Political commentator Juan Williams has observed that the central message of the Biden campaign for the upcoming presidential election emphasizes the critical state of democracy. However, he quickly noted a poll indicating that Americans prioritize the economy (28%) above all else, despite strong performance in stocks, employment, and wages, with democracy coming in a close second at 21%.

While maintaining that "Preserving Democracy" is the foremost concern for Democrats (37%), he pointed out that only 10% of Republicans who support Trump view the erosion of democracy as a significant issue. Instead, they focus more on the economy (46%) and immigration (30%).

During his 2024 D-Day speech, President Biden implied that Trump poses a threat to American democracy, reminding citizens of the Allies' fight against fascism. He stated, “Hitler and his followers perceived democracies as weak,” asserting that, although the Allies triumphed, we are now in a period where democracy is more vulnerable globally than at any time since World War II.

Biden challenged Americans with questions about their commitment to freedom and democracy, emphasizing that democracy is not a given, but rather a legacy that each generation must actively protect and uphold.

On occasion, Biden has directly labeled Trump’s political pursuits as “dangerous,” especially following Trump’s disparagement of the judicial system post-conviction, which prompted Biden to declare, “It’s reckless and irresponsible for anyone to claim this was rigged simply because they disagree with the verdict.”

The imagery of Biden’s apparent frailty, both in speech and movement, poignantly mirrors the global decline of liberalism, which has contributed to the rise of the Trump phenomenon.

The Democratic narrative regarding a "danger" is a notable understatement, revealing a deeper truth about the peril posed by Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. Acknowledging this threat challenges the liberal narrative that distinguishes modernity from what many consider historical barbarism.

The ascent of Trump compels liberals to reassess the historical significance of their ideology. Liberalism can be seen as akin to secular humanism, rooted in scientific, capitalist, and democratic principles that recognize the inherent rights of all individuals—not as a divine endowment, but as a natural attribute of humanity’s unique position in the animal kingdom. Liberals assert that our rights are grounded in our nature as individuals, not in supernatural beliefs.

Secular humanism underpins modernity, a period characterized by pivotal movements such as the Protestant Reformation, the European Renaissance, and the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. Throughout history, societies have often considered themselves “modern” in their own contexts. Yet, the objective progress of absolute modernity, evidenced by advances in technology and medicine, population growth, and rising living standards beyond just the elite, highlights the unique trajectory of our species during the Anthropocene.

Modern conservatism has consistently represented a façade, as traditionalist values became outdated following the medieval shift toward secular humanism. The Scientific Revolution’s advocacy for skepticism and freedom of thought has shaped the zeitgeist in both developing and developed nations, promoting a naturalistic humanism.

In this context, "development" implies a push towards progressiveness, distinct from the theological notions of Christendom. These nations aim to advance pragmatically, relying on human ingenuity and collaboration to tackle challenges, or risk succumbing to the indifferent forces of nature.

The conservative desire to revert to an ancient or medieval societal structure stems from their authoritarian inclinations. Rather than worshipping an abstract deity, conservatives tend to venerate the enduring stability of time-tested institutions. However, such stability often reflects inhumanity, manifesting in systems like slavery, patriarchy, and aristocracy.

Liberalism, therefore, exists precariously in a vast, indifferent cosmos. It resembles a fragile island buffeted by relentless waves, constantly at risk of being submerged. The principles of liberalism, secular humanism, and modernity are precarious, standing in stark opposition not only to historical patterns but also to the amoral forces of evolution.

Ultimately, liberal parties advocate for a Promethean revolt against conservative dogmas and the harsh realities of nature, recognizing that the universe’s apparent lack of divinity renders our ideals vulnerable to extinction. Nevertheless, liberals cling to the belief that through intelligence and creativity, we can elevate ourselves above nature’s indifference, transforming untamed regions into thoughtfully constructed societies.

Is Trump truly a “dangerous” threat to democracy? Or, employing bureaucratic language, might we say his actions are “inappropriate”?

Such understatement belies the severity of the situation. Trumpism represents a facet of the global authoritarian backlash against democratic values, neoliberalism, and the excesses of consumerism. The challenge lies in the fact that one dimension of liberalism has overshadowed others, particularly capitalism. Ironically, while capitalism originated as a progressive force against feudalism, its unregulated form has led to illiberal outcomes, mirroring the economic disparities of the Gilded Age.

Trump, alongside other recent authoritarian leaders like Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán, Recep Erdo?an, Vladimir Putin, and Benjamin Netanyahu, exploits the vulnerabilities of liberalism, revealing the fragility of secular humanism against the backdrop of nature’s unpredictability and the authoritarian tendencies of conservatives.

Conservatives uphold hierarchical structures that clarify power differentials, allowing the powerful to dominate the weak—a notion rooted in social Darwinism. In contrast, humanists celebrate personhood, recognizing that while nature values power, what is sacred to humanity is our self-awareness, intelligence, and creativity. Humanists prioritize what it means to be human, rather than the broader patterns of the universe that operate with unyielding precision.

While nature exhibits unparalleled creativity, it has also birthed humanity, a species capable of grappling with the emptiness of nature and striving for progress amidst adversity. Unlike religious adherents who may rely on divine intervention, liberals understand that there is likely no simple solution to life’s complexities, leading to inevitable missteps in our quest for advancement.

The founders of modern America proclaimed equal rights for all but fell short by failing to abolish slavery or patriarchy. Recognizing our identity and values requires time, insight, and courage, making the ancient Greek aphorism "Know thyself" a daunting challenge.

Liberals must contend with the reality that not all individuals have achieved the same level of enlightenment. They face the burdens of religious fundamentalism, authoritarian tendencies, and cognitive biases that complicate progress. The journey toward enlightenment resembles David facing Goliath—without divine support.

Is Trump "dangerous"? Indeed, but mainly in a way that transcends the implications of Biden’s rhetoric. The true peril of Trumpism lies in its existential betrayal, as it embodies nature’s indifferent brutality. Trump’s moral blindness mirrors the universe’s disregard for life’s intricacies. His narcissism serves as a political strength, akin to the raw power of nature in shaping the cosmos.

Trump’s emptiness as a person reflects nature’s godlessness confronting liberals, challenging their authority over the natural order. Like other conservatives, Trump epitomizes nature’s amoral essence, reinforcing the law of oligarchy and the corruptive nature of concentrated power. He seeks to rule America with the same detachment that nature employs in governing animal species, using individuals as mere instruments to amplify his own grandeur.

To grasp the threat posed by Trump and authoritarianism is to understand the audacity of liberalism within the vast cosmos. Trump represents a peril to democracy similar to the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid on the dinosaurs—an indiscriminate force of nature that reshaped existence.

Was the Chicxulub asteroid merely “dangerous”? Was its impact simply “inappropriate”? A more profound question emerges: what do our understated reactions to Trump reveal about a decadent stage of liberalism, one in which its advocates may lose sight of their existential humanist mission?