The Old is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born

1. Today's Crisis is Global, Multifaceted, and a Breakdown of Authority

Our political crisis, if that’s what it is, is not just American, but global.

Beyond politics. The current turmoil, exemplified by Trump, Brexit, and rising authoritarianism globally, is more than just a political crisis. It's a broader, multifaceted breakdown encompassing economic, ecological, and social dimensions. These strands are deeply interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation.

Systemic blockages. The political upheaval is a response to fundamental blockages in other societal institutions. In the US, this includes financialization, precarious work, rising debt, climate change impacts, racial injustice, and stress on families and communities. These long-standing issues have finally found a collective political voice.

Loss of faith. A key feature across the globe is the dramatic weakening of authority for established political classes and parties. Masses of people have lost faith in the reigning common sense of the past decades, searching for new ideologies, organizations, and leadership. This widespread rejection signals a deeper systemic issue.

2. The Crisis is Fundamentally One of Hegemony

In today’s widespread rejection of politics as usual, an objective systemwide crisis has found its subjective political voice.

Gramscian lens. Drawing on Antonio Gramsci, the crisis is best understood as a crisis of hegemony. Hegemony is the process by which a ruling class's worldview becomes society's common sense, supported by a "hegemonic bloc" – a coalition of social forces. When this common sense and bloc unravel, a crisis of hegemony occurs.

Distribution and recognition. Hegemony is built on assumptions about justice, specifically concerning distribution (how goods/income are allocated, related to class) and recognition (how respect/esteem are apportioned, related to status hierarchies). A hegemonic crisis involves the breakdown of the specific nexus of distribution and recognition that underpinned the previous order.

Discrediting the old. Trump's rise was possible because the previous hegemonic bloc and its normative framework of distribution and recognition were discredited. Understanding the construction and breakup of this nexus is crucial for grasping the current situation and the potential for a new counterhegemonic bloc.

3. Progressive Neoliberalism Was the Dominant Bloc Before Trump

Prior to Trump, the hegemonic bloc that dominated American politics was progressive neoliberalism.

Unlikely alliance. The dominant hegemonic bloc before Trump was "progressive neoliberalism," a seemingly contradictory alliance between mainstream liberal social movements (feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, LGBTQ+ rights) and powerful sectors of the economy (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood). This odd pairing was held together by a specific combination of views on distribution and recognition.

Neoliberal economics. The distributive component was neoliberal: promoting financialization, deregulation, deindustrialization, weakening unions, and spreading precarious work. While originating with the Right (Reagan), these policies were consolidated by Bill Clinton, leading to wealth transfer upward and declining living standards for the majority.

Progressive recognition. The recognition component was a liberal-meritocratic ethos of "diversity," "empowerment," and rights, but interpreted in a way compatible with financialization. Equality was reduced to meritocracy, aiming to diversify the top ranks rather than abolish social hierarchy. This seduced major currents of progressive movements into the bloc.

4. Progressive Neoliberalism Combined Neoliberal Economics with Liberal Recognition

The progressive-neoliberal bloc combined an expropriative, plutocratic economic program with a liberal-meritocratic politics of recognition.

Dangerous liaison. This combination was a "dangerous liaison" where progressive forces became junior partners, lending charisma and an "aura of emancipation" to a deeply regressive political economy. Policies causing vast upward wealth redistribution acquired a "patina of legitimacy" through association with forward-thinking, cosmopolitan ideals.

Defeating rivals. Progressive neoliberalism achieved hegemony by defeating two rivals: the remnants of the New Deal coalition (disarticulated by Clinton's "New Democrats") and reactionary neoliberalism (housed in the Republican Party). While sharing a similar neoliberal economic core, reactionary neoliberalism offered an exclusionary, ethnonationalist politics of recognition.

Recognition over distribution. The key difference between progressive and reactionary neoliberalism lay in recognition, not distribution. Both blocs supported "free trade," low corporate taxes, weakened labor, and financial deregulation. This limited menu left victims of financialization and globalization without a political home.

5. This Bloc Failed the Working Class, Creating a Political Gap

That left a sizable segment of the US electorate—victims of financialization and corporate globalization—without a natural political home.

Sacrificed communities. Progressive neoliberalism sacrificed manufacturing centers, particularly the Rust Belt, through policies like NAFTA, China's WTO accession, and Glass-Steagall repeal. Neither progressive neoliberals nor their reactionary counterparts made serious efforts to support these communities, viewing their economies as uncompetitive and their cultures as obsolete.

The empty zone. The dominance of two neoliberal variants, differing mainly on recognition, created a "hegemonic gap" – an unoccupied zone where antineoliberal, pro-working-family politics could have taken root. Given declining living standards for the bottom two-thirds, it was inevitable someone would eventually fill this gap.

Missed opportunities. Opportunities to fill this gap arose with the 2008 financial crisis and the Occupy movement, but were missed. Obama prioritized bank bailouts over homeowner relief and structural reform, ultimately maintaining the progressive-neoliberal status quo. Occupy raised awareness but its political effects were contained, helping re-elect Obama who then continued his neoliberal path.

6. Trump and Sanders Emerged to Fill the Hegemonic Gap

That earthquake finally struck in the 2015–16 election season, as long-simmering discontent suddenly shapeshifted into a full-bore crisis of political authority.

Outsiders emerge. The 2016 election saw both major political blocs appear to collapse. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders occupied the hegemonic gap, challenging the neoliberal consensus on distribution, though with sharply different politics of recognition.

Populist critiques. Both candidates excoriated the "rigged economy." Sanders used universalist, egalitarian language, envisioning a broad, inclusive working class. Trump used nationalist, protectionist language, conjuring a white, straight, male, Christian working class and doubling down on exclusionary tropes (racism, misogyny, anti-immigrant sentiment).

Proto-hegemonic visions. Sanders sketched a "progressive populism" combining inclusive recognition with pro-working-family distribution (criminal justice reform + Medicare for all; LGBTQ+ rights + free college). Trump suggested a "reactionary populism" combining hyperreactionary recognition with populist distribution (the wall + infrastructure spending).

7. Trump Delivered Hyperreactionary Neoliberalism, Not Populism

Far from governing as a reactionary populist, the new president activated the old bait and switch, abandoning the populist distributive policies his campaign had promised.

Bait and switch. Once elected, Trump abandoned his promised populist distribution policies. He took no serious steps on infrastructure, offered only symbolic support for manufacturing, and signed a tax reform benefiting the wealthy. His actions on distribution included crony capitalism but maintained the neoliberal core via appointments like a Goldman Sachs alumnus at Treasury.

Doubling down on reaction. Trump instead doubled down on a "hyperreactionary politics of recognition," intensifying exclusionary actions and rhetoric (travel ban, gutting civil rights, supporting police brutality and white supremacists). This diverged sharply from his campaign promises.

Unstable outcome. The result is "hyperreactionary neoliberalism," not a stable hegemonic bloc. It's chaotic and fragile, partly due to Trump's personality and relationship with the Republican establishment. By abandoning economic populism, Trump failed to suture the hegemonic gap he helped create, leaving his working-class base potentially unsatisfied with recognition alone.

8. Neither Neoliberal Variant Offers a Stable Future or Solves the Objective Crisis

For all these reasons, neither a revived progressive neoliberalism nor a trumped-up hyperreactionary neoliberalism is a good candidate for political hegemony in the near future.

Frayed bonds. The alliances underpinning both progressive and hyperreactionary neoliberalism are badly frayed. Neither can offer a compelling common sense or narrative that resonates with a broad spectrum of society.

Systemic failure. Crucially, neither variant can resolve the underlying objective system blockages driving the crisis. Both are tied to global finance and cannot challenge financialization, deindustrialization, or corporate globalization. They cannot redress declining living standards, debt, climate change, or social stresses.

Intensifying crisis. Reinstalling either neoliberal bloc would not solve the crisis but intensify it. The populist discontent unleashed in 2016 ("the populist cat is out of the bag") will not disappear, meaning attempts to reinstate progressive neoliberalism risk creating conditions for future, potentially more dangerous, Trumps.

9. We Are in a Dangerous Interregnum of "Morbid Symptoms"

“The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

Gramsci's diagnosis. In the absence of a secure hegemony, society enters an unstable interregnum. This is the state described by Gramsci: the old order is dying, but a new one has not yet been born.

Morbid symptoms. This period is characterized by "morbid symptoms." These include hatreds born of resentment, scapegoating, outbreaks of violence, repression, and a breakdown of social solidarity. The current political and social environment reflects these symptoms.

Prolonged suffering. Without a viable candidate for a new counterhegemony, this interregnum will be prolonged. This condemns working people to continued stress, declining health, debt, overwork, class apartheid, and social insecurity, deepening the toxic environment.

10. Progressive Populism Offers the Best Hope for a Counterhegemony

That leaves progressive populism as the likeliest candidate for a new counterhegemonic bloc.

Potential alliance. The 2016 election showed that a critical mass of voters rejected neoliberal distribution (Sanders + Trump voters). The key question is whether these groups can unite as differently situated victims of the "rigged economy."

Inclusive vision. Reactionary populism is unlikely to form a stable alliance due to its exclusionary recognition politics, alienating large segments of the working class (women, immigrants, people of color, service workers). Only an inclusive politics of recognition has a chance of uniting the whole working class.

Uniting the working class. Progressive populism, combining egalitarian redistribution with inclusive recognition, has the potential to unite the entire working class, broadly understood. It could position this expansive class as the leading force in an alliance with youth, middle class, and professional strata.

11. Building Progressive Populism Requires a Strategy of Separation

What is needed is a strategy of separation, aimed at precipitating two major splits.

Splitting elites from base. Building a progressive-populist bloc requires separating working-class groups from the elite forces currently claiming to represent them. This involves two key splits.

Separating progressives. First, less privileged women, immigrants, and people of color must be wooed away from the liberal elites (lean-in feminists, meritocratic antiracists, corporate diversity shills) who co-opted their concerns in a neoliberal-compatible way. Initiatives like "feminism for the 99 percent" exemplify this.

Separating reactionaries. Second, Rust Belt, southern, and rural working-class communities must be persuaded to desert their crypto-neoliberal allies who promote militarism, xenophobia, and ethnonationalism but fail to provide material well-being. This means convincing them that a progressive-populist bloc offers a better chance for good lives, separating potential allies from irredeemable reactionaries.

12. Addressing Structural Injustice, Not Just Attitudes, is Key

Renouncing the progressive-neoliberal stress on personal attitudes, it must focus its efforts on the structural-institutional bases of contemporary society.

Beyond moralizing. A progressive-populist bloc must avoid the progressive-neoliberal trap of focusing on personal attitudes and moralizing condescension regarding injustices like racism and sexism. This approach is shallow and misses the deep structural-institutional forces at play.

Structural roots of racism. Racism, for example, is not just about bad attitudes but is deeply anchored in contemporary financialized capitalism. It manifests in racially specific impacts of deindustrialization, financialization (subprime loans, foreclosures), systematic underfunding of minority communities, and the prison-industrial complex fueled by policies like the "war on drugs."

Intertwined race and class. These structural bases show that racism is intertwined with class and political economy. The forces destroying the life chances of people of color are part of the same dynamic complex harming whites, even if specifics differ. A progressive-populist bloc must highlight these shared roots in financialized capitalism.

Shared struggle. By linking the harms suffered by women, immigrants, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people to those experienced by working-class whites, a progressive-populist strategy can lay the foundation for a powerful coalition. This approach, focusing on structural change and shared interests, offers the potential to unite the entire working class and move beyond the current crisis.

Last updated: May 16, 2025