In 1992, Francis Fukuyama’s end of history theory introduced the argument that Western liberal democracy is the final, everlasting form of government. No other political ideology would usurp this perfect, peaceful political order.

His theory aligned nicely with the predominant political ideology of the period: neoliberalism. Encapsulated in figures from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, neoliberal ideology consisted of these core tenets: democracy, free trade, globalization and capitalism. 

After the Great Recession, neoliberalism struggled to grasp for dear life as world circumstances nibbled at its efficacy.

By the mid-2010s, problems related to globalization and capitalism caught up with us. In our interconnected world, international migration rose by over 80% in the last 30 years, causing a nativist backlash in Europe and the United States.

Income inequality rose despite decades of neoliberal policy that worked under the false assumption that wealth would “trickle down” from the upper class to everyone. Enter Donald Trump in 2016; the Brexit vote happened in the United Kingdom that same year. Neoliberalism cracked further, crumbling at the edges. 

American democracy, in its current hyper-partisan form, corrupted with lobbyist money and frozen by the filibuster, has lost the faith of the public.

In retrospect, Joe Biden seemed like a blip in the global trend rightward, but this is not the American Right I grew up with. This right-wing is protectionist, nationalist, nativist, techy and even monarchical. 

Yet, it’s hard to paint with a broad brush — the loose coalition that succeeded in 2024 encompasses many opposing interests. 

A terrifying and exciting prospect of our time is that we don’t know what the result of this massive political realignment will bring. What’s even more terrifying is that each of us will be part of shaping this future. History is not a foregone conclusion in times like these.

What are our options looking like? Let’s start with nationalism. JD Vance, Steve Bannon and the National Conservatism movement land in this camp. This faction is culturally conservative, viewing globalism, immigration, secularism and “Wokeism” as weakening Western Civilization, of which they argue the United States is a part of. 

Bannon has been accused of anti-semitism and has referenced 20th-century fascist figures like Julius Evola as influences on his ideology. Simultaneously, Bannon has left-of-center economic views, like taxing the rich and investing in public infrastructure to build a middle-class economy. So, one possible path forward is taxing the rich while taking away minority rights.

Similarly, Vance proposes an America for Americans, particularly those with ties to the “homeland,” like his family, who have lived in Appalachia for seven generations. Immigrants, illegal or not, do not fit into this idea of citizenship. Anti-immigration and protectionism make up his economic philosophy in the interest of uplifting local economies and small businesses.  

On the other hand, you have the pro-meritocratic immigration tech wing of the Republican Party. Tech bros Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy relied on pro-immigration policy to live in this country — Musk is himself an immigrant, and so are Ramaswamy’s parents. While the more nativist wing is opposed to immigration even in the case of merit, these right-wingers propose that we allow immigration for skilled workers. 

In both cases, immigration is not for those tired, poor, huddled masses that historically were promised a new life in America. What will it look like for us to go back on the idea of the United States as a “nation of immigrants?” What might happen to our society if birthright citizenship is unconstitutionally taken away? The future could be very exclusionary, and we must understand that now with our eyes wide open.

On another note, tech bros are in government now, and that will shape the country’s future in the post-neoliberal age. Some Musk optimists hope that the DOGE effort will lead to the modernization of our government. 

Martin Gurri, former CIA media analyst turned media commentator, expressed something to this effect. 

“I would hope it would all end up as … a much leaner, far more responsive, far less politicized, far more AI-friendly, far more digitized (government),” Gurri said. 

The idea is that with artificial intelligence, we can progress to a government fit for the 21st century instead of the 20th-century model of government that we continue to work off. That sounds nice, but there hangs in the air the equal — or more likely — possibility of an oligarchy of tech billionaires.

Or perhaps a monarchy is coming down the line. Yes, really — a popular figure in alt-right circles is a politics blogger named Curtis Yarvin, a democracy skeptic. He would prefer to install an executive “CEO,” which many perceive as a euphemism for dictatorship. 

Yarvin argues that American democracy is a weak and ineffective form of government, apparently beyond repair. Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of his examples of a past American dictator. He argues that Roosevelt’s executive actions and his expansion of government bureaucracy while saving the country during the Great Depression were an overreach of executive power, but in a massively popular way. 

Do people actually like monarchy or dictatorship if it works for their benefit? It’s an idea Americans have hardly considered since our country’s infancy, but it’s now a matter of public debate. Bannon has called for a third term for Trump, a move that would directly violate the 22nd Amendment. 

Jan. 6, 2021 remains a curious, divisive date in recent history — a sign of anti-democratic sentiment in the masses. Democrats ran on being pro-democracy last year, but the issue didn’t seem to resonate with people then. What will happen to our democratic system if so many people are apathetic?

Let’s talk about Democrats — remember them? Me neither. 

They have been slow to pick up on the political realignment on the other side of the aisle and haven’t adjusted themselves accordingly. But by now, they should know that neoliberalism is on the outs. The party hasn’t figured out a new, positive vision for the future, but they’ll need to form one.

To my mind, the more compelling figures right now are Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission Lina Khan and Sen. Chris Murphy. 

Ocasio-Cortez and Murphy are exceptions to the Democratic media problem — they use social media regularly and candidly, unlike many old establishment politicians. Both have placed themselves in the anti-billionaire camp, a seemingly growing sentiment in U.S. politics.

American leftists cheered at the murder of a healthcare CEO at the hands of Luigi Mangione, and surprisingly, many “right-wing” Americans cheered along with them. More and more, I hear Republicans in my life speak about the billionaire class with skepticism, but they’re unsure about a jump to anti-capitalism or contained capitalism. 

That could change based on what happens in the next few years with Musk at DOGE, Jeff Bezos restricting content at the Washington Post — which he owns — and income inequality likely worsening if Republicans extend Trump’s tax cuts.

The anti-billionaire sentiment also manifests in Khan’s antitrust lawsuits against tech companies at the FTC. There aren’t enough regulations around social media companies, which rose in the late 2000s in an era of techno-optimism, but have become far more powerful than we could have imagined. 

A similar issue is true for AI. We need a new legal framework to address these dominant actors in our society, and I expect Democrats to try their hand at this kind of policy in the coming years. Republicans have been tech-skeptical in the past, but with this new marriage of the tech industry and the right, it’s unlikely that transformational policy will come from the Republicans.

There are arguments for globalism’s advancement, but perhaps of a different flavor than the neoliberal world order. Public philosopher Slavoj Žižek has been troubled by the global shift toward protectionism and isolationism. 

He sees it as a misguided turning inward from growing global issues like mass migration and climate change. The truth is, to address climate change, we do need a global agenda. American isolationism will not do the trick. We need a new kind of leadership, or the post-neoliberal age could be one of water wars, natural disasters and mass instability.

I feel I should touch on the future of identity politics, but to be honest, this is where Democrats are in the most turmoil, while Republicans are incoherent at best and anti-civil rights at worst. For all the Republican talk of “meritocracy” as the basis of their anti-DEI policy, the Trump administration is now dismantling federal civil rights offices and installing unqualified Fox News and podcast hosts in top government roles.

It’s unclear how the federal government will further treat marginalized groups. The extent of Republican ire toward diversity is yet to be seen. Democrats need to work on popularizing their message because the average American is not compelled by the performative aspects of “Wokeism” and the intensity of “cancel culture.” 

Perhaps there needs to be less of a focus on saying the exact right words and more work on getting across an authentic passion for all marginalized people. To perform in this media environment, they need to stop shuddering at people with opposing viewpoints and challenge them instead.

Now is the time to ask questions. Now is the time to consider our options. The neoliberal age is over. That’s not to say its tenets won’t come back in vogue as history repeats itself. But we aren’t returning to a presidency like George W. Bush or Obama any time soon.

We are witnessing the birth of a new political age, and if you’re not paying attention, you may blink and find yourself in an unfamiliar world shaped by others. By fully acknowledging that we are at a historical turning point, we can act accordingly to build the future we want. 

Grace is a graduate student studying urban planning.

[email protected]