The Ex-Liberal

Leftist ideals, Conservative methods

This 1899 illustration by Ilya Repin (1844–1930) portrays the famous duel between Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky

The intellectual ... must try never to forget the arguments of the adversary, or the uncertainty of the future, or the faults of one’s own side, or the underlying fraternity of ordinary men everywhere.
Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals

In the United States, conservatism is undergoing a profound transformation. While Trump was a significant factor, an overlooked yet fundamental shift is taking place—the steady migration of disillusioned liberals to the Right. This realignment is not merely expanding the conservative movement; it is reshaping its ideological foundations.

This exodus, largely triggered by frustration over COVID-19 policies and progressive cultural upheavals in 2020, is redefining conservatism from within. Many of these former liberals reject wokeness, government overreach, and the influence of elite institutions, but they do not necessarily reject the underlying ideals that shaped their political worldview. Instead, they bring with them new priorities, rhetoric, and ideological tensions, challenging traditional conservative assumptions.

Two of the most notable changes introduced by former liberals are a redefinition of how conservatism perceives power and foreign policy.

I – Power and Institutions:

Ex-liberals, shaped by a political culture steeped in structural analysis, bring with them a fundamentally different way of interpreting power. Whereas traditional conservatism has long emphasized personal responsibility, cultural heritage, and the organic evolution of institutions, this new faction continues to view political and social conflicts as products of entrenched systems rather than individual choices or national interests.

This distinction also reflects a deeper divide in how the Left and Right approach institutions. Historically, conservatives have viewed institutions as essential pillars of stability, evolving to preserve order, culture, and national identity. However, the Right has also supported dismantling institutions when they are seen as corrupt, unaccountable, or actively working against national interests. Unlike the Left, which often seeks to dismantle institutions to eliminate hierarchies and achieve greater social equity, conservatives have pursued institutional destruction as a means of restoring what they see as a lost or corrupted order. Whether through decentralization, defunding, or outright abolition, the Right’s approach to dismantlement has typically been about returning power to local communities, the private sector, or traditional cultural frameworks (Church, etc).

With an influx of ex-liberals into the Right, these conflicting views are colliding. Many have replaced class struggle with a battle against the technocratic elite, global institutions, and the security state—preserving a structural critique but shifting its focus. Unlike traditional conservatives, who see institutions through a nationalist or cultural lens, ex-liberals apply leftist systemic frameworks, viewing them as tools of a transnational capitalist elite rather than discrete national entities.

II- Foreign Policy

While Republicans have historically been skeptical of global institutions and upheld an isolationist tradition, the rationale behind these views has been vastly different—significantly so—compared to the Left.

For much of American history, conservative foreign policy has balanced the restraintism of John Quincy Adams—who warned against seeking "monsters to destroy" abroad—with the muscular nationalism of Andrew Jackson, which embraced decisive military force when American interests were at stake. The Republican Party has long navigated this tension, sometimes advocating for restraint while still maintaining a willingness to project power when necessary.

For ex-liberals, however, this balancing act can be frustrating. While they are not traditional isolationists, their opposition to American intervention often arises from a profound skepticism about the very nature of American power. Unlike traditional conservatives, who may oppose a specific war but still support the necessity of U.S. military strength, some ex-liberals bring ideological commitments that lead them to question the legitimacy of American power as a whole. This often drives them to embrace narratives that align with anti-colonial or third-worldist critiques—perspectives that starkly contrast with the nationalist assumptions held by many on the Right.

From the America First movement of the 1930s to Pat Buchanan’s opposition to U.S. interventionism in the 1990s, conservative isolationism has typically framed itself as a defense of American sovereignty and strategic restraint—not as an indictment of the U.S. itself. The America First Committee, while advocating for a neutral stance, emphasized that “The United States must build an impregnable defense for America. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.” The argument was not that America was an “evil empire,” but rather that an unchecked administrative state, swayed by entrenched interests, often misled the public about what truly served national security.

Buchanan, for instance, opposed NATO expansion after the Cold War, not out of hostility toward the U.S. but out of concern that it would entangle America in unnecessary foreign conflicts with little strategic benefit. Similarly, Ron Paul’s non-interventionist stance in the 2000s was driven by deep skepticism of government overreach and the influence of the military-industrial complex, rather than a fundamental rejection of U.S. leadership.

The once-clear distinction between distrust of the administrative state and distrust of the nation itself is becoming increasingly blurred, complicating the ideological boundaries that have long defined the Right’s foreign policy outlook.

President Donald Trump’s suggestions to annex Canada or purchase Greenland have already exposed tensions within the evolving conservative coalition. While traditional conservatives may oppose these ideas, they still recognize them as a legitimate extension of American dominance in line with a Jacksonian vision of power. In contrast, ex-liberals who have moved to the Right out of frustration rather than a complete ideological shift often view such proposals as baseless.

Is This a Lasting Realignment?

Honestly, I don’t know. Despite its momentum, this ideological shift won’t maintain its current pace. The conditions driving it—COVID-era government overreach, cultural radicalization on the Left, and rising distrust in institutions—are not easily replicated. Political realignments like this are rare, and as the Republican Party absorbs these new voices, internal tensions are inevitable.

Regardless of whether their influence strengthens or stabilizes, the ideological imprint of this realignment will endure, reconfiguring the base and superstructure of the political order. As a result, the concept of what it means to be “on the Right” today will be redefined, challenging traditional class allegiances and reshaping the ideological terrain in a way that reflects deeper class struggles and societal tensions.