Open the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US elections mean for Washington and the world
Even anti-Donald Trump graffiti on the streets of West Hollywood is now rare and tepid. Eight years ago, California was the “resistance” state. It's a different mood for a visitor in 2025: resignation, boredom with the subject, an attitude among thoughtful Democrats and, at times, something approaching curiosity about America's economic potential under a deregulatory president.
There is a major liberal shakeup going on right now. This has happened around the world since Trump won in November, and it is normal. You can't be angry all the time. In the authoritarian regimes of twentieth-century Europe, people of conscience often undertook what was known as “internal migration.” This meant that instead of fleeing or fighting, they retreated into private life when the political world around them darkened. Breaking up in this way is smart, not weak.
Just don't overdo it, that's all. I feel like liberals have allowed a healthy acceptance of electoral reality to turn into a hope that Trump's second term won't be so bad. please.
Three things dampened Trump's influence last time. None of them apply now. First, he was eager to be re-elected. This made him willing to provoke the average voter to a certain extent, but not beyond that. (The speed with which he disavowed the lackluster theocratic 2025 project last summer demonstrated how much this supposed reckless person is seeking to avoid needless unpopularity.) Unless something happens to the 22nd Amendment, Trump is now freed from the innate discipline of electoral politics. Even the midterm elections do not mean much, as the race to succeed him will begin immediately afterward. Second-term presidents have two years.
What's next? His first administration was filled with enough old-fashioned Republicans — Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson — to limit his excesses. He is now the pamper of officials and government ministers who are in the MAGA mold. Tulsi Gabbard may soon be at the helm of US intelligence. There is nothing stoic or polite about ignoring that.
Above all, the world in 2017 was stable enough to absorb a certain amount of chaos. Inflation was low and Europe was at peace. The last major pandemic in the West was a century ago. With a much weaker network, Trump will impose his tariffs and foreign adventures this time.
We can continue like this, citing practical and potential reasons for concern. We can mention the federal judiciary, which is now more favorable to Trump than it was when he first took office. Will he restrict him? We can also mention that he will be 82 years old when he steps down. Last time, he had to think about the legal exposure, potential reputation gain and social gain he would have in his post-presidential life. Will this be a factor now?
But in the end, my argument – and much of political commentary – comes down to instinct. There's an arrogance in the MAGA world right now that didn't exist in 2017, partly because Trump didn't win the popular vote. Talk about much higher economic growth, territorial conquest, and planting a US flag on Mars: if that doesn't reek of pre-fall pride, or imminent overreach, we have different antennas. (I hope my opinion is wrong). In all democracies, a party never becomes more dangerous than when it achieves new electoral success. The difference with the United States is the amount of risks that the outside world bears. Consider George W. Bush after the historically good midterm elections in 2002, or Lyndon Johnson's escalation in Vietnam after 1964, when his vote pile could be seen from space.
Yes, a war of choice is unlikely under Trump. (Although events can push leaders to take uncharacteristic actions. Let us remember that the perception of Bush before September 11 was that he was an isolationist who did nothing.) A tariff spree will likely trigger an uncontrollable global response, or the economy will collapse. Too hot, or the Constitution will scream to the breaking point as Trump seeks to reward friends and go after enemies. At the very least, domestic recriminations will arise when it becomes clear that public debt, urban poverty, and other issues facing America are not amenable to technological libertarian fixing.
Whatever the exact form of chaos ahead, it is the relative lack of concern about it that has stood out for eight years. The liberal line in 2025 seems to go something like this: We panicked too much about Trump last time, so let's not repeat the mistake. Neither half of this proposal survives the slightest intellectual scrutiny. Panic He was That can be proven, unless the two impeachments — one for seeking to overturn the election result — count one way or the other. Also, even if the first act wasn't too bad, why assume that the second act will be exactly the same? Trump and his movement are more serious entities now. His inaugural address this week was monumental in vision and expression.
None of this is to say that people who don't like Trump should take the man's advice to “fight, fight, fight.” Protest and activism have been a dead end for Democrats. But if arrogance is a bad thing, then so is having self-doubt. The lesson of the 2024 election for liberals was, or should have been, narrow: stop choosing useless candidates. This has somehow developed into a broader crisis of confidence about whether their basic assessment of Trump as a threat is correct at all. The vindication over the coming years will not be fun at all.
