Prediction: 2026 Will Be a Bad Year for Postliberals Like J. D. Vance
When James M. Patterson and I began research on postliberalism, we certainly did not anticipate a postliberal in the White House. The fact the movement has made it this far shows a capacity to lift well above its weight. But postliberals face some major challenges in the next year. It is quite possible that 2026 will prove too much for them.
J. D. Vance speaks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in August 2025. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Postliberalism is not yet a household term. But it is becoming widespread among politics junkies, especially after the election of the postliberal J. D. Vance to the White House.
There are different versions of postliberalism, including a Protestant theological strand that is theoretical and harmless. The more politically active variants are mainly of two kinds: 1) the Catholic postliberalism of intellectuals like Notre Dame’s Patrick Deneen and Harvard Law’s Adrian Vermeule; and 2) the broader new-right movement that rejects what they call the “post-war liberal consensus.” The latter includes people like Tucker Carlson, Curtis Yarvin, and Auron MacIntyre. Both strands of postliberalism converge in J. D. Vance: a Catholic postliberal allied with Carlson and Yarvin.
These Catholic postliberals either reject the American Founding or reinterpret it in a way that is unrecognizable to anyone else, depending on their audience. Both Deneen and Vermeule, after all, reject key elements of modern constitutionalism, with its emphasis on separations of power and checks and balances, and they both manifest a remarkable affinity to strongmen and an aversion to political liberty. They see this model of authority as better serving the common good.
“It is possible that Pope Leo XIV, who shows no signs of sympathy with a postliberal vision (like his nuncio to the United States), decides to critique the movement explicitly. This would be a massive blow to their project, especially given this pope’s popularity.”
Things were looking pretty good for these postliberals when their man Vance moved into the White House. They are, however, already facing significant obstacles that could derail their project. This fall, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, gave a lecture titled, “Woke Culture and Post-Liberalism: The Response of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” in which he rejects the Catholic postliberalism of Deneen and Vermeule as a dead end. The cardinal is particularly critical of its authoritarian elements. This matters because the postliberals rely on the Church for much of their credibility.
Their movement suffered a blow to its Catholic legitimacy even earlier when both Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV sharply criticized Vance’s appeal to Augustine’s ordo amoris in defense of the Trump administration’s “America First” policies, particularly on immigration.
But 2026 looks even worse for these Catholic postliberals. From our vantage point, they will face three main obstacles: 1) another full year with an American pope who is highly critical of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, and who has shown significant support for Ukraine; 2) the electoral challenge to Viktor Orban, who has been a benefactor for some of these postliberals; and 3) the US midterm elections in the fall.
Regarding the first obstacle, that of the American pope, any number of challenges could emerge. It is possible that Pope Leo XIV, who shows no signs of sympathy with a postliberal vision (like his nuncio to the United States), decides to critique the movement explicitly. This would be a massive blow to their project, especially given this pope’s popularity.
Another possibility, perhaps more likely, is that Pope Leo continues his criticisms of some of the Trump administration’s policies. The most obvious potential criticism would be its handling of immigration. But Pope Leo XIV has also shown signs of having well-informed support for Ukraine and a recognition of the brutality of Putin’s regime. J. D. Vance, who once famously said he does not care what happens to Ukraine, was reported to be involved in Steve Witkoff’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into signing what amounted to a surrender agreement.
The second major obstacle facing Catholic postliberals comes in April, when Viktor Orban, who has been Prime Minister of Hungary for fifteen years, must contend with a challenger in his former ally Peter Magyar. The betting odds site Polymarket gives Magyar a 55 percent chance to win the election. That could do significant damage to the postliberal movement because both Rod Dreher and Gladden Pappin are employed by institutes funded by Orban’s government, and other postliberals receive support from Orban through fellowships, honoraria, etc. It is unlikely that Magyar would be as interested in them.
The third challenge facing the postliberals is the midterms. A recent Gallup poll had Trump’s approval rating at 36 percent. An aggregate polling site, RealClearPolling, has his approval closer to 43 percent. Still, all polling shows drops from earlier in the year. If Trump’s popularity continues to drop and if Democrats dominate the midterms, that could lead the Republican Party to rethink its relationship with radical elements of the coalition. J. D. Vance’s high support within the party might not prove as inelastic as it has been for Trump. Vance’s support would even plummet if Trump sours on Vance like he did with Mike Pence.
When James M. Patterson and I began research on postliberalism, we had no expectation that it would become politically consequential. We were mostly concerned it would hurt the Church, causing people to associate it with right-wing authoritarians and potentially lead young Catholics astray. We certainly did not anticipate a postliberal in the White House. The fact the movement has made it this far shows a capacity to lift well above its weight. But postliberals face some major challenges in the next year. It is quite possible that 2026 will prove too much for them.
