I examine three terms that play critical roles in the legitimation of the American state—liberty, equality, and representation. When the definitions of these terms are watered down, it becomes difficult for Americans to use these terms to make political demands. Some scholars try to find radical potential in these terms, but oligarchs are able to use their resources to seize control over them. Isaiah Berlin’s positive/negative binary excludes more demanding conceptions of liberty from political discourse. Some theorists try to use the concept of equality to obtain forms of liberty that have been excluded. But oligarchs succeed in pushing inferior arguments that pitch equality as a matter of “equality of opportunity” or “equality of outcome” and, more recently, as the antithesis of “equity.” I point out how the concept of representation increasingly emphasizes descriptive and symbolic kinds of representation. These forms of representation do not produce meaningful action on behalf of working people. They are compatible with a gridlocked political system. Increasingly, undemanding versions of liberty and equity are paired with superficial forms of representation. Many Americans do not have access to the kind of civic education that would allow them to be influenced by these discussions, however.