likely be at least an attempt at large-scale street protests by the progressive left (i.e. "the Groups") and its logistical backers among billionaires and elements of corporate America. The Trump administration, according to media accounts, seems willing to use force against such protests, including domestic deployment of US military forces. How the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commands react to such a scenario will be a key variable.
In sum, the questions John sets forth for American liberalism will probably have to be answered not in a period of retreat and reflection, anticipating future elections, but instead under pressure of time, resources, and uncertainty in a constitutional crisis, fraught with potential for mass violence and extreme scenarios without precedent in the history of the United States -- but with plenty of precedent in the history of other countries. This is a dark conclusion, which I've found echoed by commentators like Yascha Mounk, Larry Diamond, and Damon Linker. I think it has to be the starting point for planning, though. This isn't 1985, after Mondale's defeat, or 1973, after McGovern's. It's the 1780s, 1860s, or 1930s. A new order for the ages is here, for better or worse.
Do you really think "the people" will take to the streets to defend fraud and wasteful spending? And that American soldiers will use force against them?
Some of what you describe is the rough and tumble of American politics that happens every time there is an ideological change in control of the government. The other part of it is the paranoid fantasies of the left. The country is evenly divided politically and neither side is going to be able to extinguish the other. Trump's revolution will not be much different than the Reagan revolution which lasted for 12 years. It's possible Trump's will be shorter. Often that will depend on external events as much as the political inclinations of Americans. And, of course it will depend on the effectiveness of Republican rule in general, the power of which could be altered in the next election if, say, Trump loses both houses in the off-year election.
Regardless the idea he and he and his plotters can "replace the leadership of private sector institutions like universities, professional associations, corporate management, NGOs, philanthropies, and media" is not going to happen. More likely is that the leaders of those institutions will also feel the pressure of public opinion as expressed in the election and will respond accordingly to keep themselves relevant. And yet, the vast majority of them won't change at all and will continue the trend toward illiberalism in those institutions that are controlled by the left. As James Carville advised the other day, they will just lay low and go silent.
I agree that is the most realistic scenario, but I won't give up my fantasies of seeing the woke cult go down in flames like most other cults eventually do.
I wonder if you had similar 'dark conclusions' after witnessing how the folks that Trump defeated lied continually, until the debate wouldn't allow them to anymore, about the mental capacity of a sitting President (no constitutional crisis to see here), or was the Afghan retreat that you and I could have arguably planned better, leaving our enemies with billions in wares, including a functional air field, and 13 senseless soldier deaths, not particularly extreme, as events go, to you? I see this type of sentiment quite often, it bangs the drum that Trump will inevitably bring about a 'dark' future, with very little acknowledgement, if any, that the left has already showed us, quite clearly, how dark government can be (your body, your choice unless it's an experimental, no long-term history vaccine, racist DEI policies, anything goes abortion, zero respect for those that legally immigrated here, two separate applications of law depending on who you are, and on, and on. . ).
They've even literally shown us the optics of how dark government can be, do you recall Biden's 2022 'Blood red' speech?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2333628/bidens-blood-red-backdrop-steals-show-in-speech-attacking-maga/
This is an excellent example of projection, the Left wants authoritarian control over all the institutions in our society, and they were well on the way to getting it, supported by their state-sponsored censorship of any dissent. Because the Left believes falsely that it is "liberal", it projects its own authoritarian impulses onto the Right which it regards not as the opposition but the enemy which must be destroyed at all costs. The Right is not instinctively authoritarian, but recognizes that the hard Left authoritarians in our institutions must be yanked out by the roots and put where they have no power so that our society can again begin to function with free speech and open discussion of ideas. We on the Right can work with traditional liberals who will discuss, debate, and compromise on ideas and policies, like they used to do. The Left brooks no discussion, compromise, or any resistance to its dictates. Former Leftists describe the Left as a cult, no dissent allowed or severe punishment will result. That is why the country is finally pushing back against these would-be dictators, and Trump is the one who is tough enough to clean out the swamp.
Nothing would be sweeter to me than to see Trump and his associates break the hegemonic power of my professional association, the academic departments to which that association grants accreditation, and the state licensing authorities that enforce the dictates of that association on all members of my profession, and in doing so victimize millions of vulnerable, unsuspecting Americans. May I be blessed to see not only my profession but my entire country liberated in my life time.
I agree. We don't have much time for deliberation. The Trump/Musk intent is clear: remove all obstacles to authoritarian rule. Anyone who doesn't see it is either not paying attention or intentionally ignoring the obvious. This is a planned, deliberate, and powerful attempt to take over the American government. Like any coup, it aims to achieve complete control quickly and prevent any effective opposition the time to form and organize. Protests and demonstrations will be useless, unless they can actually impede the coup.
The above is an excellent theoretical tutorial, but ignores, in reality, Liberals have not controlled the US Democratic Party, since Obama. Progressives have governed. Whatever their historical origin, Progressives believe a small, highly educated and morally superior ruling class, should govern nations, in a manner that benefits the world, not necessarily their voters.
Progressives believe no price is too great to effect Climate Change, except for a ruling class, exempt from all restrictions. Thus attendees of important conclaves like Davos, can arrive via private jet, and enjoy the finest food and drink on earth, in the name of saving the planet. Progressive Climate Change advocates have a spectrum. Some seek only to deny citizens fireplaces, gas stoves, and ICE vehicles. Zealots demand a world where bugs are food, and only movement by mass transit is allowed. All Climate Warriors agree, however, the ruling class is exempt from all restrictions.
Progressives also seek Universal Healthcare for the masses. In theory, Universal healthcare brings equal healthcare to all. It requires a small ruling class to administer the program. They decide what healthcare is available and what limits are necessary, to curtail costs. As with Climate Change, Universal Healthcare is only applicable to the masses, not the ruling class. Progressives reserve the right to retain their personal, concierge doctors and specialists, and to enjoy a tax break for their costs.
Like Climate Change and Universal Healthcare, Progressives are devoted to Public Education, even as US test scores have reverted back, 3 decades. Progressives believe in Public Education, to such a degree, they repeatedly demand more spending, even as the US per pupil outlays, exceed nearly every other nation one earth, with some of the worst outcomes. Interestingly, the worse the educational outcomes, the more money Progressives demand for education.
Like Climate Change and Universal Healthcare, Public Education is not applicable to the ruling class. Their progeny are nearly exclusively, privately educated, even in multimillion dollar neighbors. In irony, completely lost on Progressives, the Americans most devoted to public schools, will crawl thru broken glass, to keep their own kids from getting anywhere near one.
Progressive ideology is always bound by one overriding theme. A small, well educated and morally superior class, will govern, with a class of federal employees, implementing their edicts, for everyone but the ruling class, who are always exempt.
Dems have been so busy squealing and singing about Trump and Musk, and the end of days, they have not stopped to ask, how Trump arrived back in the WH. Americans no longer live in different parts of the country, we occupy different planets. Trillions in needless spending by Dems, just generated life changing wealth for the top quintile of US earners, while leveling the living standards of most other Americans.
10 million unvetted migrants are a gift to the ruling class, who often require armies of cheap domestics. For Americans lacking servants and college degrees, the migrants have driven up affordable housing costs and driven down Blue Collar wages. They will do so, for decades to come. For working and middle class Americans, 10 million migrants have been yet another nail in their, Progressive provided, economic coffins.
The list goes on and on, but until Dems purge Progressives and end "rules for thee, but not for me" governance, they can debate Liberalism all they want,Trump and Rep rule are not going anywhere.
Excellent post!
I'd say we are passed the heyday of pragmatic liberalism, or maybe Clinton and Obama implemented poorly. We are fifty years on into a declining working class in America, and the working class embodies all of that economic mobility stuff. If it's impossible to get ahead and imagine a better life for one's progeny, well that's a dangerous situation.
The US has done very well, but prosperity hasn't been shared.
I'm also not sure anything Trump is doing will lead to very many improvements in the lives of the middle three quintiles of income. Trump wants to lower taxes also, and other than SS and Medicare half the people pay almost no taxes, there isn't much to lower. Slashing USAID etc is a drop in the bucket.
Today I go in to get our returns from the CPA. We still live an extremely frugal life but I know actually we are very well off, especially in unearned and unrealized income. It seems like wages for my neighbors should be much higher, as most people depend on wages. There is a vast difference in income between those salaried employees at "the groups" and those they claim to be fighting for.
OMG I have been waiting *soooooo* long for TLP to actually get to this. Squabble all you want about narrower ancillary issues, the assault on liberalism coming from elements of both the left and the right is *the* story of the 21st century, and is the central animating conflict that underpins all the other ones we talk about. I was beginning to lose faith that we'd ever get an article on the issue...glad I stuck with it, and it is a good article indeed.
I wish someone of your political persuasion and ideas was leading the Democratic Party, John!
"Biden had a chance to usher in a new era of pragmatic liberalism after the first Trump presidency but flopped dramatically leaving liberals with no clear leadership, vision, or political strategy for future success." -- John Halpin
Interestingly, Democrats in 2020 marketed Vice President Biden as the party's "pragmatic liberal" and a needed reprieve from both Trump's combative and erratic political manner and an emergent Democratic Left so clearly put of touch with mainstream America.The 2020 election showed a majority of voters yearned for some political calm.
In 2025 we are left to ponder whether Democrats knew of Biden's cognitive impairment, thus the Covid era "basement campaign." Or did Biden's condition worsen rapidly, while the party, with the help of a partisan friendly press, sought to conceal his decline?
This may be a case of having to go back if there is going to be any credible chance of moving forward. Once these critical past questions are addressed, and Democrats suffer perhaps a punishing midterm for any political transgressions and coverup, John Halpin offers some sound advice for recovery by, say, 2028 if the Democratic Party possesses the wisdom to listen.
I think the first step to understanding anything is being clear about language. The term “liberal” has been heavily misused in US politics, for decades. Actual classical liberalism, as understood in the rest of the world, has its purest expression in the Libertarian Party, not the Democratic Party. Big government, and the economic policies of FDR and LBJ, are extremely illiberal. Reagan restored economic liberalism. It is true that classical liberalism has taken a (partial) hit, but that’s a separate subject from the Democrats.
You cannot untangle the mess of The Democratic Party without using the term Progressivism. Pretending that it is not the dominant ideology of the party, and that “liberalism” is, or that they are the same thing, is not reality. The real razor’s edge in current Democrat ideology is extreme egalitarianism, which demands not only equal treatment under the law, but equal outcomes.“Social justice”, which means forcible redistribution based on “identity”. They have largely abandoned that Marxist agenda of retribution through redistribution on economic policy, but it is the core of the party’s agenda on social policy. It has economic outcomes, but oppressed/oppressor is based on identity and not class. That’s pretty well understood, but until or unless the Democrats cut that out of the party, they cannot move forward.
The second, and even bigger subject is Progressivism writ large, which is the tree from which “Wokeness”, Socialism, Communism, Fascism and Nazism are all branches. That term was dead in US politics for almost 80 years, because it had met its apotheosis in WWII and the Cold War, before the Democrats began to resurrect it in the early 00s - once the people who remembered its history had begun to pass away. It had a new run on the back of Silicon Valley, the New Atheists and Barack Obama.
Progressivism, simply put, asserts that human society can be engineered and perfected through “science” - which mainly means the “soft sciences”, the “social sciences”, although it piggybacks on actual science and technology. It uses the notion of endless technological advancement to push social engineering, carried out by “experts” (academics) running a government that is given as much power as it needs to accomplish their goals. It is the ideological foundation of totalitarianism. It is consciously, comprehensively, illiberal. It rejects classical liberalism. And because it arises from atheism, its Utopian fantasies serve as the source of meaning in life for its adherents, and it takes on the fanatical, religious dimensions that enable atrocities. That is what has gripped the Democrats. “Progress” is their god, and Barack Obama was their messiah. Does no one remember him complaining, as a law professor, that the Constitution only guarantees “negative liberties”? That was Progressivism speaking. And as much as the left wails about “Fascism”, the closest the country ever came was under FDR, driven by his anti-liberal “four freedoms”. The movement to divorce the government and the country from Christianity, driven by the New Atheists and the rainbow flag, opened Pandora’s box, and the religion of “Wokeness” took its place.
Progressivism is barely mentioned in the article, but it is the real monster controlling the Democratic Party. And the real key to understanding the current environment is that Progressivism has utterly crashed. There are many steps along the way, but it met its Waterloo in Covid. There’s a phrase that could be called the motto of modern Progressivism, which has suddenly disappeared from usage: “Trust The Science”. The idea that Big Government should be trusted to make the world a better place is in utter disgrace. You see that reality in action, right now, by Trump and Musk. And if you’re a leftist who really wants to melt down, you can realize that it extends to other suspect “science” in general. Global Warming is on its absolute last leg of credibility. ESG is going away. And if the trend continues, evolution is next.
“Science” has made too many claims that strain credulity, and things like systematizing the “transition” of minors, justified by medicine, biology and psychology, have destroyed its credibility. We’re not talking about the scientific method here, by the way, we’re talking about academia and its practitioners. Their credibility is gone. They are no longer trusted. On anything. “Wokeness”, Covid (lockdowns, vaccine mandates, censorship of online dissent), all roll into a deadly stew for Big Government Progressivism, and its source, academia.
I doubt the Democrats’ ability to truly “pivot” from Progressivism, but that is the magnitude of what’s happened. Progressivism and everything it represents is now a dead letter with the people, and will remain so until the last person who remembers Covid is gone. That’s how big this truly is.
Continuing to confuse Progressivism with liberalism, when the two things are incompatible, will only prolong the calamity. It’s not just semantics. “Selective liberalism” is the most you could say about the Democrats’ agenda. And that part of it has been dwindling. The Republicans are far more liberal, and the Libertarians even more. What we are seeing in Trump and within the GOP in general, is a push and pull between conservatism and liberalism - when those terms are properly understood and used. The Democrats are almost entirely Progressive, and the areas in which you could argue they are being liberal, while driven by Progressive ideology, are things like immigration and crime - which is a disaster for them.
You are right on, couldn't agree more. I didn't hit Progressivism in my comments as hard as you have but I know it's the dominant evil in the Democratic Party and in all the institutions they have managed to infest.
You don't mention the most glaringly obvious problems of the so-called "pragmatic liberal order" which include the rampant graft, corruption, and crony capitalism that has stolen untold billions from taxpayers for projects like the advancement of useless and dangerous policies such as "energy transition" and "net zero" which have nothing to do with actual liberalism but everything to do with corrupt insiders with their hands out for government money with no strings or accountability. There has been a great deal more corruption in supposedly "liberal" policies such as more billions to unaccountable NGOs for vague projects domestically and overseas that supposedly have some liberal purpose but there is again no accountability or even any idea whether the project accomplished anything at all. The public hates this with good reason. They also hate that it's been quite obvious the "liberal order" is only allowing people to be "free" to practice the most destructive forms of deviant behavior, at the expense of social order, our infrastructure, and the rights of non-deviant "normie" citizens, while "normies" were not allowed to stop the deviants, protect themselves or their property, or even to complain about it. And of course the foreign invasion of illegals changing the character of neighborhoods, sucking up public resources, and causing great harm with their criminal behavior That is changing under Trump, and I hope we never go back.
The "pragmatic liberal order" has been a miserable failure at basic delivery of public services and safety, governance, protection of the people from abuse by renegade government, and prudent management of public finances. So what, actually, is there to salvage from this? I say nothing at all. I see the Trump approach as giving freedom back to the people, and what can be more liberal than that? He is going to stop the weaponization of government against the people, stop government censorship so we can exercise our free speech rights without punishment or cancelation, round up and deport the illegals, get rid of the bans on fossil fuel powered cars, appliances, reliable electricity, and everything else, so we are free to buy the products that work best for us. He is banning men in women's sports and spaces, so women can be free and safe. He is banning DEI so people can be treated as individuals with dignity and respect instead of anonymous members of groups.
I agree as you say that nothing will save "pragmatic liberals" (which I posit are now not pragmatic or liberal) if Americans do not fundamentally agree with their values or agenda. I have outlined some of the toxic elements of their values and agenda above. What about their agenda is actually positive? I can't think of anything in practice now, maybe some floaty vague rhetoric. They may call themselves "liberals" but they are not in the least liberal. They are authoritarians with no liberalism at all in what they are actually doing.
What we see is that the massive dark money that has flowed to NGOs and media and corporations for American soft power... that foments instability in other countries for election influence... was turned on the US internally about 10-12 year ago beginning with the Obama admin... and this provided an artificial and inaccurate indication that left liberal progressive has become suddenly the populist ideological domain. The people figured this out and voted it into the landfill of American mistakes. To keep clutching that myth is a behavior in political futility.
The current liberal progressive domain that adopted woke is dead. It was put on life support from the election, and DOGE is ending its life and burying it six ft deep.
The only way for Democrats to emerge again as a viable party is to basically adopt most of Trump's platform.
But TDS is preventing it.
Boomers are a selfish self indulging group. They have been screwing the other age groups for years if not decades. They never really consider what the down road consequences. It is what one has come to expect from old mainly white people. We now see through DOGE that the younger generations are very willing and able to participate in our government to clean up the mess Boomers were leaving for them. Yet then Dems are doing all they can to keep those younger generations out of government and on the sidelines unless they "bend the knee" , god I hate that phrase, to the Dems ideology. Until the Dems learn to be flexible and start accepting these younger generation activists, they will be lost until the old ones die and they have no choice to allow in the younger, not ideological pure, members they need.
When Trump became predominate in the Republican party, every one predicted the death of the Republican party. Instead, he rebuilt and modernized it. I'm surprised few mention this. It is something the Democrat party will have to go though also. I see no one who can do for the Dems what Trump did for then Repubs.
What I see are 80 year olds who think singing and fear mongering are the way to go. What the Dems do with such embarrassing displays is the lower the bar for what Trump needs to accomplish to look good.
As an independent, I won't even consider the Democrats as long as they show no ability to be adults and more for something than against something. My wife and I owned a daycare for 6n years, the toddlers in that daycare would be preferable to the current Democrat leadership.
You people suck. I say that not to be mean but to show the utterly uselessness of those who lead the current Dem party.
The woke cult is primarily a creation of young white women from affluent professional or wealthier families. The geriatric elite has certainly exploited the Gen Z woke cultists for their own purposes, but this movement has been driven by mostly female adolescents on social media. These young women hold the Democratic Party in contempt, as one of many other "white male supremacist" institutions. They are tyrannical, authoritarian, highly aggressive people who relish silencing dissent and destroying the lives of people who disagree with them. Their parents, educators and other elder supporters smile indulgently while they burn cities like spoiled toddlers smashing toys. When they rise to full power the dissenters within their generation and earlier ones had best be ready, because Gen Z radicals have very clear ideas about how to "disrupt, deconstruct and destroy" every institution that they themselves didn't create, which is all of them.
Time for Some Democratic Party Disruption
A word that has traditionally been applied primarily to misbehaving school children–disruptive–is currently being widely used to describe what the Trump administration is doing to US politics, policies and government institutions. Many, especially Democratic Party partisans, are condemning these initiatives as undemocratic and dangerous. Time will tell if they are right.
In the meantime, a closer look at how a more particular application of the phenomenon of disruption offers useful insights, and may offer scenarios for how the Democratic Party might lift itself out of its current torpor.
The Harvard Business School’s late Clayton Christensen developed and popularized a “theory of disruption” that he applied to business enterprises. He was specifically interested in explaining how new, startup businesses were able to break into an existing market and be successful–in many cases, forcing existing legacy businesses to fail. In simplest terms he argues that disruption occurs when an entrepreneur identifies an unmet need that the current market is not serving–even a need that the public itself doesn’t realize it has.
His early example and the focus of much of his early work was the initiatives of Steve Jobs and Apple. Jobs intuited that there was a market for personal, desktop computers that the general public needed and would want. He also intuited that the public would want this equipment to be stylish. The existing computer industry was not serving that need. Apple filled the need and in the process drove competing computer companies out of business.
So what is the relevance of this theory of disruption to American politics, and especially the fortunes of the Democratic Party? Like it or not, whether by design or simply native intuition, Donald Trump sensed that a significant segment of the public–something close to a majority– yearns for disruption of the political landscape. He is providing it in spades. Aside from whether we like his initiatives, much less his style, he is meeting a demand for disruptive change–misguided maybe, stupidly in the opinion of many, perhaps demonstrably dangerous. But the demand for change is there. He has discovered it and is exploiting it, cashing in on the political gains.
The question is, should Democrats be cashing in on this desire for disruption too? And how can they best do so? The national Democratic Party recently chose a new party leader, Ken Martin of Minnesota. Upon his selection he gave a fiery speech to cheering Democrats, but it contained little that was disruptive: taking the fight to Donald Trump, defending Democratic party values and fighting for the working class. In short, he was calling for a continuation of a platform that Kamala Harris ran on, and lost.
Nor will simply devising new policy gimmicks, no matter how original, really translate into disruption. Harris’s proposed innovations concerning small businesses and tax breaks on tips didn’t move the needle. To be genuinely disruptive, the Democratic Party needs to dramatically initiate an alteration in how politics is played in this country.
The Democrats could learn from the British parliamentary system where there is an official “loyal opposition” including a “shadow government” sitting in Parliament with an opposition party leader able to stand and object, criticize, even demolish the arguments of the government on a continuing basis. Their speeches are covered by the press. And in an election season, this opposition leader will become the prime minister if the opposition party wins the election. In other words, there is a nationally recognized spokesperson whose voice is singular and authoritative and focused. We have no such figure on our political system until a primary is held and a nominee for an upcoming presidential election is chosen. At that time the party finally has a leader, an official spokesperson for the party to rally round. The voice of the nominee becomes the voice of the opposition.
Political scientists have longed for a parliamentary system for decades. But moving to a parliamentary system would require a new constitution. This would certainly a disruption, but not one that the Democrats could single handedly bring to pass.
So what could the Democratic Party do? Simply this: Hold their primary early, hopefully within the coming year. Let the presidential hopefuls campaign, develop their platforms, establish their credibility, and demonstrate their support with the public.They could take on, in a focused and distinguishable manner, the existing regime. The national debate over public policy would be clear and effective. There would be time for policies to be declared, examined, challenged and modified.
Theoretically, members of Congress do some of these things now. But the voices of Congress are diffuse. They are often ignored by the general public. There is no certainty where their criticisms will lead. Unfortunately, they are seen simply as a gaggle of blowhards hoping to hang on to their sumptuous salaries, offices, perks and benefits, not as an effective, much less official, opposition. An elected leader of the opposition as an ordained presidential candidate would provide the focus, leadership and effective opposition that our country needs–NOW. Not three years from now.
Merlyn Clarke, Professor emeritus of Political Science, East Stroudsburg University
Email: merlynj5@gmail.com
Cell: 570-994-6025
Wow, this inches toward a common sense approach that is needed. By "ditching" the cultural liberalism, though, I think a full rebuke of the transoid/woke, pro-homosexual, anti-marriage, anti-men policies will be required. I don't know if Democrats can do that. We must return to the so-called "conservative" values of a two-parent family consisting of a man and woman; that there are only two sexes; that trans-ism in all its iterations is an aberration; and that, yes, the government must reflect those values. Any future for the Democrat Party must embrace actual free speech not censored cancel culture; must entertain alternate ways of doing things; and above all must be pro-life in all its iterations Again, I don't see this as happening.
Liberalism requires the political subordination of political leaders and organizations to a universal rule of law, a dedication to free inquiry, and a state oriented towards support for individual freedom and self-determination. It is unconcerned with sexual mores, or what a household should look like, except as they relate to these. You are reading narrow cultural grievances into something whose foundations rest in more important, higher-order values.
Agreed - old-style "conservative" social values aren't coming back, nor should they. I prefer a more libertarian approach, where everyone should be free to be themselves except when their actions infringe on the rights of others. Don't mess with children at any time, or anyone else's family ever!
That is the liberal impulse, and we'd be living in a far better world if our political debates were focused solely on the complex question of how to implement it. We seemed to get a glimpse of what that might look like in the first few years after the close of the first Cold War. But the central political struggle that is going on now is not between rival factions within liberal philosophy, but between liberal politics and illiberal forces that have sprung up on the left and the right. And I fear the acolytes of illiberal politics are winning at the moment.
Trump is playing to his Base--the working class. He channels them and represents their 'values' and preferences. They, who have the vote, are responsible for his election and lots of bad stuff in the US. Recognize that. Don't go on about Musk and billionaires--they are representing the working class, doing their bidding. Now what we gonna do about that? That should be the focus. And making a case for true economic populism, strengthening unions, or whatever, won't persuade them. They want patronage and want us put down. They want a world were women breed (note Vance's remarks about childless cat women), men fight, and Big Men rule. And that's what they're going to get.
Pointing out the economic, labor, and social impacts of low birth rates on a country is not the same thing as demanding that 'women breed.' That's why it's so hard to have a serious conversation about vital issues these days.
That isn’t the primary issue. And BTW I’ve done my share—I have 3 kids. The issue is that they want to maintain traditional sex roles. If they want women to breed then they need to make childcare more affordable. And I speak from experience.
Good analysis of where we are and the questions that liberals need to ask themselves. I would add "What is the proper role for the courts". Hamilton famously described them as the weakest branch but it sure hasn't seemed that way for the last 3 generations. The Aspen Institute, that bastion of the Left, has been asking that question of late and you should too. This is probably just a reaction to Trumpian (partial) success in changing the ideological balance after liberal success in for most of the preceding century but it is a question that must be faced. The Groups on Right and Left are unhappy about the Supreme Court dumping abortion policy back on the states so I don't expect that decision to hold. RBG thought Rowe was bad law and would have preferred an equal protection rationale but went with it as a preferred policy outcome. And that is the problem, courts shouldn't be doing policy. Most conservatives cheered the overturning of the Chevron doctrine but in my opinion that will come back and bite them. Instead of the bureaucratic tyranny they perceive, we are going to get judicial tyranny. That will be worse because whatever your feelings about bureaucrats, judges are worse. They are ignorant about the subject matter of the policy, supremely arrogant and completely unaccountable. Ideally, this should be done as a Congressional strike on their powers but partisanship will probably get in the way.
Couple of caveats though. What you call pragmatic liberalism, others on the Left and Right have called The Long March through the Institutions. Ponder this in any redesign. Second, don't let the gauzy memory of Democratic ascendency get in the way of your analysis. Both Clinton and Obama were political geniuses running against morons who did not have support of their base. Clinton was a plurality President both times. And both crashed and burned in their first midterm.
There is a third option coming into view that Trump is on the verge of pursuing, which is that the executive branch can simply ignore the courts, which will bestow it unitary power to essentially run every aspect of the government and set its policies. (who is going to stop it? A captive Congress won't. The army is led by the CiC, who runs the executive branch. So who?)
Sounds good when someone you favor is the executive...not so much when someone you don't is. And it looks a lot like the fascism that MAGA critics have been warning against.
Biden ignored the courts. Trump is fighting back and winning. Big difference. The totalitarian Left is always projecting their impulses onto their "enemies" but that doesn't make it true.
We need compromise and coalition between the center-left and center-right. I like Mr. Halpin's guidelines as a starting point, but compromise is key. For years, the far left has refused to compromise on anything (I'm not implying the right is blameless or better). If compromise is impossible, the only way to change things is to break things. For example, there has been a lot of noise around grant funding for universities. I disagree with Trump's approach, but if universities refuse to change and respond to mainstream concerns, there is a good chance they will be broken. Of course, the consequences for research could be devastating, but something has to give.
I would prefer a coalition between the far right and far left-populist fusion. The Establishment party-center right and center left- has been an utter failure, not only here but throughout the West. The fringes need to get over traditional partisanship and cooperate on items of common interest, of which there are quite a few.