The strange liberal nonchalance about Trump’s return

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

Even the anti-Donald Trump graffiti on the streets of West Hollywood is sparse and heartless now. Eight years ago, California was the “resistance” state. It is a different mood that a visitor encounters in 2025: resignation, bored with the subject, an attitude that we have-come among the reflexive Democrats and, at times, something approaching curiosity about the economic potential of the America under a deregulating president.

A great liberal uprising is underway. It’s been happening around the world since Trump won his victory in November, and it’s natural. You can’t be angry all the time. In the autocracies of 20th century Europe, dissidents of conscience often did what was known as “internal migration.” That is, rather than flee or fight, they retreated into private life while the political realm darkened around them. To stand out like that is smart, not weak.

Just don’t overdo it, that’s all. I feel that liberals have allowed a healthy acceptance of electoral reality to pass in a hope that Trump’s second term will not be so bad. Please.

Three things softened Trump’s impact last time around. None of them apply now. First, he craved re-election. This made him willing to challenge the median voter to some extent, but not further. (The speed with which he repudiated the theocratic Project 2025 last summer showed how much this supposed hothead seeks to avoid unnecessary unpopularity.) Unless something happens to the 22nd Amendment, Trump is now freed from the innate discipline of the electoral politics. Even the midterms mean little, as the race to succeed him begins right after. Second term presidents have two years.

What else? His first administration was populated with enough former Republicans — Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson — to curb his excesses. Now it is spoiled for officials and cabinet secretaries who are in the Maga mold. Tulsi Gabbard could soon be the head of US intelligence. There is nothing stoic or urbane about brushing that off.

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. It is on a much flimsier canvas that Trump will launch his tariffs and foreign escapades this time around.

We could go on in this thread, citing practical and contingent reasons to worry. We can mention the federal judiciary, which is more tinged with Trump now than it was when he took office. Will it be forced? We can also say that he will be 82 years old when he dies. Last time, he had to think about the legal exposure, the earning potential and the social reputation he would have in his post-presidential life. Will that be a factor now?

In the end, though, my argument—and a lot of political commentary—comes down to instinct. There’s a hubris in Maga-world right now that just wasn’t there in 2017, in part because Trump hadn’t won the popular vote. Talk about much higher economic growth, territorial conquest, put a US flag on Mars: if you don’t reek of pride before a fall, of imminent overreach, then we just have different antennas. (And I hope mine is wrong.) In all democracies, a party is never more dangerous than when it is high on fresh electoral success. The difference with the United States is the size of the action for the outside world. Think of George W Bush after his historically good midterms 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 into uncharacteristic actions. Remember, the perception of Bush before 9/11 was that he was a do-nothing isolationist.) More likely, a flurry of tariffs will trigger a worldwide response. uncontrolled, or the economy will be managed. too hot, or the constitution will crack to the breaking point as Trump seeks to reward hunting friends and foes. At the very least, there will be internal recriminations when it becomes clear that the public debt, urban squalor, and America’s other problems are not amenable to a techno-libertarian fix.

Whatever the precise form of the coming chaos, the relative lack of concern is what stands out from eight years ago. The liberal line in 2025 seems to go something like this: We got over the panic over Trump last time, so let’s not repeat that mistake. Not even half of this proposal survives the slightest intellectual audit. The panic was confirmed, except that the two impeachments – one for seeking to annul an electoral result – somehow do not count. Also, even if the first term wasn’t that bad, why assume the second will be the same? Trump and his movement are much more serious entities now. His inaugural address this week was formidable in vision and expression.

None of this means that people who don’t like Trump should take the man’s advice to “fight, fight, fight.” Protest and activism were victories for the Democrats. But if smugness was bad, so is self-doubt. The lesson of the 2024 election for the liberals was, or should have been, strict: stop choosing useless candidates. This somehow turned into a wider crisis of confidence about whether their underlying assessment of Trump as a threat was ever right. Being avenged over the coming years will not be fun.

janan.ganesh@ft.com