With the tumultuous events of the past year slowly receding in our rear view mirror, we can reasonably say that the world of 2017 is going to be fundamentally different from the year 2016.  A great transformation has occurred in the past few months that will leave the United States and the world dramatically changed.  We should not pretend that the world continues to revolve around the sun in its same orbit, and that nothing has changed.   The election of President-elect Trump, which left many conservatives elated, and many liberals in despair, is only part of a larger picture of a revolution in world affairs. In the aftermath of the Cold War, many commentators described a “new world order,” in which ancient conflicts of us-against-them, of capitalists versus communists, and of democracies versus tyrannies, were all replaced by America’s leadership in a community of nations.  For a long period from 1989 to very recently, America developed friendships with Russia and China.  We had strong allies and friends around the world in Europe and the Middle East.  Despite the rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups who were animated by a hatred of the United States, we continued a policy of advancing our mutual interests with much of the Islamic world.  In 1990, we fought alongside Arab nations to curb the aggression of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  We “led from behind” against first Al Queda and then ISIL, helping to stabilize nation-states in crisis, while avoiding direct U.S. involvement which would foster more hatred of the U.S.  The global community was further strengthened by expanding economic markets with the European Union and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.

We have watched this new world order unravel during the Obama Presidency. Russia and China have entered a new phase of imperialistic expansion.  Old allies, Turkey, the Philippines, and recently Israel are increasingly antagonistic.  The European Union has been weakened by the British decision to leave, with other nations nearing important decisions on their future in the Union.

In the United States, the election of Donald Trump is only one sign of a great revolution in world affairs. His personal, confrontational style, which propelled his success in business, will soon be translated into American foreign policy with much more uncertain results.  A realignment of our international relationships, especially with Russia, Israel, and the United Nations, threatens a period of increased instability around the world.  Meanwhile, American domestic policies especially around issues of immigration, abortion, health, education, and the environment are being wrenched in a radically conservative direction.

Despite the swiftness of these dramatic changes in world and domestic affairs, we should perhaps not be surprised.  The storm was brewing for a long time before the clouds opened up and the lightning struck.  The expansion of the role of mass media and social media, which allow us to cherry pick the news and the facts that we want, and identify with communities that know no geographic boundaries has allowed numerous factions to form in opposition to the status quo.

The power structures, centralized political institutions, scientific and educational organizations, that offered intellectual coherence, political stability, prosperity, and some degree of justice to large numbers of people have been largely discredited, despite their undeniable accomplishments.  In this environment, groups with very narrowly-focused agendas, from the Tea Party, to ISIL, to left-handed basket weavers, have proliferated.

Corporations and big businesses have played both a positive and a negative role in this by advancing globalization through the expansion of markets, while at the same time appealing to smaller and smaller market niches.

Similarly, American political parties have played an important role.  Both parties mix pragmatic realism with abstract ideology, and both parties embrace the ideal of personal freedom.  There the similarities stop, and it is a disservice to both of them to argue, as many people do, that both parties are alike.  For most Republicans, personal freedom means the ability for individuals to engage in “the pursuit of happiness.”  Individual initiative, moral responsibility, “pulling yourself up by the boot straps” are their important watch words.  They complain of paying taxes to support government programs that create a culture of dependency and distort the natural competition to improve oneself.  Democrats, on the other hand, believe that personal freedom depends on equal opportunities to education, access to health care, and good jobs, and a clean environment, and that only a strong and active government can insure the greatest good for the greatest number.

There are strong arguments in favor of both these positions, and until we work out these fundamental contradictions, the world will continue to unravel.

Published in the Baltimore Sun, January 22, 2017