The Democratic Diaspora: Liberals Seek Safe Spaces After Democracy Prevailed In 2024

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Democrats who campaigned on the need for “joy” and “saving democracy” are strikingly unjoyful about the results of the democratic process in 2024.

Before the election, slips like the one of President Joe Biden calling Trump supporters “garbage” were immediately denied or deflected. But once voters had given the Republicans control of both houses of Congress, the popular vote and the White House, leading Democratic figures and celebrities dropped all pretense of civility. They are now being open about their contempt for voters, calling them “f—-ing morons” and “arrogant, ignorant” adolescents.

After calling for Americans to come together for Kamala Harris, MSNBC’s Joy Reid sent out a heart-warming holiday message to those who voted for the GOP to “make your own dinner, MAGA. Make your own sandwiches, wipe your own tears.”

Those not wallowing in Reid’s anger are increasingly voicing themes of isolation, insurrection and secession.

For years, the contempt for Trump voters has been open and obvious in much of the media.  The “Let’s Go Brandon” movement captured the lunacy of the press and politicians simply denying what citizens could see, hear and experience for themselves.

When asked for answers on issues like the economy and immigration, Harris paraded an army of celebrities to tell the public how to vote — shiny objects that they thought would be enough for shallow American voters.

They were wrong. Now that the public has made its choice, leading figures are condemning the majority of voters as a mix of misogynists, self-haters and fascists. Whoopi Goldberg, 69, even joined the “4B” sex strike against men. Others seem to be morphing into exactly what they said Trump would become as president: isolationist and insurrectionist.

Some have responded to the losses by retreating further into echo chambers protected from opposing views. Many dumped X in favor of BlueSky, a new social media safe space for liberals who fear being triggered by opposing views. Notably, censorship advocates such as Nina Jankowisz have fled to BlueSky.

The site is portrayed as a return to the good old days when liberals controlled all of the social media and maintained a massive censorship and blacklisting system over political discourse.

New York Times tech reporter Kevin Roose wrote a column last week that offered the familiar “I can breathe again” account: “After an hour or so of scrolling through Bluesky the other night, I felt something I haven’t felt on social media in a long time: free.”

It is the ultimate irony. This election shocked many on the left precisely because they were writing and commenting on each other within their hardened media and political silos. They are unlikely to improve themselves by receding further into that safe space to rave about the “f—ing morons” who make up the majority of America.

Other Democratic politicians have moved beyond the chest-pounding of leaders like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) to pledges of more direct obstruction or inflammatory rhetoric.

Denver mayor Mike Johnson (D) declared that he was preparing the Mile-High City for its “Tiananmen Square moment” to fight the federal government in any attempt to deport unlawful migrants. Johnson warned that he would have not only Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep [ICE] out” but also “50,000 Denverites.”

Not long ago, Democrats were calling similar protests an “insurrection.” Johnson later walked back his remarks but insisted that his city would fight federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws.

Rather than such trench warfare, most Democratic governors and mayors are simply pledging not to cooperate with federal authorities, which is a lawful choice. The concern, however, is how others will react to the overheated rhetoric for months that this will be “our last election” and that Trump is the new Hitler.

Such rage rhetoric gives people license to say and do things they would not ordinarily say or do. Leaders calling on citizens to “fight” ICE and the “fascists” can easily inspire violence, as we have seen in past years. Indeed, that was the very premise of the criminal case against Trump supported by many of these same leaders, alleging that his calls to “fight” against certification was a call for insurrection.

Some liberals are very publicly fleeing the country. Sharon Stone (who called American voters “uneducated”) is reportedly off to Canada. Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are off to a mansion in Cotswolds in England. Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman is also reportedly exploring a departure from the country after his millions of dollars failed to produce a victory for Kamala Harris.

Some, however, want to take part of the country with them. New York State Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Upper East Side) has received praise for her call for New York to join Canada. Where Alexandre Dumas believed that ‘Nothing succeeds like success,” some believe that, after losing an election, nothing succeeds quite like secession.

Krueger previously sought to block Trump from the ballot in the name of protecting democracy. That would have barred the 45 percent of New Yorkers who voted for the president-elect, but those voters would find themselves either Canadians or refugees under her proposal.

Krueger suggested that secession simply makes sense when the majority of the country disagrees with you. She believes New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont could form a new Canadian province.

“I got back some unofficial responses and heard this is probably sellable in Ottawa,” she said.

“And look, if we were Europe, in the length of time we’ve been a nation, for Canada, if we were European countries, our borders would have moved around 20 times by now, right?”

She explained that this is all just “thinking outside of the box.”

The box that she and other liberals find themselves in is called “democracy,” and they don’t like it.

Just for the record, the last time people thought “outside the box” and seceded, we got a war with roughly 700,000 people killed.

Yet, assuming New Yorkers can get used to milk in a bag and cheese curds as a snack, there may be an obvious appeal for the left in the True North. Formerly “strong and free,” Canada has become a nightmare for free speech with the ever-expanding criminalization of political speech. One professor, who said that Trump’s plans to combat censorship has left many frightened, said that if free speech protections are restored, “I will be on a plane [out of America].”

For New York Times reporters and officials alike, they will be able to “breathe again” in the controlled, regulated air of censorship countries like Canada.

The only challenge for our displaced and disgruntled diaspora will be that Canadians tend to be nice.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”