Katie Miller Thinks Classical Liberalism Is Woke Leftism. She's Wrong.
How are the Millers going to defend Western civilization if they don't know the name of its defining philosophy?
Katie Miller is a conservative podcaster and former spokesperson for the Trump administration. She was briefly involved with the Department of Government Efficiency, but left government employment to work for Elon Musk full time. In August 2025, she quit that job too, and launched her own podcast, The Katie Miller Podcast. She is married to Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy.
One would hope that an individual who has spent so much time in close proximity to high-ranking conservative political figures—and who is married to the avatar of a very particular brand of conservatism, New Right populism/nativism—might be able to properly define classical liberalism, an extremely well-known philosophy that undergirds the entire American project.
Alas, Katie Miller recently issued a warning on X that betrayed a fundamental ignorance about classical liberalism: She is conflating it with leftism, and for good measure, wokeness.
The post in question was an attack on Chris Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, an AI company. Miller expressed concern about Olah's stated commitment to "the principles of classical liberal democracy."
"If this is what they say publicly, this is how their AI model is programmed," she wrote. "Woke and deeply leftist ideology is what they want you to rely upon."
Co-Founder of Anthropic: "My deep loyalty is to the principles of classical liberal democracy."
If this is what they say publicly, this is how their AI model is programmed.
Woke and deeply leftist ideology is what they want you to rely upon. https://t.co/OkyxhOPiRU
— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) January 26, 2026
She is clearly saying that "classical liberal democracy" and "woke and deeply leftist ideology" are one and the same. They are not.
Classical liberalism is the forerunner of modern libertarianism: It is a philosophy that emphasizes individual rights, including civil rights and property rights. Classically liberal thinkers such as John Locke helped establish the notion that government should be accountable to the people. Economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo used classical liberalism as a guiding principle when arguing in favor of free markets and free trade. In the realm of government, the political leaders associated with classical liberalism and laissez faire economic policies are people such as former President Calvin Coolidge, former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Argentinian President Javier Milei. Note that these figures are not exactly defined by their love of wokeness. To the extent that "wokeness" is even a coherent set of views, it emphasizes collective rights for various identity groups instead of the individual-rights framework of classical liberalism.
Leftists tend to agree with classical liberals and even most conservatives on some broad principles, like the notion that people should elect their leaders. But modern liberals, progressives, and leftists tend to disagree sharply with classical liberals and libertarians on economics: They want much more government regulation, taxation, and centralized government control of the economy. On these issues, leftism bears a closer resemblance to the version of conservatism advocated by Stephen Miller—who supports tariffs and extreme restrictions on immigrant labor—than it does to classical liberalism.
Katie Miller's former boss, Musk, seems to understand this much better than she does. In a reply on X on March 8, 2024, he wrote: "I believe in liberalism in the sense [of] supporting freedom of thought and action, but modern liberalism is the opposite of that." In other words, he was drawing a distinction between the classical liberalism of, say, America's Founding Fathers and the modern liberalism of former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Stephen Miller frequently talks in apocalyptic terms about threats to Western civilization. Given this, one might hope that the Miller household could easily provide the name of Western civilization's defining political philosophy. Hint: It's classical liberal democracy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Stupid chicks.
Dumb broads.
The 19A was a mistake.
She looks about 14 years old, of course she doesn't know anything.,,
*looks up her age*
Oh wow, uh, that's really sad.
It is absurd to connect classical liberalism with anything MAGA does, for MAGA rejects personal freedom, equality under the law, and free speech.
Equality under the law and the recognition of when/are people were not equal under the law is the foundation of wokeism.
Well, Robby, here we are.
Like decimate has come to mean totally destroy instead of the proper usage to kill one tenth, liberal, in any context, regardless of any qualifiers, is now the title for all those who prefer total government control of the lives of all citizens (and illegals, I suppose)
I guess, in the end, Humpty Dumpty was right.
Ironically, and as noted in Reason articles before, Trump is proving to be surprisingly liberal at least in the American use of the term.
I do believe there is a qualitive difference between the ideals of Anglo-American classical liberalism and the liberalism of the French Enlightenment and Revolution which emphasizes "equality" over "liberty". Unfortunately, the French version has more adherents in the West, including the American political Left. "Liberalism" is rather illiberal these days.
If that were true, they'd have put Egalité ahead of Liberté
Seriously Robby, why did you cut off the rest of his comment in your screenshot where he says, "a federal agent killing an ICU nurse for seemingly no reason and with no provocation"?
Her comment probably has more to do with the ignorance he expressed in his comment and the fact that his comment has nothing to do with classical liberalism except in a performative sense.
Its not a screenshot, its an embedded tweet. X/Twitter are normally responsible for how embedded tweets are displayed, as everyone just uses their APIs, as Reason does in this article.
Part of the issue is that the left has seized the word "liberal" to mean their own brand of authoritarian socialism. I've commented on this time and again without gaining traction. As much as I hate giving up on the word liberal, we need to be careful to use something else (I've suggested "leftism") for that brand of foolishness and that we be consistent in using "libertarianism" and (unfortunately) get away from the phrase "classical liberalism" for personal responsibility and individual liberty.
Dunno. They changed the definition of liberal so I became a libertarian. Then they changed the definition of libertarian. I now identify as a malcontent.
I have joined The Professor's 'rational anarchist' philosophy.
The left only coopted the term liberal during the time when progressive was both R and D. By about FDRs time progressive Rs stopped being a significant part of Rdom which is when the left used progressive instead.
In fact however, it was the laissez faire corporatist crowd of the early 2000s that coopted liberal by attaching the word classical liberal to it. Because classical liberal sounds traditional and conservative compared to corporatist whore.
The Tory party in Canada called itself 'Progressive Conservative' from the 40's to early this century.
Except "corporatist" is closer to Democrat "progressivism" actually is in terms of policy. See the ACA.
I don't frequently say liberals always lie for a reason.
This is standard post-liberal thought. The argument being along the lines that the equality and egalitarianism that are the basis of classical liberalism are the same demands wokeness has just without your preconceived notions on the limits of those things. There is a reason classical liberals have a hard time arguing against the woke until after it's too late and it's because they want the same thing in the same terms but the woke are following the Alynsky playbook of making classical liberals live up to their ideals well past the point of reason.
Classical liberalism relies on honest discourse. When a douchebag refers to an armed individual involved in active protest who violates the law in front of federal agents and then actively resists arrest as simply an "ICU nurse", they are not interested in honest discourse.
Honestly I am sympathetic to this woman's confusion. Reason editors conflate classical liberalism with wokeness every day.
Disclaimer: Reason is not responsible for your lack of basic reading comprehension.
And some Reason posters confuse capitalism with leftism
"apocalyptic terms about threats to Western civilization."
The greatest threats to western civilization have almost always been ... western civilization. Politicians' lust for power almost always trumps free enterprise, liberty and limited government. The notion that The People institute government to serve them is usually undermined by the people actually requiring government to SERVE them with other peoples' money.
Katie Miller Thinks Classical Liberalism Is Woke Leftism. She's Wrong.
I have no idea who Katie Miller is, but just on the context of her tweet, that isn't what she appears to be saying.
It appears that she's calling out someone who claims to be a classical liberal as being a woke in sheep's clothing. You know, like Nick Gillespie.
I have no idea who Katie Miller is
Like Nick Fuentes, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you understand that she's wrong, is politically right to the right of Bill Ayers, and is therefor representative of everything wrong with expecting social stability and resisting violent social upheaval.
This is the same magazine that, when Ted Cruz came out against Donald Trump as having New York-style *L*iberal *D*emocrat values, even naming people like Weiner, Cuomo, and Bloomberg, went with "Ted Cruz opposes *l*iberal *d*emocratic values".
One day you might wake up and realize that expecting social stability and being able to implement it might be two completely different things. Some of the most effectively repressive regimes in human history were not able to bring about social stability, although they caused a lot of misery in the process. And some of us would not want to live in a world created by the likes of you and Katie Miller if you were able to enforce it. Sic semper tyrannis!
Just because you expect social stability to result from the implementation of fascism does not mean that you and Katie will be able to deliver on your expectations. The rest of us are not required to accept your unsupported assertions. I do not necessarily object to your desires for social stability, but I do seriously disagree with you about what desirable form that stability should take, or what it would be like if you succeeded.
>How are the Millers going to defend Western civilization if they don't know the name of its defining philosophy?
Because Classical Liberalism today isn't the same as it was 50 years ago. The Left, as they do, killed it, skinned it, and our now wearing it as a skin suit.
Or do you think Britain is a classically liberal society? France? Germany? Canada? Australia? What do they do that has any resemblance to classical liberalism? Because they have an election periodically? How's that been working out? The Brits voted to leave the EU and the British establishment deliberately neutered that into an only-in-name Brexit.
They also had Tories run on limiting immigration and they did the exact opposite in office. Just like Republicans in the USA.
When Democrats go on and on about "saving democracy", it is always by passing incredibly fascist laws or just openly supporting and endorsing mass election fraud.
As you've already established that you're in favour of mass murder of political opponents, complaining about Democratic fascism is at least marginally hypocritical.
Their fascism is why I advocate their culling.
For the sake of humanity.
You call yours RINO's. We call ours 'Tory Wets'.
And that will never change as long as clueless echo chamber denizens such as yourself keep insisting that the only alternative to the Democrats is you Republicans. The tyranny of the socialists or the tyranny of the fascists. No thanks ...
Katie Miller Thinks Classical Liberalism Is Woke Leftism.
Can you really blame her when Reason is the self-appointed champion of classical Liberalism?
This is why the silly people who split from the Libertarian Party to form the "LIberal Party" are doomed to fail - because no one will understand what they really mean.
It doesn't matter whether it's prefixed with Classical, Progressive, Neo, Bactrian or Dromedary, anytime you hear the word "liberal", it means your town will be receiving 10,000 Somalis and your daughter will pee with the trannies.
"Classical" liberalism, my ass!
"Beware the hounds of hell," said the captain. "There are dogs and there are dogs, and there are dogs. Three different kinds, and in this port drive them all from your presence."
--Roger Zelazny, Lord of the Light
Um ... Zelazny's novel is titled, "Lord of Light" not "Lord of the Light."
"Classical liberalism is the forerunner of modern libertarianism: It is a philosophy that emphasizes individual rights, including civil rights and property rights."
That's *one interpretation* of classical liberalism. The history of liberalism, even in its "pure" and "uncorrupted" form, is not inherently libertarian.
I hate to pile on Thomas Jefferson, but there's no denying he sympathized with the French Revolution, and not in what I'd call libertarian terms, as seen in this January 1793 letter (I've made an extended quote so you won't think I'm cherry-picking):
"In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, and shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue and embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have hesitated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-25-02-0016
If Jefferson himself wasn't a classical liberal, then words have no meanings.*
Thus, there were authoritarian tendencies in classical liberalism from the beginning.
*And I suppose it's unnecessary to mentiion that Jefferson had slaves but also denounced slavery. This is an instance of the famous liberal double standard.
What didn't you understand about the word "forerunner" in that context? Jefferson was not a libertarian. He was undoubtedly a classical liberal. How does that negate the opinion that classical liberalism was the forerunner of libertarianism? Liberty is not pure freedom. Liberty is the maximum possible amount of individual freedom consistent with the equal right to freedom of everyone else.
How are the Millers going to defend Western civilization if they don't know the name of its defining philosophy?
Uh, Robby, Western Philosophy's defining philosophy is somewhere between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It's literally the Western split of the Holy Roman Church/Empire from Eastern Orthodoxy.
From there, Protestantism/Anglicanism is probably next in line. Among the earliest "victories" or land marks of Classical Liberalism was religious tolerance of the Church of England to Catholics and what would later be the Puritans.
Formalized Classical Liberalism as we know it came much, much later. When we trace Classical Liberalism and "Western Philosophy" back through republican democracy to Ancient Greece and before, it's "Western" because we trace it back on that side of these schisms.
"Stephen Miller frequently talks in apocalyptic terms about threats to Western civilization. "
Here's an interesting book that claims that 'Western Civilization' isn't really Western at all. It's Scythian.
https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=142865768
The Scythians were semi nomadic horsemen of central Asia. The book argues not only the Scythian origins of Anarcharsis, but also Zoroaster and Laozi. 3 seminal figures of philosophy.
And if you were curious, yes, the Scythians were woke as hell.
They practiced a particular form of divination which used the inner bark of the linden tree, unlike the methods of traditional Scythian soothsayers which used willow withies.[8] The Enarei divined by cutting the inner linden bark into three pieces, and plaiting and unplaiting these pieces around their fingers to obtain answers.[9][6] For Scythians in Russia, linden then became a symbol for the third gender, or for people who are feminine-presenting and born male. (from Wikipedia}
Also, the Amazon, dreaded female warriors skilled in archery, riding and fighting, were Scythians.
More bullshit history revision.
It's not revisionism. Beckwith is a historical linguist and bases his arguments on language primarily. Archeology and history is secondary. You may not approve of his findings, but you should at least read his book before condemning it. The Axial Age has long been a fascination with me, and Beckwith ggives us a new look with a linguistic twist, so I was doubly interested.
The Amazons were fictional and it's hilarious that you think warbows are 'women's weapons' when they require a lot of arm and back strength to use.
But I guess you get it from DND?
Maybe these Amazons were men dressed as women. Given the wokeness of the Scythians, it remains an intriguing possibility, don't you think?
Anyway according to wikipedia:
Speculation that the idea of Amazons, specifically the Amazons known to the Greeks, contains a core of reality is based on archaeological discoveries at kurgan burial sites in the steppes of southern Ukraine and Russia. The varied war weapon artifacts found in graves of numerous high-ranking Scythian and Sarmatian warrior women have led scholars to conclude that the Amazonian legend has been inspired by the real world: About 20% of the warrior graves on the lower Don and lower Volga contained women dressed for battle similar to how men dress. Armed women accounted for up to 25% of Sarmatian military burials.[27] Russian archaeologist Vera Kovalevskaya asserts that when Scythian men were abroad fighting or hunting, women would have to be able to competently defend themselves, their animals, and their pastures.[93]
Funny. No it wasn't Katie Miller who made that BS association.
It was [D]emon-crap with their fluffy-the-BS propaganda that distorted that association.
What's so "classical liberal" about [WE] Identify-as RULES "democracy"?
Woke is but a religion of [WE] Identify-as [D]emon-crap gangsters
who think they should RULE obsolete
because they tacked on the fluffy-the-BS label of "democracy".
Democracy =/= Classical Liberalism. Contrary to what the BSers are selling.
Robby going after his competition! Not gonna lie I can dig it.
Yeah, some people think that government "may" tell people what to do despite such fact that people accept and defer to what they already allow government to represent, such as speed limits on the highway or the right to let oneself be arrested -- poignantly legally -- in exchange for the concomitant public record of a fair trial. When people resort to doing what government wants them to do -- an abstract shortcut for any given rational act -- they eliminate the middle man and surgically remove classical liberal means & method ;-D I am thinking that there must be a good reason to check one's relevant actions in regards to a matter of being in a specific place that someone owns, manages, or otherwise represents as manager thereof. I am thinking that they do not investigate their own thoughts nor those of others in a capacity of critique that supports a need for a relevant act of government -- a government product -- under scrutiny.
You can try the law or go the way of republicanism (the part of the US constitution that mentions guarantee of a representative form of government, article IV, section 4). You may even do both (most common). But you can (in trials that do not require a jury) let a judge decide your verdict or let a jury decide your verdict. And that much prior to acting or after having acted.
Once you know your way around, are you woke because you know effectively how to fight or are you anti-woke because you are afraid someone could have you in their pocket?
...Or maybe Anti-Woke because 'representative form of government' w/o a *Constitutional* Gov-Gun-Use LIMIT turns-into racist *entitlement* (i.e. [WE] Identify-as RULES) to Gov-Gun STEAL other people's sh*t and dictate them which is no different than what the German Nazi's did.
The Wealth-Distribution (i.e. Gov-Gun THEFT) is the culprit behind [WE] Identify-as gets to STEAL from those 'icky' Identify-as people. Because 'Guns' don't actually make sh*t.
Thus. It is not 'democracy' (representative form of government) that ensures Liberty. It is in fact 100% ensured by the Constitution (honoring it as a Supreme Law) LIMITING Government beyond representation (Anti-Democracy).
The only humanitarian asset a monopoly of 'Gun'-Force (Gov) has the ability to provide....
Is to ensure Individual Liberty & Justice for all.
STEALING from those 'icky' people because [WE] Identify-as 'poor' or 'minority' is the opposite of Liberty or Justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
To use Java terminology, classical liberalism was the base class on which libertarianism was built on, adding and subtracting ideas. At the time of the US revolution, classical liberalism was in the process of being built all over the world. . So our founding fathers were not "pure" classical liberals as it hadn't been totally built . Progressivism as created in the late 1800s was completely different and absorbed some of the thinking of democratic socialism. As we entered the 1900s, progressivism and classical liberalism were totally different movements.
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/RMuKEBqccoZZ12JtWprBe
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/QqKHcUnQ5zZAASPsDSeTr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_USA
'Mostly agree with the article, except, I disagree with the notion that classical liberalism is the forerunner of modern libertarianism. Anarchy is the forerunner of modern libertarianism, and classical liberalism is the forerunner of two largely defunct philosophies: Old time Republicanism (Nixon and before) and Old time Democrats (Carter and before).
The harder you try to hit the target, the farther from the bullseye the arrow is likely to strike. If your goal is general prosperity, the more you let regulators control trade the less prosperity there will be generally, although a few favored individuals may prosper from the largesse that always accompanies regulators. I believe this is a general rule in all societies throughout human history. Liberty is not only to be desired for its own sake, but also because it tends to work best to achieve goals that most of us desire within society. Power hungry politicians, of course, do not want what is best for the rest of us, although they would like to fool us into thinking that they have our best interests at heart.
Also, anarchy is not any kind of philosophy. It is not a system that can be established intentionally. Throughout human history, anarchy is usually the immediate aftermath of the failure of other social systems.
"Throughout human history"
Real anarchy is pre historical. Once writing is introduced, the state and a bureaucracy is already firmly rooted. So, throughout human pre history, anarchy was the norm.