Progressively Regressive: What The Left Can Learn from Trump

When I think of the state of American politics and economics, a quote from cultural theorist Mark Fisher always comes to mind: “It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism.”

In an America where analysts warn of an impending financial crisis four times larger than the 2007 mortgage bubble, where nearly two-thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and where more than 22 million households struggle to afford housing, our first thought is reform. We often assume that the system is broken and needs repair. However, we rarely consider whether the system is working exactly as intended — that the problems we’re facing aren’t bumps in the road, but structural and necessary consequences of capitalism. 

I’d argue a lack of imagination is to blame. As Mark Fisher wrote, we simply can’t imagine a future without capitalism.

In fact, I’d bet we could sooner visualize a zombie apocalypse or a nuclear winter much more easily than a replacement for the only economic system that has survived and thrived following the Cold War.

Soviet-style socialism failed to provide a viable alternative to neoliberal capitalism due to deep structural constraints. Devastated by the loss of around 24 million people in World War II, the Soviet Union entered the postwar period at a severe economic and demographic disadvantage, while competing with capitalist powers backed by an unharmed and economically dominant United States. At the same time, the USSR failed to transition from a highly centralized, bureaucratic state into a genuinely democratic socialist mode of production. Bureaucratic stagnation hindered innovation and legitimacy, ultimately reducing Soviet socialism to a form many critics have described as state capitalism unable to keep pace with neoliberal capitalism on material and ideological grounds.

Ultimately, capitalism prevailed and became so ingrained in American culture that we are now incapable of imagining something better. In a way, it has become the horizon; we have been wrongfully convinced by our politicians, the wealthy and the powerful, that we must reform a “broken” capitalism instead of critically asking whether the problems we face are innate to capitalism, and require an entirely new system to overcome them. 

Whether it was Former President Bill Clinton asserting that “any doubt about the effectiveness of organizing our economy along the lines of a free market… has finally been put to rest” following the Cold War, or billionaires Ray Dalio or Bill Gates claiming can only be fixed rather than replaced, complacency for capitalism became the dominant mode of socioeconomic thought.

However, reform hasn’t exactly gone great. The already long-list of flaws in American capitalism have only been accentuated since the 2008 financial crisis. Purchasing a home is becoming harder, finding a job is increasingly difficult, wages have stagnated, the climate crisis continues to rage on and healthcare is unaffordable for nearly half of Americans. Yet, the politicians elected to represent us couldn’t even unite and agree on a temporary spending bill.

Now, we’re stuck in purgatory, a leftist’s nightmare; the only system that supposedly works is also the one most consistently failing us. If there is seemingly “no alternative,” we’re doomed to suffer the same consequences of capitalism, again and again.

If the left failed to take control of this crisis, the right did not. While progressives and socialists bicker about the correct approach to address the failings of this system, the right has already proposed their solution: President Donald Trump. 

As we speak, Trump is reconstituting capitalism on his own terms, not by dismantling it, but by channeling the heated emotions from its crises into nationalist protectionism and resentment of immigrants, minorities and marginalized groups.

Trump positioned himself against the neoliberals. He is explicitly opposed to free-trade and globalization, having imposed drastic tariffs on several countries, including U.S allies. This marked a historic shift away from the neoliberal consensus, one that equated more free trade with more prosperity.

In this sense, Trump was the progressive candidate — the only one advocating for structural change away from the existing system, even if his solution still operated within the framework of capitalism. In a narrow, structural sense, Trump was the only major candidate proposing a break from neoliberal orthodoxy.

As someone from the left, this idea initially made my head spin. How could someone like Trump — a billionaire who loves to brag about his billionaire friends — be a negative force to neoliberal capitalism? Well, as much as it pains me to say this, the left has a few things to learn from Donald Trump’s uncanny political successes.

Trump won not because of any groundbreaking policies, but because he presented himself as against the status quo. Following the 2008 financial crisis, millions of Americans lost faith in the system we had. Looking back, this was the greatest moment the left has ever had to take charge and make a change. But we didn’t.

Instead, Trump took hold, blaming the failings of capitalism on immigrants, minorities and slackers. And Americans believed him, despite living in a country built by immigration and diversity.

Unfortunately, in 2016, it seemed like Americans didn’t really have another anti-neoliberal option — the left was nowhere to be found. And no, the Democrats don’t count. They have a history of suppressing intraparty left-wing movements.

The Democrats are America’s only viable electoral opposition to Trump. But they’ve failed to offer any meaningful alternative to the economic order that produced him. They haven’t learned anything from Trump’s rise. Democrats just maintain the status quo. They failed to put up a real fight against Trump, and continued to nominate neoliberal candidates despite dissatisfaction from voters. Not a good look, given the absolute volume of problems we have in the United States.

We’ve even seen national progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders, who put up an uncompromising fight against both Trump and the Democratic establishment, fail to inspire widespread national support. Why did Bernie fail? Besides the Democratic party sabotaging his campaign, it’s clear that the 2016 leftist resurgence had immense potential but ultimately failed to work directly alongside the working class.

Bernie preached that America failed to invest in its people despite its vast wealth, but this rhetoric was largely inaccessible to the average person. For example, Bernie often argued that “we are the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people as a right” and yet “we end up spending much more than [other developed countries] do.” 

While this is a powerful statement, it didn’t resolve the main tension many voters had with healthcare for all: the exact procedure that would implement it, including where the money comes from, how much money we need and the precise role of the government. While Bernie undoubtedly had rigorous plans addressing these concerns, his rhetoric wasn’t centered around them, but rather the big, ideological picture of universal healthcare. Despite widespread support for universal healthcare, Bernie’s broad rhetoric spawned doubts in enough Americans minds to vote for another candidate who promised immediate, material change to their lives rather than sprawling, long term change, even if it was something many ultimately desired.

Most people, regardless of their ideological barbs, have straightforward wants: affordable housing, healthcare and the ability to afford next week’s groceries. They also want these things to be individually and immediately accessible, not abstractly guaranteed​ by the state at some indeterminate point in the future, through unspecified means.

We’ve seen as much in Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s grassroots campaign. Several neighborhoods that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in the 2024 presidential election turned for Mamdani. Both Trump and Mamdani, in different ways, unshackled themselves from ideology, presented policies that people could digest and allowed their constituents to imagine a better material future. 

​Trump’s hateful rhetoric against immigrants and minorities played into affordability, albeit indirectly. The right managed to conflate less immigration with more jobs and a healthier economy, thus promising a cheaper cost of living. JD Vance bolstered this by falsely claiming housing is unaffordable “because we had 20 million illegal aliens in this country taking homes that ought by right to go to American citizens.” Correlating race with crime statistics allowed Trump to appeal to dated beliefs of racial superiority, connecting it with safety and affordability.

In a similar fashion, Mamdani repeatedly assured New Yorkers free bussing would cost “about $800 million a year, which may sound like a lot of money… but in the context of a city budget that’s north of $100 billion… this is just pennies.” He also provided detailed, understandable plans for his proposed city-run grocery stores and for his proposals to freeze the rent and build new homes for New Yorkers. His rhetoric remained rooted in affordability and was widely accessible — Zohran broke down seemingly complex policy into bite sized, understandable pieces. Undoubtedly, local victories don’t automatically scale nationally, but they reveal something crucial about how voters respond to material clarity.

Where Trump and Mamdani differ comes to who they wish to prescribe affordability to. Zohran wishes for every New Yorker to thrive in affordable homes with cheap groceries and free public transit. However, Trump makes it clear he wants affordability only for certain in-groups in America. Here, the left has an advantage: by uniting American workers under the banner of affordability, they could vastly outnumber the narrow few whom conservatives aim to help.

Trump has largely failed to keep his promises. A paper from Columbia Business School estimates that the trade war cost the U.S. economy billions annually, with much of the burden borne by the U.S working class. It doesn’t help that Trump cancelled millions in subsidies for small to mid-sized manufacturing plants, further depriving the U.S. workforce of desperately needed jobs.

Fortunately, this provides the left with yet another enormous opportunity to grasp the reins of power and invest in working-class Americans. This paradigm shift won’t be spearheaded within the Democratic party establishment. Nor will it happen overnight. Only with an unrelenting drive to materially improve the conditions of the American working class will a larger left-wing, socialist movement against capitalism altogether begin to materialize. And we’re only just beginning.

Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist from Wisconsin, is gaining traction as a democratic candidate for Wisconsin governor, running a campaign focused on affordability. Graham Platner, an albeit controversial democratic socialist from Maine, is poised to win the Democratic primary for senate, fighting for lower costs across medication, childcare and healthcare. Other socialist candidates have launched campaigns on the congressional level–others are likely expected to hop on the leftist momentum.

While it might put a sour taste in the left’s mouth, they must learn from Trump’s tactics of populism and refusing the status quo. Just as many don’t seem to care that Trump is comfortable being labeled a “fascist,” many won’t care whether a candidate is “socialist” so long as their policies materially benefit their lives. New York didn’t.

For too long, leftists have been ignored by the establishment. For too long, the left has failed to shape a future beyond capitalism in the United States. Building this future will only be possible through grassroots movements that tangibly improve Americans’ lives. Moving forward, the left must connect with the electorate’s material priorities, propose a platform that is new and attractive rather than regressive and recycled. This means appealing to affordability for the working class — whether that be grocery prices, housing costs or healthcare premiums. This also means helping construct leftist political campaigns in every level of office, throughout the country, even if it’s within the Democratic Party. 

We’ve seen candidates like Zohran, AOC, and Bernie achieve success through the Democratic party — success that was found only by standing up to the Democratic Party establishment. When future socialist candidates run, we must direct our votes to those with a clear motivation to break and progress the status quo rather than maintain it.

The fate of America lies in the hands of the workers. The question now is not whether we are capable of real change, but whether we will choose to enact it.

The image featured in this article is a work of the U.S. federal government, and accordingly is in the public domain. The original photo was taken by an employee of the White House in an official capacity and can be found here.