Liberalism just won — let’s embrace it and work together

Has there ever been a candidate so subject to hyperbole as Donald Trump? He has been compared to both Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler.

Both comparisons are insane, of course.

It is evident that the rhetoric surrounding Trump has made a symbol (or rather two competing symbols) that serve the ends of electioneering but fail to define him and do not benefit us as Americans.

It’s no secret our society has been at each other’s throats, but what’s worse is we are increasingly siloed and have stopped talking. In some recent conversations with a few Kamala Harris supporters that I respect and consider highly intelligent, I became more aware of how the political messaging and rhetoric engulfing us all (even and maybe especially those of us who believe ourselves too clever and cognizant to be susceptible to it) has impacted our views of these candidates and their supporters. 

I understood why and how they find Trump so repellent and even frightening (some was his own doing, but it was in many ways shaped by the narrative constructed around him, just as I found myself carrying narratives constructed around Harris). 

That said, I hope with this article to offer something in the way of an olive branch and try to provide a different context and fresh eyes, stripped of the political rhetoric, through which to see Trump’s victory and the opportunity it presents that we, as Americans, can seize together.

As much as the words "liberalism" and "fascism" are frequently bandied about, their respective definitions are so varied and in such constant flux that it’s hard to pin down precise meanings. But in defining them, we can get a better sense of the trajectory we have been on as a nation and the road we can take moving forward.

Liberalism has evolved, but certain ideas — egalitarianism, freedom of speech and conscience, social welfare, individual liberty, pluralism, tolerance — have, to varying degrees, always been its hallmarks.

The definition of fascism has been shifting since about the time it was first conceived, but looking to its origins with Benito Mussolini probably gives the best indication. Mussolini conceived of fascism openly and directly as liberalism’s opposite. He wrote in an article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932) that “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” He established a system under which unelected, appointed state officials and the heads of industries controlled economic activity. Under Mussolini’s rule, every aspect of life revolved around the state, and the lines between the state and industry were blurred.

For years, the U.S. has unfortunately traveled down this latter road — and both political parties have been guilty of it.

At present, most of the laws that impact our lives are called “regulations” and stem not from the legislative branch, but from executive branch agencies and departments. Prior to the Chevron deference being overturned by the Supreme Court this year, these same agencies and departments were given the authority to interpret ambiguities in legislation and regulations as well. 

Essentially, we have eroded the separation of powers and established a centralized regulatory state composed of unelected bureaucrats and corporate interests that fulfill the legislative, executive and judicial functions of government with no checks or accountability. This has amounted to what Patrick Brenner of Southwest Public Policy Institute and I have termed jurisdictional fiefdoms that lord over us.

It was in large part an understanding of and response to this problem that led Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy, Jr. to endorse and become major campaign fixtures for Trump. Kennedy focuses on standing up to the Big Pharma and Big Ag fiefdoms and Gabbard wanted to dismantle the military industrial complex fiefdoms — both recognizing the ways in which this long-standing structure comprised and corrupted their decided liberal values.

And make no mistake: Kennedy and Gabbard are liberals. I would suspect they would not argue with that assessment. The same could be said of Joe Rogan, Russell Brand and even Elon Musk. But it certainly could not be said of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who endorsed Kamala Harris. 

There are many reasons Trump pulled off the victory he did (which will fill editorial columns for weeks to come), but likely the most significant was the coalition that formed around him. It was a decidedly different group than those who bolstered him in 2016 and even 2020. This new coalition was considerably liberal — I would argue much more so than the Harris campaign.

My purpose here is not to convince Democrats that they should love Donald Trump nor assume his presidency will fully represent their values.

But I hope they’ll recognize in this win the opportunity to curb the corporate-regulatory state monster and work collaboratively on the issues we all care about. I do hope they’ll take Trump’s victory speech words, that “this will forever be remembered as the day the American people regained control of their country,” at face value and with the benefit of the doubt. 

If that happens, I believe Democrats will be better able to define themselves and clarify their differences in approach to our shared goals, extricate themselves from the swamp, and perhaps even be able to select and be allowed to vote for their own candidate for a change in the 2028 primaries. If we can all handle this transition with grace and a collaborative spirit, the Trump presidency may be a real opportunity to make America great again. 

Liam Gray is executive director of the Wilberforce Institute, a pro-liberty, anti-animal cruelty think tank. A former Army infantry paratrooper and human intelligence collector, he is also co-founder of Good Lion Veterans.