Some Thoughts on the TikTok Ban And Liberal Democracy.
I believe the deepest and most pressing questions in political philosophy concern the moral foundations of liberal democracy, the role of shared ideals in sustaining a political order, the threats posed by authoritarianism and cynicism, and the complex challenge of balancing competing values in a free society. Liberal democracy is in danger of collapse, against the backdrop of an age of growing disillusionment and danger.
The core of my argument that the liberal democratic project, particularly and especially in the American experiment, is something not to be judged relative to its failings, but judged by its potential to make moral progress. The collective affirmation of and aspiration towards shared moral ideals, even in the face of inevitable shortcomings and failures is the essential glue that holds liberal democracies together. Rather than being a sign of hypocrisy or bad faith, this pretense is in fact the lifeblood of the democratic project, providing us with a common moral framework and language that allows diverse societies to navigate their differences and strive towards a more just and humane future.
From the fathers of the idea — Locke, Mill and Tocqueville — liberalism has always been more than just a set of institutions and procedures. At its core, it is a moral vision — a commitment to the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual, to the equality of all persons before the law, and to the idea that government is a trust that is firmly accountable to the people.
These are not mere abstract principles, but living ideals that shape the texture of liberal societies, informing everything from constitutional design to even norms of civility and tolerance. They are the basis for the shared moral horizon, a set of aspirational standards against which the reality of liberal politics can be judged, and yes, found wanting.
This is the moral pretense which is essential to liberal democracy. No society perfectly embodies its professed ideals — there is always a gap between principles and practice, between the lofty rhetoric of founding documents and the messy realities of contending with a plural society. Hypocrisy and failure are endemic to the human condition, and no political system can escape them entirely. But a political system can, and should, embody the pretense that change is possible. That we do not live at the end of the arc of moral history. That there are no final solutions to political questions.
What ultimately distinguishes liberal democracy is its commitment to openly acknowledging this gap between ideal and practice, and striving to close it. The moral power of liberalism lies not in its claim to perfection, but in its recognition of its own imperfections and its commitment to self-correction and improvement over time. The pretense is not a bug, but a feature of the liberal project. It is the space of aspiration and imagination that allows free societies to reach beyond their current limitations towards a more just future.
This is why liberal democracy’s greatest champions have always been its more clear-eyed critics, holding fast to principles while unflinchingly confronting its failures. From Frederick Douglass denouncing the hypocrisy of slavery in a supposedly free republic, to Vaclac Havel’s demand to give “power to the powerless” to live in truth. The liberal tradition is animated by the tension between the real and the ideal, the determination to make the pretense of justice a reality through a persistent moral and political struggle.
I strongly believe that the collapse of this pretense is at the heart of threat to liberal democracy. It is the target of the enemies of free people. They want to destroy this pretense by exploiting the tension between the real and the ideal. Authoritarians have no use for moral pretense — their claim is to embody a higher truth that transcends mere politics, whether it be the dictatorship of the proletariat, the supremacy of the race or nation, or the divine right of rulers. Against the always-imperfect compromises of democracy, they pose a fantasy of a final solution. A definitive end to the moral and political struggle.
Their key rhetorical move is to point to the inevitable failures and hypocrisies of liberal societies as proof that their professed ideals are nothing but a sham. By relentlessly exposing the gap between liberal principles and practices, they seek to undermine faith in the very possibility of a politics based on reason, compromise, and incremental progress. The result is a corrosive cynicism that saps the moral foundations of democratic life, preparing the way for the rule of force and fraud. In this context, defending the moral pretense of liberal democracy becomes an urgent imperative. This does not mean turning a blind eye to the very real shortcomings and injustices of existing democracies, but rather reaffirming the moral horizon that allows us to recognize them as shortcomings in the first place. It means holding fast to the idea that politics can and should be more than a ruthless struggle for power, that it can be a domain of genuine moral progress, however halting and imperfect.
At the same time, of course, we must concede that moral pretense alone is insufficient. If the gap between liberal ideals and realities grows too wide, if its failures and betrayals accumulate without redress, then the credibility of the whole democratic project can be fatally undermined. Ultimately, sustaining a free society requires not just professing lofty principles, but doing the hard unglamorous work of institutionalizing them over time — and maybe even more importantly, arguing for the preservation of these ideals in the face of growing cynicism.
Which brings us to TikTok.
On one hand, the liberal commitment to free speech and open debate is a core principle that should not be compromised lightly. The precedent of banning platforms or restriction of expression is a dangerous one, given the long history of political excess here, such as the exploitation of “emergency” powers to silence critics and consolidate control. On the other hand, there is a real tension between the openness that liberal societies pride and should pride themselves on and the growing threat of manipulation and subversion by anti-democratic forces, often exploiting the very freedoms they seek to destroy. The absurdity of this tension is demonstrated in no small part by the fact that all of America’s social media platforms are banned in the People’s Republic of China, while a corporation under the control and influence of the same government, operates the largest network in America. To add to the absurdity of this notion, is the very real evidence that is in the public domain that TikTok actively suppresses content critical of China, and seemingly elevates hagiographic takes on China. An obvious influence campaign against America’s youth to convince them that the PRC is not to be feared, but instead their own government is what they should fear instead. I concede however, that finding the right balance between security and liberty, between protecting the foundations of democracy and preserving the moral high ground, is an excruciating challenge to which I can pose to you no easy answers.
There is a middle path, however: Mandating divestment rather than an outright ban, drawing a distinction between individual speech and systemic manipulation, and accepting the necessity of distasteful compromise while still upholding core principles. At the end of the day, contextual judgement — not moral absolutes — is the essense of statesmanship. We must recognize that preserving liberal democracy in a dangerous world will require not just moral clarity, but practical wisdom, and a willingness to balance competing goods and make hard choices in defense of a higher good. The higher good here, as you might guess, is holding on to the moral pretense. We must recognize the vital role these shared ideals and moral aspiration play in anchoring liberal politics, while recognizing the need for those ideals to be continually translated into practice through reform and compromise. We must chart a course through the stormy waters, brought about by the twin storms of naive idealism and cynical realpolitik.
I believe that this kind of nuanced, clear-eyed moral vision is what is urgently needed if liberal democracy is to survive and thrive in the face of multiplying threats. In an age of growing polarization, alienation, and existential danger, we must recommit ourselves to the moral foundations of a free society while honestly grappling with its failures and limitations. I believe if we’re brave enough to put away our cynicism, the candle of liberalism can continue to burn.
The fate of democracy will be decided not just in the halls of power or on the battlefield, but in the moral imaginations of us all — in our ability to hold fast to the pretense of a politics guided by something more than just force and fraud, to sustain a faith in the possibility of a world that can be even more just and even more free than the one we inherited. Daunting as the challenges are, this remains the most noble and necessary of all our human endeavours — the one on which all our futures depend.
