The Well-Dressed Liars of the Moderate Right

How the Intellectual Enablers of Trumpism Betrayed Free Speech, Free Markets, and the Free World

Photo by Philip Strong on Unsplash

This is, after all, a philosophy blog.

But today we're going to talk about liars.

Specifically, the well-dressed, well-credentialed, well-compensated liars who spent years telling us that Donald Trump and his movement would be “better on balance” for free speech, free markets, and the free world. The Wall Street Journal editorial board. The think tank fellows. The former Bush administration officials. The “reasonable conservatives” who assured us they were making hard choices based on careful analysis.

They were lying. They knew they were lying. And now we have proof.

The Trump administration announced this morning that all foreign students seeking to study in the United States will undergo social media vetting. Not suspected terrorists. Not people on watch lists. Students. Kids who want to get an education at American universities. Posted a Palestinian flag on Instagram? Additional scrutiny. Retweeted something critical of Israeli policy? Potential visa denial. Participated in a campus protest? Sorry, no American education for you.

This is ideological screening. This is thought policing. This is exactly the kind of authoritarian bullshit that the Wall Street Journal crowd assured us would never happen under Republican leadership because, unlike those campus leftists, conservatives actually believe in free speech.

How's that working out for you, gentlemen?

For years, these people constructed an elaborate intellectual framework to justify supporting Trump while maintaining their self-image as principled defenders of liberal democracy. They pointed to campus deplatformings, to diversity training, to progressive orthodoxy, and said: “See? The real threat to free speech comes from the left.” Some of their critiques were valid. Academic freedom does matter. Intellectual diversity is important. Progressive institutions have their own authoritarian tendencies that deserve criticism.

But that was never the point. The point was to establish themselves as the reasonable alternative. The adults in the room. The principled defenders of Enlightenment values who could be trusted with power because they understood what was really at stake. Yes, they said, Trump is crude and divisive. But at least Republicans won't weaponize institutions against their opponents. At least they understand the importance of open discourse. At least they believe in free markets rather than government control of the economy.

This was always bullshit. They knew it was bullshit. But it was profitable bullshit, comfortable bullshit, career-advancing bullshit.

The Free Speech Fraud

Let's be specific about what these people promised us. Bret Stephens at the New York Times spent years arguing that Trump, for all his flaws, represented a better choice for free speech than progressives who wanted to regulate social media and campus discourse. The Wall Street Journal editorial board consistently argued that Republican governance would protect intellectual freedom better than Democratic policies they characterized as authoritarian overreach. Think tank intellectuals across Washington made careers out of explaining why conservative populism, however distasteful, was ultimately more compatible with liberal values than progressive activism.

They were either catastrophically stupid or deliberately deceptive. Given their credentials and positions, I'm inclined toward the latter.

Here's what “better for free speech” actually looks like under Trump: ideological screening for foreign students based on social media posts, state governments systematically defunding and undermining public universities that don't conform to approved ideologies, business leaders afraid to speak out against destructive policies for fear of retaliation, moderate Republicans terrified into silence by primary threats and social media mobs, law firms instructing partners to avoid any public statements that might offend the regime, and the systematic destruction of American higher education's global credibility and prestige.

This isn't “better for free speech.” This is a comprehensive assault on intellectual freedom using the power of the state. But somehow I doubt we'll see mea culpas from the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Somehow I suspect Bret Stephens won't be writing columns acknowledging that he was catastrophically wrong about who posed the real threat to liberal democracy.

The Free Market Fraud

The economic arguments were equally dishonest. These people told us that Trump represented a return to free market principles after years of Democratic overreach. How's that working out? Massive tariffs that function as taxes on American consumers, industrial policy that picks winners and losers based on political considerations, trade wars that disrupt global supply chains and hurt American businesses, immigration restrictions that create labor shortages and drive up costs, regulatory capture by industries that support the regime, and the weaponization of antitrust enforcement against companies that don't toe the political line.

This isn't free market capitalism. This is crony capitalism with nationalist characteristics. It's exactly the kind of government interference in markets that conservatives supposedly oppose. But somehow the champions of free markets found ways to justify all of it. Somehow the people who spent decades warning about the dangers of industrial policy discovered that it was actually good when Republicans did it.

The Free World Fraud

Perhaps most disgustingly, these people told us that Trump would be better for the “free world” than his Democratic opponents. Better for our allies. Better for democracy globally. Better for American leadership. The results speak for themselves: the systematic undermining of NATO and other alliance structures, the abandonment of human rights as a foreign policy priority, the cozying up to authoritarian leaders while alienating democratic allies, the destruction of America's credibility as a defender of liberal values, and the encouragement of authoritarianism globally through example and explicit support.

These people told us that Trump's “America First” approach would ultimately strengthen the liberal international order by forcing other countries to take more responsibility for their own defense. Instead, it's accelerated the collapse of that order and America's role in leading it.

Why We Should Never Listen to These People Again

The question isn't whether these people were wrong. The question is whether they were deliberately lying or just spectacularly incompetent. Either way, why should anyone ever take them seriously again?

If they were lying—if they knew that Trump posed a threat to the values they claimed to defend but supported him anyway for reasons of political expedience or personal advancement—then they have no credibility as moral or intellectual authorities. If they were genuinely mistaken—if they actually believed that a movement built on resentment, grievance, and authoritarian appeal would somehow defend liberal institutions—then they have no credibility as analysts or experts.

You can't be both principled and this wrong about something this important.

What made their position so appealing was that it allowed them to have it both ways. They could criticize Trump's obvious authoritarian tendencies while supporting the policies and movement that enabled those tendencies. They could maintain their self-image as defenders of liberal democracy while actively undermining it. They could feel principled while being complicit. It was the perfect position for people who wanted to maintain their status within conservative institutions while avoiding the discomfort of genuine opposition to authoritarianism.

But positions that comfortable are usually built on lies. And now the lies have been exposed.

The Reckoning That Won't Come

Don't expect apologies. Don't expect acknowledgment of error. Don't expect anything resembling intellectual honesty from these people. Instead, expect new rationalizations. Expect them to explain why ideological screening of foreign students is actually necessary for national security. Expect them to argue that the destruction of American higher education's global prestige is actually good because those institutions were too liberal anyway. Expect them to find ways to justify everything they once claimed to oppose.

They've spent years perfecting the art of sophisticated rationalization. They're not going to stop now. The real question is why anyone else should pay attention to them.

These people had one job: to provide honest analysis about the trade-offs involved in political choices. They failed catastrophically. They told us that supporting Trump would advance the cause of free speech, free markets, and the free world. They were wrong about everything. More than wrong—they were dishonest. They constructed elaborate intellectual frameworks to justify positions they knew were indefensible. They used their credentials and platforms to launder authoritarianism as principled conservatism. They were gatekeepers who opened the gates to barbarians while assuring everyone that the barbarians were actually quite civilized once you got to know them.

In any rational system, being this wrong about something this important would be a career-ending event. These people would retreat from public life in shame, acknowledging that they had fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the choice they were advocating. Instead, they'll probably get promotions. They'll write books about the “difficult choices” they had to make. They'll position themselves as voices of reason in an unreasonable time.

Because that's how the game works. Being wrong doesn't matter as long as you're wrong in ways that serve power. Being dishonest doesn't matter as long as your dishonesty advances the right interests. But for the rest of us—for people who still think that words should mean something and that credibility should matter—the lesson is clear: these people forfeited their right to be taken seriously the moment they decided to prioritize their own comfort over intellectual honesty.

They told us Trump would be better for free speech. He's implementing ideological screening for foreign students. They told us Trump would be better for free markets. He's implementing industrial policy and trade wars. They told us Trump would be better for the free world. He's systematically undermining democratic alliances and American leadership.

They were wrong about everything. Not slightly wrong. Not wrong in minor details. Catastrophically, comprehensively, dishonestly wrong about the fundamental nature of what they were supporting. So here's my question: Why should we listen to these assholes ever again?

They had their chance to provide honest analysis. They chose comfortable lies instead. They had their opportunity to defend the values they claimed to believe in. They chose political expedience instead. They've revealed themselves to be either frauds or fools. Either way, they've forfeited any claim to intellectual authority or moral credibility.

The rest of us should stop pretending otherwise. Despite everything these people have done to muddy the waters, some things remain true: ideological screening of students is censorship, not security. Government picking winners and losers in markets is not free market capitalism. Undermining democratic alliances is not good for the free world. And people who spend years telling you that black is white, that up is down, that authoritarianism is actually freedom—those people are not your friends, your allies, or your intellectual guides.

They're just well-dressed liars who got caught. Remember that the next time one of them tries to explain why you should trust their judgment about anything that matters.