In 2016, the United States had reached a place of increasing dissociation. ‘Truth’ had become a relative term as citizens curated their own reality based on belief. Trust in corporations, the mainstream media, universities, government institutions, and ‘elites’ in general was all but gone. The digital age had fully enacted its effect on the American mind - attention spans were shortened, and tribal tensions were elevated by social media. Traditional notions like ‘family’, ‘community’, and religious belief had become outdated words instead of authentic social bonds. Drug overdose deaths were on the rise, and in an existential sense, many Americans had no real meaning or purpose in their lives.
In 2016, America was eight years removed from the 2008 financial crisis, yet those that caused the crisis had remained at the top of society, and increased their power. The separation between those with college degrees and those without had reached metaphysical levels. ‘Metaphysical levels’ meaning that the nature of reality itself between the two groups was reaching a separation point. Income inequality fed this separation, and planted the seeds of resentment. The ‘corrupt ruling class’ were seen as those individuals in mainstream media, higher education, government positions, corporate leadership, and popular entertainment.
Those at the top of society were seen as hoarding all the wealth and resources of the country for themselves. Over the past thirty years, wages for working Americans had remained stagnant compared to the cost of living - and CEO paychecks. Healthcare was still expensive and out of reach for many. While the exorbitant cost of college had left younger generations forced to carry massive amounts of student debt. The leadership of both major parties was beginning to be seen as decadent and out of touch. It had become inevitable that resentment and anger would create a response not unfamiliar to history; the unrest of populist fervor.
This was the landscape in 2016 that paved the road for former President Donald Trump to rise to power. He didn’t change the country to win the presidency. The country had changed to a point where a populist demagogue could become a viable choice. Many younger Republican politicians and some wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneurs agreed with the general premise of ‘Trumpism’. Yet in 2016 they were either hesitant or outright hostile to Trump’s candidacy because of Trump’s character and personality. Yet now in 2024, young, future looking right wing thought has merged with Trumpism to create what can be seen as the ‘New Right’.
The ascendant embodiment of the New Right is Trump’s selection as a vice presidential running mate; Ohio Senator J.D. Vance. At only 39 years of age, Vance represents the future of the new conservative movement. His mentor, tech billionaire Peter Thiel, is a thought leader within the movement. Other notable influences on New Right thought include Elon Musk, tech billionaire Marc Andreessen, political theorist Patrick Deneen, and media personality Tucker Carlson. Notable Senators who have seemingly aligned themselves with the movement include Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. None of these individuals agree on everything, yet we can still draw a general picture of what the New Right represents.
There is a general sense that government institutions have failed, and need to be purged and remade. Democracy itself is even questioned, as its perceived failure illustrates the need for ‘authoritarian’ action. This basically means that if the government is dysfunctional, then a strong leader should be empowered to take action and change things. The New Right sees immigration, ‘free trade’, and ‘globalism’ as largely responsible for the harm that has come to the American worker over the past decades. This means that nationalist trade policies, a hard line on immigration, and a retreat from global organizations are attractive remedies.
Many on the New Right see technological progress as essential, and fundamental. They believe technology is the best way to fix what has gone wrong economically in the country. This means that deregulation and limited government interference is a preference. Yet while some prefer limited government in parts of the technology sector, some want the government to enforce ‘traditional values’. Drawn from Christian belief and a desire for social order, many on the New Right are anti-abortion, advocates of religion in public life, and seeking a return to 1950’s era ‘family values’.
The media ecosystem underpinning the New Right exists mostly on YouTube, in podcasts, and on social media. ‘Free speech’ and ‘anti-woke’ sentiments are used as resentment-fueled rallying cries to whip up digital views and likes. These are the mental constructs the movement uses to create an image of ‘the enemy’. Viewers are stimulated by rants and ramblings about the ‘radical left’. For the New Right, the radical left represents the ideological capture of mainstream cultural institutions like the media and universities. This common enemy unites the New Right media ecosystem, breeds aggression, and even stirs occasional talk of civil war.
The point here is that the New Right represents a semi-coherent political response to what was described at the beginning of this writing. In 2016 the old political narratives of traditional ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ had run their course. That was the only reason Trumpism was able to succeed. But back then, there was no real Trump ideology or political coherence. It was just kind of rudderless populism mixed with narcissistic indulgence. Yet eight years later, there is a real, capable, and well funded movement to sell to American voters. The New Right is ready to offer voters a way forward to the future, and a return to ‘order’. They are ready to offer their solution to put America back together again after decades of dissociation.
I don’t know whether the New Right thinks it can dabble in authoritarian solutions without going ‘all the way’ or it has completely given up on democratic institutions. Either way, history has taught us how such inclinations end. Former President Trump never hid his authoritarian leanings in his first term. All of which culminated in the events of January 6, 2021, when he spurred his followers to storm the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election. With the Supreme Court recently granting future presidents broad immunity for any ‘official acts’, the power of the presidency is primed for tyrannical abuse.
As of this writing, former President Trump and the New Right are winning the 2024 presidential election. Their Democratic opponent, current President Joe Biden is feeble, aged, and under pressure to leave the race by members of his own party. Whether or not Biden is replaced, the Democrats will have the same problem. There isn’t a ‘New Left’ to ideologically combat the New Right. Four years ago, when Biden won the presidency, the simple political slogan of ‘Trump is bad’ was good enough. Yet the unique political moment of 2020 hid the fact that the Democratic Party has been ideologically stagnant since 2016.
In 2016, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign attracted enthusiasm and momentum in the Democratic primary. Sanders’ campaign spoke to, and was an ideological response to the dissociation in the country described at the beginning of this writing. Sanders’ campaign was unsuccessful in part because the elites in the Democratic Party gently tilted the scales to benefit his establishment opponent; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Many of those who were attracted to Sanders’ campaign eventually supported then candidate Donald Trump in the general election. This contributed to Trump winning traditional ‘blue wall’ states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan; which gave him the presidency.
If the Democrats want to truly stop the New Right in its tracks, they must counter with a New Left. An ideological movement that preserves the best of liberal ideals, yet provides a grand narrative about where the country is, and where it should go. It should be an ideological framework that upholds democratic principles, yet actually speaks to the dissociation Americans have felt. On the economic front, it should provide paradigm shifting ideas that address the coming age of artificial intelligence. It also needs to counter the feeling and emotion of the New Right with feeling and emotion of its own.
American elections in the modern age are close to fifty, fifty toss ups. The margins are slim, and political momentum can swing states - and history. As of now, the New Right has all the political momentum in the country. If the Democrats want to beat them, they will have to create ideological momentum of their own. They will have to challenge the New Right, with a forward looking, cohesive New Left. Otherwise, an ideology that has seemingly embraced authoritarian uses of power could wield control over the United States for years to come.