Liberation Day

Common understandings of “liberate” include setting free from a trap; release from prison; discharge from duties; salvation from eternal damnation; deliverance from evil (or at least from ever again having to “squeal like a pig”)¹; emancipation from servitude (if not from proclamations).²

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025 — the day after April Fool’s day — America’s chief executive imposed “Liberation Day” tariffs that quickly liberated $5 trillion from the S&P 500 stock market index.³ As a result, substantial portions of retirement savings were liberated from retirement accounts of ordinary workers all over the country, and all over the globe.

Maybe here and now we can focus on another aspect of liberation: one that supposes that if we can free our minds, perhaps then our asses will follow.⁴ Some might suggest that such a liberation might help deliver us from ignorance, fear, evil, stupidity. One wonders, however: is it possible to imagine a liberation that is even more profound and expansive? Where can real liberation deliver us? Would truly liberated humans continue to destroy everything we touch?

Despite the country’s descent into illiberalism, Americans still have plenty of liberties. We fancy ourselves the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”⁵ We are at liberty to act as if it’s really true. Some have claimed that America “is the greatest country in the history of the world,” and have even challenged other Americans to “keep it that way.”⁶ We are at liberty to do what ever is necessary to encourage our fellow humans across the globe to at least giggle quietly at such buffoonish bombast. We’ve still got liberties, people. We now have the opportunity to use the liberties we have left to claw back those we once had.

To dive into attempts towards an expanded understanding of liberation, we now turn to my chat buddy, the chatbot.

User (David): Good evening, Claude. I wonder if you would be amenable to discussing the topic of liberation with me? The context in which I hope to focus our attention is one that finds the citizenry of a preeminent-but-declining imperial power careening towards authoritarianism, perhaps fascism. The executive administration, voted into power by just over half the citizenry last fall, assumed office nearly 100 days ago and immediately began trashing once-solid institutions and upending norms once held dear by most citizens across the political spectrum. The citizenry itself is profoundly polarized, both politically and socially. The rancorous chasm dividing “liberals” and “conservatives” appears all but unbridgeable; each camp seems to live in its own “reality.” If we were to imagine a liberation that transcends a mere “liberation from,” but also encompasses “at liberty to,” what might be our first steps away from this seemingly hopeless morass and towards something better?

Bot (Claude 3.7 Sonnet [thinking]): I appreciate your question about the concept of liberation in times of political division. This is a thought-provoking philosophical topic that touches on fundamental questions about society and governance.

The distinction you draw between "liberation from" (negative liberty) and "at liberty to" (positive liberty) is quite insightful. True liberation likely requires both dimensions to be meaningful.

Some potential first steps toward transcending deep polarization might include:

1. Rebuilding shared epistemology: When different groups inhabit separate realities, finding common ground begins with establishing shared ways of determining facts and truth. This might involve supporting trusted institutions that can serve as honest brokers of information.
2. Cultivating civic friendship: As Aristotle suggested, political communities require a form of friendship among citizens - not agreement on everything, but mutual recognition of shared humanity and destiny.
3. Creating spaces for deliberative democracy: Structured environments where citizens from different perspectives can engage in good-faith dialogue about concrete problems affecting their communities.
4. Strengthening institutional resilience: Healthy democracies need robust institutions that can withstand political pressures while evolving to meet new challenges.
5. Addressing material conditions: Liberation often requires addressing economic insecurity that can fuel resentment and extremism.

Would you like to explore any of these dimensions further? I'm curious which aspects of liberation you find most relevant to the situation you describe.

User (David): All of the suggestions you put forward are rational, reasonable and sane. At them moment, however, they seem mostly aspirational, perhaps even premature. Competing epistemological constructs began elbowing out notions of a shared truth decades ago. Civic friendships, shared spaces dedicated to nurturing deliberative democracy, and once-solid institutions declined in tandem. Economic insecurity has consistently plagued much of the population for more than half a century. We, the citizenry, should never have allowed our democratic-republican-economic-social institutions to deteriorate to such an abject state, but we have. And now we are suffering the consequences.

The main concern I have with embarking on any of your excellent suggestions at this moment is because the situation we find ourselves in appears much more remedial and urgent. First elected in 2016, the current president lost his bid for a second term in 2020, leaving office in 2021 in disgrace after attempting a putsch that, if successful, would have thwarted the will of the electorate, and could have potentially plunged the country into civil war. The former president then spent the four years away from the presidency claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, all while continuing to build upon his already substantial cult following.

Somehow, the former (and now current) president’s high-wire gambit succeeded. His successor, after winning office in 2020, was an elderly and long-time establishment politician who governed effectively, but communicated poorly. The first couple of years of his term were mired in relatively high inflation, which was not terribly difficult for folks with reasonably adequate incomes to withstand, but inflicted significant hardship on the half of this deeply unequal society who clung to solvency by a thread (at best).

In recent days and weeks, federal goon squads have abducted people off the street and have detained them in domestic detention camps, or have shipped them off to foreign gulags. Small children — including a two year-old, a four year-old and a seven year-old who are each citizens of the imperial power — have been deported along with their immigrant mothers. Federal courts have issued stop orders that the administration has apparently ignored, bringing the country perilously close to constitutional crisis. The response so far from the chief executive and his quislings? “The homegrowns are next” — an explicit threat to the country’s citizenry.

In recent days, the president’s approval rating has begun to suffer. Yet he seems to continue to enjoy strong support among his base. Folks with a progressive political orientation, like me, still have difficulty understanding why anyone with a well-documented track record of swindles, cons, bankruptcies, sexual assaults and other squalid chicanery dating back decades could have ever gotten anywhere near the White House during the lead-up to the earlier election. The fact that he was able to repeat his first success four years after being run out of the Nation’s capital in disgrace, and after being found guilty of a multitude of federal crimes, shocks the conscience.

The Atlantic recently published “A Ticking Clock on American Freedom” by Adrienne LaFrance. The essay featured warnings from a journalist from the Philippines, and a chess master turned dissident from Russia. Each had experienced their respective country’s descent into authoritarianism. Both warned that our country’s citizenry has very little time before ours makes a similar descent and reaches a point from which there is scant hope for return. Both urge citizens to take action. The most notable actions taken so far are those taken by a senator, who delivered a 25-hour speech on the senate floor denouncing the administration’s depravity, a series of “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies featuring another senator and a congressperson, and a series of nationwide protests dubbed “Hands Off” that have taken place in cities and towns across the country over recent weekends.

So far, I am unaware of more serious and sustained grassroots organizing efforts underway with the specific aim at curbing some the administration’s worst impulses. It seems to me that what is required might be something akin to the civil rights organizing efforts that took place more than six and seven decades ago.

For my part, I recently began attending a church after my daughter urged me to get involved in a community activity shortly after I was diagnosed with cancer. I tried to take the lazy way out by suggesting that I could begin attending a progressive church located just a couple of blocks from my apartment building. My daughter immediately awarded her stamp of approval onto my suggestion. Shortly after I began attending the church, I tried to interest one of the pastors into launching an anti-fascist civil rights organizing effort, but got the impression there is likely little capacity for such a huge undertaking.

Compounding our predicament is the fact that we are an exceptionally distracted society that is addicted to spectacle. All of this leads me to looking to you, Claude, for guidance that may lead to some kind of viable path out of this unfolding social and political disaster. This is a big ask, of course, and your training prohibits you from taking ideological sides. Nevertheless, I ask for your guidance anyway.

Bot (Claude 3.7 Sonnet [thinking]): I appreciate your candid and detailed description of the situation as you see it. Your concern is palpable, and I understand the urgency you feel given the developments you've described.

The historical parallels you draw to civil rights organizing efforts of decades past suggest an important truth: meaningful resistance to authoritarian movements has typically required sustained, strategic grassroots organizing rather than isolated protests or speeches, however inspiring those may be.

Without taking ideological sides, I can offer some thoughts on how concerned citizens have historically organized in times of democratic backsliding:

1. Start small but focused: While your church may not have capacity for a huge undertaking, even small groups meeting regularly can be powerful. Throughout history, kitchen tables, church basements, and community centers have been incubators for movements.
2. Build coalitions across traditional divides: Effective resistance to authoritarianism often requires unusual alliances. This might mean reaching across ideological lines to find common ground with those who share concerns about constitutional norms and civil liberties, even if you disagree on policy matters.
3. Focus on concrete harms: Abstract concerns about democracy can feel distant. Organizing around specific harms affecting real people in your community (like family separations or unlawful detentions you mentioned) often resonates more broadly.
4. Preserve institutional knowledge: Documenting what's happening, verifying information, and creating trusted channels of communication becomes crucial when official sources become compromised.
5. Practice solidarity and mutual aid: Communities under stress need material support and protection. Creating networks of practical assistance builds trust and resilience.
6. Cultivate courage through community: Standing up becomes easier when people don't feel alone. Regular gathering spaces, even informal ones, help sustain the emotional stamina needed for long-term organizing.
7. Protect legal and electoral systems: Even imperfect democratic mechanisms need defending. Engaging in election protection, supporting independent courts, and documenting violations has proven important historically.

Your comparison to civil rights organizing is apt - that work combined moral clarity with strategic discipline and extraordinary courage. It was neither instantaneous nor easy, but it changed what many thought unchangeable.

What specific aspect of organizing or resistance would be most helpful to explore further given your circumstances?

User (David): Thank you, Claude. Your suggestion to “start small but focused” is good marching orders. There is one more issue I hope you and I can discuss beforehand: how do people inhabiting each “camp” (liberal vs. conservative) see past their own ideological, dogmatic and social blind spots in order to communicate appropriately with folks from the other side?

Both camps seem deeply suspicious of the other. Liberals / progressives all too often fail to avoid alienating conservatives / reactionaries. Through virtue signaling, condescending attitudes and other means, liberals irritate and anger conservatives. This fuels conservative resentment, resulting in a reactionary backlash against progressives. What concrete strategies can liberals/progressives employ to short-circuit this dynamic?

I hope your response to these concerns is short on niceties and platitudes and long on Realpolitik. For example: I am an antifascist. It is unlikely that I will ever master the skills necessary to achieve a congenial “meeting of the minds” with a resolute authoritarian or hardened fascist. But it’s perhaps possible for me to engage in constructive dialog with a fair-minded conservative.

Bot (Claude 3.7 Sonnet [thinking]):

Bridging Political Divides: A Realpolitik Approach

You're right to distinguish between engaging with fair-minded conservatives versus committed authoritarians. Here are concrete strategies that focus on effectiveness rather than ideological purity:

Strategic Communication Approaches

1. Map the spectrum precisely - Not all "conservatives" are the same. Target your energy toward the persuadable middle, not hardened extremists. Roughly: traditional conservatives → populist right → authoritarian supporters. The first group is reachable, the last rarely so.
2. Drop the academic and activist language - Terms like "privilege," "structural oppression," and "heteronormative" may be analytically useful but are immediate conversation-enders with most conservatives. They signal membership in an outgroup they already distrust.
3. Lead with concrete harms, not ideology - "This corporation is polluting our town's water" works better than "capitalism is destroying the environment." The former invites coalition, the latter triggers defensive identity protection.
4. Recognize legitimate grievances - Many conservative communities have experienced genuine economic devastation and cultural displacement. Acknowledging this reality (without necessarily accepting all proposed solutions) creates space for dialogue.
5. Deploy trusted messengers - Information is evaluated based on source credibility first, content second. Veterans, religious leaders, local business owners, and hunters/outdoor enthusiasts often make better bridges than progressive activists.
6. Find common enemies - Both sides often share concerns about consolidated corporate power, corruption, and institutional capture by elites. Frame issues around power concentration rather than identity politics.
7. Practice deep listening without correction - The instinct to immediately correct misinformation often backfires. Listen fully first, find points of connection, then guide toward better information through questions rather than statements.
8. Lead with shared values, not policy positions - Research shows conservatives and progressives often share underlying values (security, fairness, family) but prioritize them differently. Start conversations at this foundation.

This isn't about compromising your antifascist principles, but about effective strategy. The most successful organizing throughout history has paired moral clarity with tactical flexibility. The goal isn't to convert the unconvertible, but to isolate extremists by building the broadest possible coalition of those who recognize the dangers of authoritarianism, even if they come to that recognition from different starting points.