Podcast Summary

Talking Feds – "Can a New Kind Of Liberalism Take Hold?"

Host: Harry Litman
Guest: Jerusalem Demsas, Founder and Editor of The Argument
Release Date: December 4, 2025

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode centers on the prospects for a revitalized, intellectually rigorous, and inclusive form of liberalism. Host Harry Litman explores with guest Jerusalem Demsas her vision for liberalism, the mission of her new magazine The Argument, and how the left can better persuade, engage, and renew itself amid contemporary political divisions. The discussion examines liberalism not merely as partisan "leftism," but as a deeper philosophical and pragmatic tradition that must reckon with difference and pluralism in a divided America.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Mission of The Argument and a Broader Liberalism

Jerusalem unpacks her vision for a "positive, combative case for liberalism":

• Fluid Definitions: We’re at a moment where what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative" is up for debate; these definitions feel fluid and contested ([02:23]).
• Liberalism Defined: For Demsas, liberalism is a centuries-old tradition—globally developed—that prizes the individual’s rights, the equal worth of each person, and seeks ways for people with fundamentally different views to coexist in freedom ([02:23]).
• The Challenge: How to build systems—in law, culture, media—that maintain diversity and difference without infringing on freedoms ([02:23]).
• Not Ideological Purity: She stresses, “We don’t think we want to purify this country and have just one kind of person living here ... You have to figure out a way to live together. And that’s what we’re trying to do.” ([04:38])

2. Distinctive Approach: Redefining Liberalism Beyond Caricature

• Beyond the ‘Left’: Many Americans think "liberal" just means progressive social issues, but Demsas draws her lineage to classic thinkers like John Stuart Mill, and insists the movement is older and more global ([06:38]).
• Liberalism as Radical, Not Centrist: “Liberalism is not centrism. It's not moderation. Liberalism is actually quite a radical question... The idea that you think that people who think very differently about the world can live together in community ... is a very, very radical idea.” ([07:53])
• Concrete Policy Discourse: The Argument aims not just to debate high-level philosophy, but to tackle nuts-and-bolts policy debates—e.g., universal basic income, tech regulation—with real dissent and detail ([09:31]).

3. Critique of Contemporary Liberalism’s Communication

• Current Failings: Liberalism, in mainstream politics and media, often comes off as “boring” and fails to persuade ([11:53]).
• Presumption of Rightness: Many liberals assume that those who disagree are stupid, duped, or manipulated. “[This] presumes there’s no possible way for someone to reasonably disagree with you ... It’s genuinely to think you are obviously right about things.” ([12:20])
• Personal Reflection: Demsas admits, “I don’t think that, as liberals, we embodied that for a long time. I don’t think I embodied that for a long time.” ([14:04])
• The Tent and Persuasion: People who share 90% of liberal values but hesitate on a hot-button issue are demonized or deemed outside the “tent.” She calls for “actual persuasion...not just to force it down your throat, but to actually hear what you’re saying, what your worries are.” ([14:12])
• Immigration Example: As an immigrant herself, she notes liberals often struggle to answer good-faith questions about topics like crime and vetting, and instead leap to calling others xenophobic ([15:09]).

4. The Trump Era: Forward-Looking, Not Just Reactionary

• Coverage Philosophy: Demsas explains why The Argument doesn’t dwell on Trump 24/7: “Do we really need another magazine reminding people Trump is taking away their rights? ... That stuff is covered.” She believes the left needs to articulate an alternative vision, not just perpetual opposition ([18:43]).
• Influence Without Formal Power: She notes, historically, small magazines like National Review or The New Republic have had outsized impact by developing ideas and modeling internal debate, even without institutional control ([20:28]).
• Building Alternatives: “How do I create an alternative that people are actually interested in being a part of? ... I’m going to explain what I think the world should look like and ... invite people to disagree with me.” ([20:39])

5. The Argument’s Tone: Optimism and Pragmatism

• Deliberate Optimism: Litman observes the magazine’s “optimistic and less dour” tone amid progressive lament. Demsas affirms this is both her sensibility and a conscious editorial choice ([22:51]):
  • Not “toxic positivity,” but grounded in a genuine historical view of progress and human capability.
  • “It’s really, really important to remain grounded in what we can do and not to fall prey to ... inevitability ... to the loss of our rights.” ([25:15])

6. The Team and Diverse Voices

• Staff and Contributors: The staff is multidisciplinary, including Kelsey Piper (tech/education), Laksha Jain (data, polling), Derek Thompson, Matt Yglesias, Dr. Rachel Bedard, and guests spanning the ideological spectrum ([24:11]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• The Radicalism of Pluralism:
  “Liberalism is not centrism. It's not moderation. Liberalism is actually quite a radical question ... That idea ... is a very, very radical idea.”
  — Jerusalem Demsas [07:53]

• About Engaging in Real Debate:
  “The point is not to just lecture people about political philosophy. It's to have these debates at a very granular, concrete level … at the argument are around questions of universal basic income … how to regulate technology companies … not just talking at this 30,000’ view, but really, really getting into the details of what people care about.”
  — Jerusalem Demsas [09:31]

• On Liberalism’s Presumption of Rightness:
  “All of these answers basically presume that there’s no possible way for someone to reasonably disagree with you ... that you are obviously right about things and there’s no way you could be wrong from another person’s perspective.”
  — Jerusalem Demsas [12:20]

• On Platforming Debate vs. Demonization:
  “If you’re someone who agrees with liberals on 90% of stuff ... but you have some questions because you’re a religious person ... that means that you are not in the tent and that you’re an idiot or you’ve been lied to. And to me ... how do you approach that? With a question of persuasion.”
  — Jerusalem Demsas [14:12]

• About The Argument’s Mission:
  “Model what they think liberalism actually looks like. So instead of spending a lot of my time talking about how Trump is bad ... I'm going to explain what I think the world should look like and what we should do, and I'm going to invite people to disagree with me and argue with me in the pages of our magazine and on our podcast.”
  — Jerusalem Demsas [20:39]

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:23] — Jerusalem defines liberalism and the mission of The Argument
• [06:38] — Distinguishing their brand of liberalism; historical lineage
• [09:31] — Moving from philosophy to granular policy debate
• [12:20] — Critique of liberalism’s attitude toward disagreement
• [14:12] — The dangers of ideological orthodoxy and exclusion
• [18:43] — Why The Argument doesn’t focus on Trump outrage coverage
• [20:28] — The historical impact of magazines on political thought
• [22:51] — Editorial optimism and the avoidance of “toxic positivity”
• [24:11] — List of contributors and commitment to ideological diversity
• [25:15] — The importance of focusing on human progress and possibility

Tone and Approach

Throughout, Demsas brings a passionate yet pragmatic tone. She is honest about liberalism's failings, critical but hopeful about persuasion and pluralism, and insistent on the importance of rigorous, good-faith disagreement. Litman matches her with pointed, sometimes skeptical queries, but allows space for broad philosophical and practical exploration.

Conclusion

The episode explores the necessity and challenge of reimagining and reinvigorating liberalism for the modern era. It champions civil, substantive debate over ideological purity or performative outrage, and remains grounded in the conviction that liberal democracy requires both robust ideas and genuine attempts at persuasion—not just among the like-minded, but across genuine disagreement. If The Argument succeeds, it could help frame a forward-looking, inclusive, and optimistic liberal project in American discourse.