Romanians came dangerously close to voting away their post-communist successes. In choosing Nicușor Dan over George Simion in its presidential election, Romania may have decided not to burn down the house, but only barely. That nearly half of Romanians supported a populist demagogue who questions Romania’s commitments to the European Union and NATO is a major crack in Europe’s democratic wall.

The irony is suffocating: While the Romanian people ultimately made the right choice, the leadership of the United States—the very country that built and led the postwar liberal world order—was quietly rooting for the other side. From Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Vladimir Putin to the autocratic rulers of petrostates in the Gulf, President Donald Trump’s affections clearly lie with strongmen and ideologues, not democrats or transatlantic institutions. It is hard to overstate what a reversal this is for America—the one-time anchor of the free world.

There have been warning signs for years: Orbán’s consolidation of power in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s suffocation of Turkish democracy, and the recurring popularity of Putin in Russia. In Western Europe, the far-right continues to surge—from AfD in Germany to the National Rally in France to Reform UK riding the anger left behind by Brexit. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Democrats—despite facing a convicted felon in Trump—just lost both houses of Congress and the presidential popular vote for the first time in two decades. That alone should alarm anyone who cares about truth, norms, or basic democratic values.

The defenders of liberal democracy seem lost. They know that a dark tide is rising, but they rarely ask why. They condemn voters for drifting rightward, but they rarely question how they might have contributed. It is not enough to defeat the Simions of the world at the ballot box. We must understand why they nearly win—and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

For one, liberalism itself has come to be associated with a cultural orthodoxy that many ordinary people no longer recognize as their own. What used to be a politics of tolerance and inclusion is now seen—often rightly—as obsessed with identity, hypersensitive to offense, and incapable of self-criticism. Wokeness has turned into a kind of substitute religion for the progressive elite. And it is driving people away. The constant focus on gender identity, the erasure of distinctions in the name of inclusion, the rigid enforcement of new social codes—all of it has alienated working people and made the term „liberal“ toxic in many parts of the world.

Many who vote for right-wing populists live in real hardship. Which brings us to the second point: corruption. In too many democracies—Romania very much among them—liberalism has been marred by corruption tolerated or even encouraged by those in power. People feel lied to. They were promised Western standards and the rule of law, but instead found elites enriching themselves while pretending to care about values. When citizens are told that liberal democracy prizes fairness but see a judiciary that bends to power and politicians who steal with impunity, why would they defend it?

The economic model that has underpinned the liberal order since the end of the Cold War has also failed too many people. The past 40 years of globalization produced enormous growth—but the gains were unequally distributed. While cities boomed and a class of global professionals emerged, large segments of the population stagnated. Wages didn’t rise. Job security vanished. Inequality exploded. In Eastern Europe, the disparity is even more stark: the promise of catching up with the West came true for some, but many remain in grinding poverty. When liberal democracy appears to mean unchecked capitalism and chronic unfairness, its appeal fades.

This is why economic nationalism is not going away. It’s not a passing phase or a quirk of Trumpism. It’s a cry of protest against jobs being outsourced, industries being hollowed out, and entire communities being sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. People were never really asked whether they agreed to the global bargain of cheaper goods in exchange for deindustrialization, labor market insecurity, and the erosion of local control. Yes, the system produced iPhones and falling prices. But it also brought misery to millions. The political backlash is not irrational.

Immigration, too, plays a role. For years, mainstream liberal parties insisted that all cultures are equal and that identity is fluid. But most people do not believe that. They value their national cultures and want them preserved. They don’t want to be told that preferring one’s own culture is racist. They reject the idea that borders are immoral or that their societies should absorb limitless newcomers with vastly different traditions and values.

These are not fringe concerns. They are a major reason liberal democracy is under siege. If its defenders do not adjust, they will lose, not because the alternatives are better—they are not—but because too many people have concluded that the system isn’t working for them, and that its leaders refuse to listen.

Romania’s narrow escape should be studied and learned from. The country nearly handed itself over to a man who would have endangered everything it built since communism: its integration into Europe, its place in the democratic world, and its fragile political maturity. And Romania not an isolated case. If even the U.S. government is cheering for those who would unmake the liberal order, then that order is in existential danger.

The way forward is not to abandon liberalism, but to save it—from its worst excesses, its blind spots, and its tone-deaf elites. We must separate liberal democracy from the ideological baggage that now surrounds it. We must champion free speech, not cancel culture. We must embrace fair markets, not rigged ones. We must protect borders while treating migrants humanely. We must celebrate national cultures without falling into chauvinism.

Most of all, we must renew faith in the idea that democracy can deliver freedom, fairness, and dignity for ordinary people. That idea is still worth fighting for. But if we continue to ignore what drove people toward Simion and others like him, we may not be so lucky next time.

Mihai Razvan Ungureanu is the former prime minister and foreign minister of Romania, headed the country’s external intelligence service, and is a professor of history at the University of Bucharest.

Dan Perry was the first post-communist AP correspondent in Romania and later led the agency in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean; he is the author of two books and publishes „Ask Questions Later“ at danperry.substack.com.

In the article titled „Rumanía repite las elecciones presidenciales entre la fatiga política y el auge ultranacionalista“ (Romania repeats presidential elections amid political fatigue and the rise of ultranationalism), Sebastian Schäffer, director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe (IDM), provides insight into the potential outcomes of the Romanian presidential elections for the Spanish public radio and television service RTVE. 

Schäffer notes that if George Simion, the ultranationalist candidate, wins the first round, his success in the second round will largely depend on his opponent. He questions the willingness of other parties to collaborate in opposing Simion, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding potential alliances and their impact on the election’s outcome. 

This commentary reflects the broader concerns about the political landscape in Romania, where the rise of ultranationalist sentiments and the fragmentation of traditional political alliances could significantly influence the direction of the country’s leadership. 

For more detailed information, you can read the full article (in Spanish) here.