This article considers the rhetoric of hope in politics and the question what exactly is meant when political movements promise to restore hope. It argues that there are ideals of justice where we cannot reasonably expect agreement with other citizens but still can and should hope for such agreement if other citizens can be seen as at least committed to extending justice. The downfall of the rhetoric of hope can be explained by the realization that there is not as broad a basis for an extension of justice as perhaps previously thought of.