Why Trump vs. DeSantis is Not Really A Choice
There needs to be a liberal choice for conservatives instead
In light of the recent US midterm election results, and former President Donald Trump's announcement of his 2024 run, there has been a lot of talk in conservative-leaning circles that Ron DeSantis is the person to support, to stop Trump in 2024. Even some people, who do not personally identify as conservative or Republican, have weighed into the debate, usually in favor of DeSantis. Their reasoning is that Trump represents a unique threat to liberal democratic values, so DeSantis has to be better, whether you agree with his policies or not.
The idea that DeSantis represents a savior from Trumpism shows how skewed the political landscape, particularly on the conservative side, has become. It shows that many people seem to have lost sight of the fact that, looking at the bigger picture, the choice of Trump vs DeSantis is basically no choice at all, because they ultimately represent the same thing, i.e. the culture war based, tribalist, us-vs-them style of right-wing politics. Historically, this is certainly not the only style of conservatism on offer, and even today, it does not need to be. Moreover, Trump's anti-democratic tendencies are rooted in his tribalist style of politics. The logic is that, the other side is so evil and corrupt that you don't even need to respect them as fellow humans. Therefore, you can't effectively oppose 'Trumpism' without opposing tribalist culture war politics more generally. To 'settle' for DeSantis is therefore to concede all the substantial arguments against Trumpism, while reducing opposition to Trumpism to a disagreement in style. It is therefore perhaps even more harmful than supporting Trump himself.
Furthermore, both Trump and DeSantis represent a broader trend that I believe we should resist: the movement of organized conservatism away from the classical liberal consensus. Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 election is part of a bigger picture of not respecting liberal democratic norms more generally, and it is this bigger picture that has made many people worried about the impact of Trumpism on democracy. While DeSantis might not have the bombastic personality of Trump, many of his actions are clearly in line with Trump's disrespect of liberal democratic norms. DeSantis is thus part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The problem is actually bigger than both Trump and DeSantis too. Elements of the Right have, in recent years, begun embracing a more illiberal politics. They have cozied up to Hungarian President Viktor Orban, who is famous for having championed the idea of 'illiberal democracy'. They have welcomed highly illiberal movements like National Conservatism, Catholic Integralism and Neoreactionism into the mainstream. In judicial philosophy, they have gradually turned away from originalism, towards an essentially ends-justify-the-means, culture wars-based approach. More generally, they have embraced the 'Flight 93' worldview, believing that it is right to do whatever it takes to win the culture wars, including trampling on classical liberal norms. Attacking old-school conservatives who don't agree with the new program is also a regular activity, with figures like David French, who argued on the 'wrong' side of the Ahmari-French debate of 2019, being favorite targets (while state-level Republicans are busily putting Ahmari's position into law). Given the bigger picture here, it is clear that only getting rid of Trump is not going to be effective in restoring a commitment to liberal democratic norms on the Right. There are bigger forces at play here, and we need to resist this dangerous movement as a whole.
While my arguments so far might sound like what has already been repeatedly said by many people, especially on the Left, my solution is actually very different, apart from the need to resist Trump, DeSantis and all their fellow travellers in the culture war faction. While those on the Left often end up basically attacking all of conservatism, I believe this is the wrong approach. Conservatism represents a basic pattern of human thinking, and many people are inclined towards that way of thinking, at least to some degree. Conservatism exists because it is evolutionarily adaptive, and it is not going to go away, despite the wishful thinking of the Left. Therefore, the only way to fight against an illiberal conservatism is to build up a liberal conservative alternative.
It all starts with making room for conservative minds and voices within liberalism, and ensuring that they are on an equal playing field. One thing I have advocated for over the years is the inclusion of liberal conservatives, i.e. conservatives who agree to uphold the classical liberal consensus, in liberal culture and politics. Liberalism has generally been seen as a progressive ideology, given its openness to new ideas, and its opposition to authoritarian reactionary politics. These properties have meant that, thoughout its history, liberalism has been the facilitator of many reforms, from universal suffrage, to women's rights and civil rights, and most recently, gay marriage. As a result, liberalism's history has been dominated by progressive-thinking people. Even today, 'liberal' and 'progressive' are sometimes used interchangeably.
Although there is indeed a good fit between liberalism and progressive reformism, liberalism is actually a set of commitments, based around respecting individual freedom of conscience, favoring objective evidence over superstition and dogma, and building a good order based on these principles. As such, it actually does not exclude conservative-leaning minds, as long as they too support these principles. In fact, a liberalism that excludes all conservative voices becomes less sound, because liberals believe that a good order can only arise from a fair marketplace of ideas. This, by definition, has to include 'progressive' and 'conservative' voices alike. It's time that true liberals begin to realize the importance of this.
To include liberal conservatives in the liberal discourse doesn't mean that progressives need to give up their values, beliefs and policy goals. It merely requires that conservative ideas and voices be given an equal hearing, as long as they are within the classical liberal consensus. It would also require progressive liberals to be aware of, and consciously reject, some ideas that have their roots in postmodernism and critical theory. These include Michel Foucault's idea that speech and discourse are exercises of power, and Herbert Marcuse's idea that indiscriminate tolerance is repressive, expressed in the famous Repressive Tolerance essay. These ideas were gradually mainstreamed by radical activists in the past 50 years, and they have caused a crisis of confidence in old-school liberal values like free speech and freedom of conscience, as well as a distortion in how liberalism is practiced more generally. These ideas need to be consciously rejected once and for all, by those who are truly committed to liberalism.
Within the framework of classical liberal norms, there is still much unique ground a liberal conservatism can cover. Liberalism must remain committed to values like individual liberty, free speech, equality before the law, and civil rights guarantees for everyone, including minorities. These principles must not be compromised, and we must take a firm stance against the illiberal positions of culture war reactionaries. On the other hand, there is still plenty of room for a conservatism that doesn't violate the aforementioned principles. For example, there can be a focus on building stronger families, curing the problem of high divorce rates, restoring public decency and modesty as a norm, and so on. Indeed, without the divisiveness of culture war politics, we can better bring people into a coalition to achieve these aims.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Horizon books, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory.