For the first time in many years, Puerto Rico became a notable political topic during this year’s presidential election cycle. This attention stemmed from controversial “jokes” made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe who referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage” during a Trump rally at Madison Square Garden. Regardless of the intended humour, which was poorly received by many within the Puerto Rican community in the United States, the remarks seemingly had no impact on the election results.

　　Despite this incident, which thrust Puerto Rico into the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, it underscores a broader issue: the island’s marginalisation in US political discourse. The two main political parties in Washington, DC, show little interest in the island outside of election cycles or when seeking campaign donations. Yet, Puerto Rico deserves greater attention from those who value liberty and sound public policy. It offers a vivid case study of the dangers posed by a political paradigm that prioritises government intervention over individual freedom, expecting the state to address every conceivable issue arising from human conduct.

　　Puerto Ricos role as a critical test case arises from its ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, in which some outstanding issues have been left unresolved since 2017. The financial crisis was a direct result of the fiscal mismanagement that has long characterised Puerto Rican governance, marked by high spending, excessive debt, and persistent deficits. In 2015, the administration of Governor Alejandro García Padilla, continuing these unsustainable policies, acknowledged the islands worsening fiscal position and decided to halt debt servicing. However, as Puerto Rico, an American jurisdiction functioning as a state, was not allowed to file for bankruptcy under US law, the local legislature attempted to enact its own bankruptcy law. This effort was ultimately struck down by the US Supreme Court.

　　In 2016, Congress and President Obama intervened to avert a fiscal catastrophe for Puerto Rico. Recognising the islands critical role in the municipal bond market, the Obama administration, in collaboration with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). Inspired by the increasing use of Chapter 9 bankruptcy provisions to address financial crises in US municipalities and the establishment of oversight boards, PROMESA created the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (FOMB) to oversee the island’s bankruptcy proceedings. The Act aimed to restore Puerto Rico’s access to capital markets and achieve fiscal stability by implementing pro-growth reforms and fostering financial responsibility.

　　Yet, eight years after PROMESAs implementation, the island’s challenges persist. The FOMB continues to exert control, with Puerto Rico still unable to regain access to capital markets or issue debt under viable conditions. Moreover, the island has yet to implement sound fiscal and economic strategies that address immediate challenges while fostering long-term prosperity. While the FOMBs sustained presence can partly be ascribed to its own measures—or failures—the persistent fiscal and economic stagnation runs deeper. At its core, this stagnation reflects Puerto Ricos reliance on a deeply entrenched political paradigm for political action that has bred policies detrimental to the island.

　　The dominant political paradigm in Puerto Rican public policy asserts that government intervention is the essential remedy for every problem, hardship, or evil arising from human conduct. This framework has perpetuated policies of high spending, excessive debt, heavy taxation, and persistent deficits, ultimately consigning the island to its current economic and fiscal malaise. Crucially, this paradigm is not limited to specific administrations or political factions; it transcends party lines and permeates the islands political culture. Despite the alternation of political parties in power and the emergence of a new opposition faction in the latest Puerto Rican election cycle promising change, almost all political actors continue to operate within this same framework. Even more concerning is the paradigms influence on the island’s political narrative, where discussions—ranging from politicians and the media to the average Puerto Rican—consistently frame problems and potential solutions with a common refrain: the government must act.

　　The paradox of trust arises when the trust voters extend to political actors is not reciprocated.

　　The dominance of this paradigm in Puerto Rico—and undoubtedly across much of the West—can be traced to what Kenneth Minogue identified in The Liberal Mind as the mindset of the modern liberal and its influence on political activity. This mindset rejects the complexities of human conduct and assumes that a perfect society can be achieved if, as Minogue writes, “a new understanding of politics” is adopted—one that regards politics as merely “a technical activity like any other.” The modern liberal’s technical approach begins by defining an ideal—a perfect society—and identifying the obstacles to its realisation. These obstacles, which Minogue terms suffering situations, are invariably framed as problems necessitating government intervention. As a result, the scope of legitimate political action expands dramatically, justified by the pursuit of this ideal. However, as Minogue astutely observed, the complexities of human conduct make the ideal unachievable. Consequently, the modern liberal becomes perpetually engaged in a crusade, continually politicising every aspect of human conduct and battling both familiar and emerging dragons that are perceived as barriers to this elusive utopia.

　　The modern liberal (ideological) mindset has profoundly influenced political activity and discourse, presents an intriguing enigma we might call the paradox of trust. A central theme in Western political thought is the issue of political legitimacy—the justification for the state’s authority and the individuals obligation to obey its rules—seeking to reconcile individual freedom with authority within a voluntary association. While various theoretical responses address this concern, in practical or popular terms, many view the democratic process of elections as the means of conferring legitimacy on the transient administration in power. Through the ballot box, voters place their trust in political actors, believing them either to be best suited or the least undesirable option for governing the state’s affairs.

　　The paradox of trust arises when the trust voters extend to political actors is not reciprocated. Instead, political actors often pursue policies that reflect little faith in individuals’ capacity to manage their own affairs, while nationalising trust in their own judgment to determine what is best for the individual. This lack of trust in individual freedom is unsurprising, as the modern liberal—and the broader ideological mindset—attributes much of humanitys suffering, imperfections, and societal ills to individuals freely pursuing their own felicity and moral identity. From the ideologue’s perspective, salvation lies in placing trust in government to determine what is best and adopting the political paradigm that every problem demands a government-provided solution. Only through this approach, the ideologue believes, can the ideal of a perfect society be achieved.

　　The Economic Freedom of North America 2023 report by the Fraser Institute highlights the detrimental impact of this entrenched political paradigm on Puerto Rico’s economy. The island ranks dead last in economic freedom among all 50 US states and fares worse than every province in Canada. This low ranking is indicative of policies that stifle economic growth and development. For example, Puerto Rico boasts the highest corporate tax rate in the world, at 37.5 percent. Additionally, Puerto Rico has the largest proportion of public sector workers relative to its total workforce, coupled with one of the lowest labour participation rates globally. This is not to mention the suffocating amount of regulation on businesses.

　　This represents only a small fraction of the malaise that this paradigm of political action has inflicted upon Puerto Rico. Nonetheless, the results of the 2024 election cycle in Puerto Rico offered marginal signs of hope. These are reflected in the incorporation of narratives centred on individual liberty and economic freedom into Puerto Rican political discourse by candidates from major parties, ranging from the GOP-aligned Governor-elect Jennifer González to candidates from smaller parties such as Proyecto Dignidad. Nevertheless, even the adoption of policies more conducive to liberty in Puerto Rico will not suffice. To secure the future of liberty in Puerto Rico, the damaging political paradigm that has long dominated its politics must undergo a significant shift.

　　That shift must begin at the theoretical level, grounded in conceptions that provide its foundation. First, the state should be conceived as a civil association, where individuals, operating within a framework of laws, pursue their own felicity and moral identity. This leads, secondly, to a particular view of politics—not as a zero-sum game or a crusade to save the world, but as a limited endeavour. In this view, political doctrines, each holding equal value and none possessing the entirety of wisdom regarding political problems, engage in dialogue to shape and refine the framework of laws governing the civil association.

　　In The Anatomy of Thatcherism, Shirley Letwin outlines the steps necessary to establish a liberty-friendly political paradigm. The process begins with identifying the problem, a task made more complex by the dominance of ideological thinking in modern politics, where ideologues recognise no limits to the problems they perceive. In this context, the concepts of the state as a civil association and politics as a limited exercise are crucial, as they define the boundaries of legitimate political action. An Oakeshottian view of modern life as an adventure, with its inherent challenges, provides further guidance in this identification.

　　At a practical level, Puerto Rico’s best hope may lie in the emergence of a charismatic leader to refocus the island’s moral and political direction.

　　The second step is to determine whether the issue stems from government inaction or excessive action. Given that the prevailing paradigm in Puerto Rico and the West favours government intervention in almost every matter, it is reasonable to conclude that many problems arise from excessive action. Consequently, the appropriate response is to reduce intervention and empower individuals to manage their own affairs.

　　If the problem arises from inaction, government intervention becomes necessary. However, such action must adhere to the conception of the state as a civil association and politics as a limited exercise. It should also be guided by Humean prudence—not as an absolute principle, as certain political challenges may require virtues such as courage and honour, which might be incompatible with prudence, but as an approach to politics that respects the diversity, complexity, and richness of human conduct.

　　At a practical level, Puerto Rico’s best hope may lie in the emergence of a charismatic leader to refocus the island’s moral and political direction. Shirley Letwin illustrates the potential of such a leader through Margaret Thatcher’s example. Letwin argued that the core of Thatcher’s political programme was not a radical transformation of Britain, but a moral restoration of its individualistic way of life. This restoration was needed because vigorous virtues—such as being “upright, self-sufficient, energetic, adventurous, independent-minded, loyal to friends, and robust against enemies”—were being lost or undermined. These virtues, Letwin claimed, were increasingly replaced by softer virtues, like “kindness, humility, gentleness, sympathy, [and] cheerfulness.” However, Thatcherism did not aim to abolish the softer virtues, but to emphasise the vigorous ones, even when they conflicted with the softer ones.

　　The decline of vigorous virtues, which Thatcher identified as Britain’s key issue, led to a view of the individual as morally autonomous and independent-minded. This focus on virtues also emphasised the family as the central social unit where these traits are developed. Additionally, this view of the individual and family was supported by a conceptualisation of Britain as a civil association, where laws create the conditions for individualism that strengthen the nation.

　　This vision allowed Thatcherites to identify policy problems that traditional political methods could not solve. As Letwin notes, the “paradigm shift or change of method arises necessarily from the nature of the positive vision of individuals, families, and Britain in Thatcherism.” Therefore, Thatcher’s example and the principles of Thatcherism provide valuable insights into how such a shift could be achieved.

　　Puerto Ricos struggle serves as a microcosm of broader issues facing both the United States and the Western world. The political paradigm that has dominated Puerto Rico—viewing government as the solution to every problem—mirrors a prevailing trend in many Western nations. The Puerto Rican experience offers valuable insights into the dangers of adopting liberty-oriented policies without fundamentally changing the political approach. Even if more liberty-focused policies are pursued, without a shift in the underlying political paradigm, the prospects for freedom will remain bleak. Just as Puerto Rico must transform its political paradigm both theoretically and practically, so too must the United States and other Western nations. If Puerto Rico succeeds in this endeavour, it could serve as a shining example. However, if it fails, Puerto Rico’s experience, which led to bankruptcy, will stand as a cautionary tale of what occurs when government becomes the architect of salvation rather than the people themselves.