Three and a Half Reasons for Liberal Hope
Forget an American descent into fascism: There are still reasons for classical liberals to be optimistic—if cautiously so
Between Donald Trump’s rhetoric, the internal actions of the executive branch and many of its proposed policies, scarcely a day goes by without news of something illiberal coming out of the White House—to the point that there seems to be a near-constant assault on the very existence of liberal democracy. The Republican Party as led by Trump has not been acting in any meaningful way to put the brakes on any of these illiberal inclinations. A party that could once be counted on to oppose Russia and support Ukraine wavers on both scores. A party once firmly committed to free trade now supports protectionism. A party that once strongly supported alliances and the international order now embraces isolationism. Though there are a handful of warnings coming from within the party, the GOP’s shift toward illiberalism, brought about by Trump’s takeover of the party, is nearly complete.
So at first glance, there appears to be every reason for liberal-minded Americans on both the left and right to be concerned, and for their concerns to be growing. But this bleak picture I’ve painted does not mean classical liberals should despair. There are indeed reasons for hope; while our liberal democracy is under assault, it has not been defeated. However, this also isn’t a time for rose-colored glasses. Instead, liberals should forge ahead with a healthy dose of cautious optimism.
Here are the four—erm, three and a half—reasons for liberal hope as I see them:
1) Institutional reasons. Trump’s executive actions have not gone completely uncontested by the other branches of government. Institutionally, the main source of opposition to Trump’s extremism has been the judiciary. It is slightly ironic that the least democratic branch of our federal government has proven the most powerful defender of liberal democracy. But still, a defender it has been. The system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founding Fathers is functioning, and that is undoubtedly a good sign for the health of America’s liberal democracy.
It’s important to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has been very cautious in opposing Trump. They have allowed deportations of migrants to countries that are not their home countries and green-lighted mass firings at the Department of Education. Still, even these perceived Trump wins are complicated. The contentious issue of birthright citizenship, for instance, has yet to be truly decided. In the decision that limited the ability of a single judge to issue nationwide injunctions, the court did not actually rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. What is even more heartening is the way many Trump-appointed judges have upheld the limits on Trump administration actions. Judge Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, opposed the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang.
But in a number of areas—firing officials, effectively shutting down departments, deportations, the importance of due process—lower federal courts have often acted as a check on Trump’s actions. For example, the courts have consistently told the Trump administration that its mistaken deportation of Abrego Garcia to his native El Salvador was not lawful, that his due process rights were violated. Belief in the rule of law has always been a cornerstone of liberalism. Thus, no matter what Garcia may or may not have done, the importance of due process in cases regarding potential deportations is paramount.
There are a few worrisome signs, however, that the Trump administration might simply ignore court rulings; Trump border czar Thomas Homan has even said, “I don’t care what judges think.” And Trump has offered up his own tough rhetoric. After giving Trump a stunning victory on immunity last year, the Supreme Court has shown some resistance to the full extent of the Trump legal claims; in response, Trump has lashed out at “radical” and “lunatic” judges. But to be fair, so far the administration is using the appeal process rather than outright flouting the law—a good sign that democracy’s guardrails will continue to hold.
Congress poses its own hurdles for Trump and his agenda. GOP majorities in both houses are rather narrow, and with the midterm elections looming in the not-too-distant future, and with Democrats holding an edge in generic ballot polls, Republican members of Congress may temper their support of Trump in the face of electoral realities in their respective districts. Though Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” ultimately did pass both houses of Congress and get signed into law, it faced a bumpy road in getting there, in large part because of uncertainty surrounding GOP support. Look for more of the same to happen as the midterms approach; at least for now, again, our system of checks and balances still garners respect from the players across the political spectrum.
2) Public opinion. The second reason for hope is that Trump’s policies have not proven all that popular. Across the board, Pew has found that Americans disapprove of many Trump policies; 55% of people strongly or somewhat oppose the spending cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill, while 59% oppose the increased tariffs. Gallup found that a whopping 89% of Americans believe Trump’s tariffs will raise prices. A majority of Americans also oppose ending birthright citizenship.
With the latest news of Trump’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein, it will be interesting to see if the president’s popularity will take any hits, particularly among his base. Many polls show that Americans disapprove of the way Trump and his administration are handling the issue of files concerning Epstein’s clients; Reuters found that 54% disapproved and only 17% approved. (A sizable percentage were unsure.) Even notable minorities of Republicans are troubled, with three in 10 disapproving of Trump’s handling of the issue. What remains to be seen is whether that translates into a change in overall support for the president. After all, many Democrats’ disappointment with Bill Clinton’s sexual dalliances didn’t translate into disapproval of the president overall in any significant way.
The point here is that, as polling shows, the American public clearly disapproves of Trump’s attacks on foundational liberal beliefs. On the whole, Americans want greater security at the borders, but they have not abandoned their fundamental belief in the rule of law or their support for immigration more generally. They don’t like the idea of taking away birthright citizenship, and they don’t want deportations done brutally and without clear legal foundations. They want the president to obey the law. In effect, they support many fundamental liberal views and seem to be opposed to what they see as the extreme nature of some of the Trump administration’s actions.
Trump’s return to the White House should be seen not as a rejection of liberal democracy, but as a concern about some specific economic conditions and social issues. Going into the 2024 election, Americans were upset about inflation, and they feared there was chaos at the border—and the votes reflected these unsettled feelings. But now, as Trump pushes policies that go beyond solving specific problems and attempts to weaken some of the fundamentals of the liberal system, he faces pushback from majorities of Americans. Inasmuch as public opinion matters, this will be a check on Trump.
3) The new economic realities Trump is creating. There is ample reason to think that the economic world Trump is creating is going to be a less than successful one. Most economists believe that tariffs hurt a country overall; Trump’s own alma mater says that in the long run, tariffs will reduce GDP and reduce middle-class lifetime income. And these concerns are trickling down to the general public: Back in May, almost two-thirds of Americans feared a recession was in the making.
Already, the U.S. experienced negative growth in the first quarter of 2025. While this does not mean we are in a recession (economists define a recession as two quarters or more of negative growth), it is worrying. Trump’s constant hostility to allies—such as Canada—creates difficulties for our interconnected economy. His constant blustering has alienated much of the world, and that is beginning to affect certain sectors of the U.S. economy: International tourism, for instance, is down, with Forbes predicting an expected overall year-on-year economic loss of $29 billion in 2025 from these tourism declines.
And one wonders how people who like Trump will feel if the economy goes into a recession or their own individual industry suffers. A Reuters poll in late April found that just 37% of voters approved of his handling of the economy. And perhaps more troubling for the White House, recent AP polling finds that more than four in 10 Republicans believe that Trump’s policies have either had no effect on their lives or made things worse—not an ideal position with expected economic distress on the horizon. Trump’s antiliberal economic approach could end up costing his party come midterm time.
3 ½) Are Democrats coming to their senses? Finally, Democrats may be beginning to find their footing after the shock of defeat—emphasis on “may be.” While I find the Republican Party under Trump a singular threat to liberal democracy, there are also aspects of the Democratic Party that worry me as a liberal. While Trump’s Republican Party has hurt liberal democracy via threats to the rule of law, the electoral process and the civil rights and liberties of citizens, many Democrats, with their focus on identity politics and “wokeism,” seem indifferent, or even hostile, to freedom of speech and the diversity of opinion that is central to liberal democracy.
It appears that some Democrats are moving back from this precipice; at the very least, a few Democratic officeholders are questioning the woke rhetoric the party uses. Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, for one, has shown concern about how his fellow Democrats see and discuss most issues through the lens of identity politics. If they pull back from this impulse as Gallego and others have suggested, Democrats can offer a more robust and cogent left-liberal criticism of the Trump administration. Obviously, for right-liberals this is a mixed blessing, if electoral success is what they seek. Having a Democratic Party more clearly aligned with liberalism broadly understood is a good thing for the republic. Will they make that move, particularly with midterm elections a year away? It remains to be seen.
In the meantime, the Democratic mayoral nominations of Zohran Mamdani in New York City and Omar Fateh in Minneapolis are enough to give anyone hopeful for an embrace of the Gallego strategy more than a little pause. Both are self-proclaimed democratic socialists—both see identity as a key part of political life, and both favor leftist policies (such as Mamdani’s support for city-run grocery stores and Fateh’s stated desire to pursue free college tuition as a state legislator). It’s apparent, then, that Democratic Party voters are not going to give up on a devotion to equality—a devotion that means identity is important and must be acknowledged. But at the very least, Democrats are going through a useful exercise in talking about what identity politics means and accepting that how they talked in 2024 hurt them and their cause. Again, the results of this exercise, well ... they’re still up in the air.
In her famous work “The Human Condition,” the political philosopher Hannah Arendt discussed the idea of “natality”—that the new is inherently possible. Life has a wonderful sense of possibility. Just as the birth of a child invites us to imagine what unexpected things that person can and will do, we can start things anew. I believe that this concept is inherent in liberalism: Liberalism is about imagining a new, more interesting, better and more optimistic world. I argued last year in Discourse that especially in moments that might lead us to despair, liberals must be optimistic—that liberal democracy needs happy warriors. That optimism is something to be willed, not just a reflection of good or bad circumstances in which one finds oneself.
Thus, I believe that despite all the concerns that Trump represents, we must find, in ourselves and in our politics, the possibilities to will liberalism anew. Liberalism historically was born in much more trying circumstances than we currently face. Today, we need to look back to see what is essential to our liberal traditions and then use those resources to contradict whatever antiliberal forces have been set loose on our political world. While the security of human freedom is never perfectly realized, know also that the notion of human freedom is an immensely powerful one. Though often battered, it is not easily broken.
As those who disagree with Trump face the next four years, we need to counter the real threats and let those phantom threats pass by. There is a tendency in our highly polarized world to think reflexively—if our opponents did X, we need to do the opposite. That is just rigid party ideology—it’s not good liberal thinking. Let us not succumb to despair; let us not succumb to thoughtless reaction. Instead, let us focus on defending liberal policies and a liberal temperament. The liberal temperament is one founded in hope, humility and surprising optimism.
 | A guest post by
|