I've been thinking a lot about the current state of American politics and wanted to share some thoughts about recent history, current state, and future state of where things might go.
I was thinking about the Occupy movement and how it ostensibly represented a form of leftist populism free from the baggage of militant racial politics that alienates many Republican and Independent whites. There was a distinct moment in 2011 when the left had a chance to articulate a true message of class struggle—one that could have appealed to the middle class while still respecting America’s founding myths of ownership, entrepreneurship, and opportunity.
But Occupy didn’t last long, and its economic populism died with it. Soon after, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown became national news, and the left’s leadership pivoted toward a racially charged grievance-based platform with no clear content or coherent end goal. This shift in focus alienated a significant portion of the electorate, who then proceeded to reject establishment neoconservatives in favor of Trump—a man who promised salvation from the emerging “woke” behemoth. By 2016, the left’s platform had devolved into an unpopular mix of identity politics, incoherent neoliberal economic policy, and Clintonite hawkish foreign policy, all bound up in a candidate who might have been one of the worst choices imaginable.
The past twelve years have been nothing short of disastrous for the political left. A lack of creativity, no clear leadership, and poor rhetorical choices have allowed the right to claim vast political and cultural territory. Among Democratic leadership, there remains a deep hesitation to commit fully to any particular direction. Should they stick with neoliberalism? Embrace progressive “woke” politics? Remain indecisive and attempt to straddle both worlds? In my view, the right has managed to win rhetorical and cultural victories primarily because of the left’s indecision and inability to synthesize a progressive social agenda with an economic model that divorces itself from corporatist neoliberalism.
The conflict in Gaza has only exacerbated this divide. The young, progressive faction of the party demands an abandonment of Israel and openly condemns Netanyahu as a war criminal, while the old-guard, donor-class Democrats remain steadfastly pro-Zionist. This division, combined with the fixation on Trump, has further paralyzed the Democratic Party. Further, the left has internalized “not-Trump” to such a degree that their entire platform now reads as only opposition to Trump—a reactionary stance rather than a positive alternative vision for the country. Meanwhile, the DEI and racial grievance politics that dominated left-wing discourse for years have lost favor in national elections. Neoliberals have failed to galvanize their base on these issues while simultaneously energizing the right, where anti-DEI has become a core pillar of the MAGA cultural agenda. It appears that “wokeism” is in full retreat, and many intelligent leftists I know have quietly abandoned the movement, searching for an alternative to MAGA.
So, what is the path forward for a defeated left? There may be a flicker of opportunity, and oddly enough, it begins with our favorite cowardly Italian plumber: Luigi.
The killing of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson by our favorite plumber in green was a revelation to me. I didn’t expect the massive outpouring of anti-capitalist, anti-corporate sentiment that animated the masses in response to an otherwise senseless act. It reminded me of the Occupy movement and the economic resentment that fueled it. Clearly, there is a deep-seated frustration with healthcare companies and corporate greed just waiting to boil over. Could this same resentment be harnessed into a broader national movement? Could anti-corporate sentiment serve as a compelling alternative to MAGA? I believe the answer is yes—now more than ever. A window of opportunity opened with Trump’s alignment with technocrats like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, which has tainted MAGA with an inescapable oligarchic stain, potentially creating an opening for a revitalized economic left—if they have the wit and political will to capitalize on it
Conversely, the right faces much less of an identity crisis, but ironically, this stability may be their downfall. To their credit, they have successfully shed the deeply unpopular neoconservative wing of the party and coalesced around Trump’s brand of neutral populism. In the first half of his first term, there was a legitimate argument that Trump positioned himself as an anti-establishment, right-wing Ross Perot. He proposed an alternative to free trade, an end to foreign wars, and immigration policies ostensibly designed to mend stagnant wages for the working class. His campaign projected a vision of American vitality, sorely lacking after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had drained the country of its patriotic energy.
By these measures, however, Trump’s first term was a failure. Immigration worsened, he failed to broker a diplomatic solution to soon-to-boil over conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and his nationalist message remained tied entirely to his cult of personality rather than becoming an institutionalized movement. His disastrous first term culminated in the chaotic 2020 election and his subsequent exile from office. Yet, due to a combination of political missteps by the left and a stunning level of liberal incompetence, Trump managed to win another election. But this time, things would be different.
This time, victory required a complete sellout to an ascendant class of techno-libertarian billionaires and ideologues like Thiel, Musk, and David Sacks. However, what these figures offer is merely a rebranded form of neoconservatism—a freshly groomed pig with bright red lipstick. This new “dark enlightenment” faction of neo-reactionary libertarians has effectively hijacked Trump’s original message of middle-class populism, replacing it with a corporate-friendly, pro-immigration, neo-reactionary grift. Their motivations are clear: Musk wants H1B visas for Tesla, and Thiel wants military contracts for Palantir.
This grand scheme culminates in the homunculus that is JD Vance—not even his real name—a political nobody groomed by Thiel and mentored by neoconservative stalwarts like David Frum, who MAGA would despise. While it seems like MAGA can’t stop winning, they’ve unwittingly let a monster into their house. Their all-in investment in Trump’s cult of personality has blinded them to the subversion of his 2016 platform, which has long since been co-opted by radical Zionists and techno-oligarchs. Not only are these factions fundamentally at odds with the interests of the American people, but they also open up a massive weak point that the left could exploit in future elections—if they are competent enough to do so.
Zionist wars and corporate greed have become increasingly unpopular among the electorate. If the right fails to recognize this and reorient itself away from corporatism and techno-libertarian oligarchy—returning instead to the 2015 version of Trumpian populism that won over so many disaffected voters—they could face severe problems in the near future.
The Left
I was thinking about the Occupy movement and how it ostensibly represented a form of leftist populism free from the baggage of militant racial politics that alienates many Republican and Independent whites. There was a distinct moment in 2011 when the left had a chance to articulate a true message of class struggle—one that could have appealed to the middle class while still respecting America’s founding myths of ownership, entrepreneurship, and opportunity.
But Occupy didn’t last long, and its economic populism died with it. Soon after, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown became national news, and the left’s leadership pivoted toward a racially charged grievance-based platform with no clear content or coherent end goal. This shift in focus alienated a significant portion of the electorate, who then proceeded to reject establishment neoconservatives in favor of Trump—a man who promised salvation from the emerging “woke” behemoth. By 2016, the left’s platform had devolved into an unpopular mix of identity politics, incoherent neoliberal economic policy, and Clintonite hawkish foreign policy, all bound up in a candidate who might have been one of the worst choices imaginable.
The past twelve years have been nothing short of disastrous for the political left. A lack of creativity, no clear leadership, and poor rhetorical choices have allowed the right to claim vast political and cultural territory. Among Democratic leadership, there remains a deep hesitation to commit fully to any particular direction. Should they stick with neoliberalism? Embrace progressive “woke” politics? Remain indecisive and attempt to straddle both worlds? In my view, the right has managed to win rhetorical and cultural victories primarily because of the left’s indecision and inability to synthesize a progressive social agenda with an economic model that divorces itself from corporatist neoliberalism.
The conflict in Gaza has only exacerbated this divide. The young, progressive faction of the party demands an abandonment of Israel and openly condemns Netanyahu as a war criminal, while the old-guard, donor-class Democrats remain steadfastly pro-Zionist. This division, combined with the fixation on Trump, has further paralyzed the Democratic Party. Further, the left has internalized “not-Trump” to such a degree that their entire platform now reads as only opposition to Trump—a reactionary stance rather than a positive alternative vision for the country. Meanwhile, the DEI and racial grievance politics that dominated left-wing discourse for years have lost favor in national elections. Neoliberals have failed to galvanize their base on these issues while simultaneously energizing the right, where anti-DEI has become a core pillar of the MAGA cultural agenda. It appears that “wokeism” is in full retreat, and many intelligent leftists I know have quietly abandoned the movement, searching for an alternative to MAGA.
So, what is the path forward for a defeated left? There may be a flicker of opportunity, and oddly enough, it begins with our favorite cowardly Italian plumber: Luigi.
The killing of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson by our favorite plumber in green was a revelation to me. I didn’t expect the massive outpouring of anti-capitalist, anti-corporate sentiment that animated the masses in response to an otherwise senseless act. It reminded me of the Occupy movement and the economic resentment that fueled it. Clearly, there is a deep-seated frustration with healthcare companies and corporate greed just waiting to boil over. Could this same resentment be harnessed into a broader national movement? Could anti-corporate sentiment serve as a compelling alternative to MAGA? I believe the answer is yes—now more than ever. A window of opportunity opened with Trump’s alignment with technocrats like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, which has tainted MAGA with an inescapable oligarchic stain, potentially creating an opening for a revitalized economic left—if they have the wit and political will to capitalize on it
The Right
Conversely, the right faces much less of an identity crisis, but ironically, this stability may be their downfall. To their credit, they have successfully shed the deeply unpopular neoconservative wing of the party and coalesced around Trump’s brand of neutral populism. In the first half of his first term, there was a legitimate argument that Trump positioned himself as an anti-establishment, right-wing Ross Perot. He proposed an alternative to free trade, an end to foreign wars, and immigration policies ostensibly designed to mend stagnant wages for the working class. His campaign projected a vision of American vitality, sorely lacking after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had drained the country of its patriotic energy.
By these measures, however, Trump’s first term was a failure. Immigration worsened, he failed to broker a diplomatic solution to soon-to-boil over conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and his nationalist message remained tied entirely to his cult of personality rather than becoming an institutionalized movement. His disastrous first term culminated in the chaotic 2020 election and his subsequent exile from office. Yet, due to a combination of political missteps by the left and a stunning level of liberal incompetence, Trump managed to win another election. But this time, things would be different.
This time, victory required a complete sellout to an ascendant class of techno-libertarian billionaires and ideologues like Thiel, Musk, and David Sacks. However, what these figures offer is merely a rebranded form of neoconservatism—a freshly groomed pig with bright red lipstick. This new “dark enlightenment” faction of neo-reactionary libertarians has effectively hijacked Trump’s original message of middle-class populism, replacing it with a corporate-friendly, pro-immigration, neo-reactionary grift. Their motivations are clear: Musk wants H1B visas for Tesla, and Thiel wants military contracts for Palantir.
This grand scheme culminates in the homunculus that is JD Vance—not even his real name—a political nobody groomed by Thiel and mentored by neoconservative stalwarts like David Frum, who MAGA would despise. While it seems like MAGA can’t stop winning, they’ve unwittingly let a monster into their house. Their all-in investment in Trump’s cult of personality has blinded them to the subversion of his 2016 platform, which has long since been co-opted by radical Zionists and techno-oligarchs. Not only are these factions fundamentally at odds with the interests of the American people, but they also open up a massive weak point that the left could exploit in future elections—if they are competent enough to do so.
Zionist wars and corporate greed have become increasingly unpopular among the electorate. If the right fails to recognize this and reorient itself away from corporatism and techno-libertarian oligarchy—returning instead to the 2015 version of Trumpian populism that won over so many disaffected voters—they could face severe problems in the near future.
Last edited:
