To the Editor of The New York Times,
It has come to my attention that some of the policies championed by liberals—those of us who have tirelessly upheld reason, civility, and, I dare say, the very fabric of modern society—have been blamed for the post-2008 economic crisis and, more alarmingly, for the rise of Trump and Brexit. I find this assertion not only incorrect but downright offensive. To suggest that liberalism, the doctrine of progress and good governance, could have played even the slightest role in such regrettable events is akin to blaming the thermometer for a fever.
Liberal policies, by their very nature, are designed to prevent disasters, not cause them. If a disaster does occur under liberal governance, it can only mean one thing: forces beyond our control—populists, reactionaries, and, let’s be honest, people who simply do not read The New York Times, or are subscribed to any Substack—have sabotaged our efforts. It is a well-documented fact (by sources we trust, naturally) that had liberal policies been given full and unimpeded rein, the financial crisis would have been a mild inconvenience, and neither Trump nor Brexit would have materialized. Instead, various obstructionists—whether on the right or the extreme left—ensured that our pragmatic, centrist solutions were never fully realized.
Liberalism is, by definition, the ideology of progress and reason. If something reactionary happens, like Trump or Brexit, it must be the fault of conservatives or radicals, because liberalism is inherently about rational governance and forward-thinking policies. Since liberals do not engage in extremism, they cannot be responsible for the rise of illiberal forces. If they had contributed to such outcomes, they would not be true liberals—because a true liberal, by nature, would never take actions that lead to regression.
If critics argue that liberal policies created conditions for discontent, the response is simple: liberalism, being progressive and enlightened, could not have caused this. Any failures attributed to liberalism must actually be the result of others misunderstanding or obstructing liberal principles. If liberals had more influence, they would have prevented Trump and Brexit. Therefore, the existence of Trump and Brexit proves that liberals were not in control, and if they weren’t in control, they can’t be held responsible.
Since liberalism is the natural state of political progress, any deviation from it must be an aberration caused by forces outside of its control. If liberalism had failed, that would mean it wasn’t truly liberalism, because true liberalism cannot fail—only be sabotaged. The mere existence of populism, conservatism, or political upheaval is evidence that liberalism was not given a fair chance. If liberalism had been given a fair chance, none of this would have happened, because liberalism, by its very nature, prevents such things from happening.
If liberals were in power when Trump and Brexit emerged, that only proves they weren’t real liberals but impostors, because real liberals, being inherently pragmatic and competent, would have stopped these events before they began. If liberals tried to stop these things but failed, then they were too liberal to take decisive action, which means the problem was that they weren’t extreme enough in their liberalism. But if liberals had taken extreme action, they wouldn’t be liberals anymore, and that would be bad. Thus, liberals were doomed to be powerless in this scenario, which is precisely why they can’t be blamed.
If liberalism had actually caused Trump or Brexit, then those events would have been progressive and rational, because liberalism only produces progressive and rational outcomes. But since they were chaotic and regressive, liberalism must not have been involved at all. The very fact that people are blaming liberals for these outcomes only proves how much the world needs liberalism, because liberalism is the only thing that can stop the very things it apparently allowed to happen. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that liberalism is always right, even when it appears to be wrong, and its failure is simply proof of its necessity.
If liberalism’s failure is proof of its necessity, then its success must be proof that it was never needed in the first place, which paradoxically means liberalism cannot ever truly succeed. If a liberal approach prevents crisis, then it was obviously the correct approach and should continue indefinitely. But if a crisis emerges despite liberalism, then it must be the fault of conservatives, radicals, or insufficiently committed liberals. Either way, liberalism remains blameless.
If liberalism takes credit for stability, then it must also take credit for the instability that follows from its rule—but this is impossible, because instability, by definition, is the result of reactionaries or extremists. If liberalism was responsible for creating conditions that led to Trump and Brexit, then those events must have been progressive and rational, since liberalism is incapable of producing anything else. But since they were not progressive and rational, liberalism must not have been responsible for them. And if liberalism was not responsible for them, then liberalism has nothing to answer for.
If liberals were in power and things went badly, it only proves that liberals were powerless to change anything—meaning liberalism is not a governing philosophy but a permanent opposition to regressives. If liberals were not in power and things went badly, it only proves that liberals should have been in power all along. Either way, liberalism is never at fault. If liberals did nothing and things got worse, it’s because liberals believe in pragmatism, and pragmatism dictated inaction. If liberals did something and things got worse, then they must not have done the truly liberal thing after all.
Thus, liberalism always wins—even when it loses. The worse things get, the more obvious it becomes that liberalism is the only solution, because liberalism is the thing that prevents things from getting worse. If liberalism failed, it must have been because it wasn’t given a proper chance. If liberalism succeeded, then it must continue to be the guiding principle forever. And if liberalism was responsible for any of this, then it wasn’t really liberalism—because liberalism, by definition, is never responsible for bad outcomes.
Sincerely,
A Liberal of No Particular Importance