Today a man who called for the termination of the Constitution will swear and oath to uphold and defend it. Never before in American history have the words spoken in that statement been so obviously insipid.
Our best hope is that the man taking that oath today is merely a psychotic con artist: that it was all a ruse and he won't actually jail his critics, that he won't actually quash the free press, that he won't actually invade our NATO allies, that he won't actually institute the greatest mass deportation in American history, that he won't actually intervene in free elections, and that he won't actually undermine the precious liberal democratic foundations of our country - the ones that make us the beacon of the free world.
Early indications, however, are to the contrary. His rhetoric in 2024 was immensely more threatening and illiberal than the 2016 campaign or anything said or done during his first tenure. His administrative selections this time, including his vice-president, have been a stark contrast to the mostly milquetoast conservative circle he surrounded himself with previously. Courtesy of the total capitulation of a Republican-controlled Congress, we are in line for the most ethno-nationalist right wing administration in modern American history.
But it isn't just the incoming administration that poses a threat to American liberalism. Despite being the most notable and most powerful spokesperson in America, Donald Trump is not the origin of these vacuous ideas. Illiberalism has been around for centuries, ebbing and flowing, often anticipating its next torch bearer. Trump has played the role of catalyst, but he has been fueled by a groundswell of genuine believers eager to stand behind the man who has provided an ostensible legitimacy to their ignorance. Combating such distributed and organic beliefs is considerably more difficult than those from a single point of origin. This is further complicated by the shared illogical underpinnings with contrasting positions; opposing right-wing violations against free speech is rendered a lonely affair when left-wing encroachments stem from the same opposition to foundational principals. It is a depressing endeavor to campaign on logical foundations when they have been superseded by emotional arguments.
So where do we go from here? A critical early step in repairing the state of liberalism in America (and across the globe) is highlighting the inadvertent assistance many who claim to oppose Trump and the MAGA movement have provided by making non-logical arguments the basis for political debate. This results in a mere shouting match of vacuous and incoherent talking points, with little to no genuine philosophy involved. If we can foster an environment of honest intellectual inquiry, we can then begin to "find common ground" upon which to begin the broader discussion. While that term is overused to the point of being trite, its genuine application merely means finding the least common philosophical denominator to be used as the foundation, and the debate then begins at the initial point of divergence. For many this would be an exercise in revelation about the myriad of discomforting origins of their beliefs or the outright acquiescent adoption of them with no intellectual interrogation whatsoever.
This is a lengthy and laborious undertaking, but it is one that an honest assessment of the state of liberalism dictates. It may be comforting to think that the solution is as simple as a better get-out-the-vote effort, banning online hate speech, imposing campaign finance restrictions, or some other empty soundbite solution. But the issues suppressing liberal thought are far more complex and fundamental, and so our solutions must be.