On the Political Mentality in the U.S. and the Alienation of American Voters

Written by Elise Moon (Political analyst)

Edited by Mariam Ibrahim, Matthew Phillips, & Dae-han Song (Content Team)

As the American presidential elections approach, it is timely to deepen our reflection on the political landscape of the United States, understand the predominant mindset among Americans, and analyze recurring patterns in local political thought. Three major ideological currents stand out in America: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and liberals. Of these three, the latter warrant closer scrutiny as they are frequently mistaken for progressives or leftists. Yet, addressing humanity's crises requires correcting this misconception. True progress necessitates a break from the frameworks of capitalism and imperialism, which liberals refuse to do.

First, social conservatives are focused on moral values and themes like "nation". Their goal is to preserve their traditions, often at the expense of diversity. Figures like Mike Pence champion anti-abortion policies and oppose same-sex marriage, emphasizing Christian family values. Their political convictions safeguard a way of life they believe is threatened by evolving societal norms.

Next, the fiscal conservatives—a.k.a. neoliberals, anarchocapitalists, or right-wing libertarians—oppose state regulation of markets or corporate behavior. They prioritize individual and private wealth accumulation, advocating for minimal government, reduced taxes, free markets, and privatization. They blame poverty on the poor, rather than the systems that produce and sustain it. Figures like Elon Musk and Bill Gates promote deregulation and the privatization of public goods. Privatized transportation projects like Musk’s Hyperloop reflect a broader trend of undermining investment in public infrastructure, while Gates’s advocacy for charter schools diverts resources from public education in favor of a privatized model. Neoliberalism not only dismantles government regulation, but also shifts public goods into private hands for profit ("surrendering"). Even working-class Americans have been led to accept the assumptions underpinning neoliberal ideology, convinced that billionaires’ success is deserved and that privatization creates greater efficiency even as their access to vital social services is being impaired.

Despite their differences, social and fiscal conservatives are united in their focus on individual interests, whether moral or material, or the lifestyles of their group. While both may genuinely wish the best for their families, churches, communities, or nations, their narrow mindset prevents them from embracing broader approaches to issues like economic inequality or engaging more deeply with the diverse experiences and needs of others. These two groups, usually Republican Party supporters, form a significant portion of the American population. The two ideologies can overlap within the same individual, thus shaping the profile of a reactionary or neoconservative voter. At the edge of the spectrum are far-right sympathizers, driven by racism, nationalism, and militarism, representing a radical faction within the conservative landscape.

The most interesting ideological phenomenon, however, is not the social or fiscal conservatives, but the third major ideological category: that of the liberals. Often called "woke" by their conservative critics, liberals form the base of the Democratic Party and, in the current elections, are showing enthusiasm for Kamala Harris. They claim to support diversity, human rights, democracy, environmental protection, and scientific knowledge. Yet, despite this progressive image, liberals are far from progressive—they resist challenging the deeper systems underpinning the systems they claim to oppose. Their elitism and attachment to the establishment make them susceptible to capitalist and imperialist propaganda, often leading them to various contradictions. Some turn to performative activism, affixing black squares to their social media profile during the Black Lives Matter movement without advocating for any systemic change, or wearing rainbow logos during Pride Month while continuing to support exploitative corporations. They claim to defend human rights, but ignore the violations committed by the U.S. Empire in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians. They preach veganism, but do not stand against the butchery in Gaza. They claim to care about racial equality, but do not see the contradiction of voting for Harris, who, as attorney general of California, mass incarcerated people of color, under truancy and drug laws, and as presidential candidate promises her "unwavering" support for Israel's apartheid state. They declare concern for the environment without opposing Israel's bombing of Palestine and Lebanon or U.S. sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in Europe, both major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. By refusing to criticize capitalism and imperialism, liberals hypocritically remain complicit in the status quo. 

Within the vast group of liberals, those who truly advocate for progress should go beyond lip service regarding human rights, democracy, environmental sustainability, and social justice. Instead, they should question false narratives like 'America exports liberal democracy'—when, in reality, it exports coups, dictatorships, and violence. Those who truly advocate for peace and diplomacy should confront the legacies of U.S. foreign policy, including its military interventions and support for authoritarianism. They should also examine the drivers of environmental harm and the systems that perpetuate inequality and oppression. Achieving equality, social justice, and environmental sustainability indeed requires going beyond cosmetic actions that fail to dismantle the structures upholding exploitation and suffering.

With the overwhelming majority of the electorate composed of liberals and the two types of conservatives mentioned above, the U.S. political spectrum has fewer shades than in other countries, where an additional influential group can be found: socialists (not to be confused with social democrats). In Brazil, for example, this ideological current is represented by several political parties, including the Workers' Party (PT), the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), and the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL). In contrast, socialists in the U.S. have little to no political representation. 

Historical factors, such as McCarthy-era repression and the marginalization of anti-capitalist activism, have made it difficult for socialist ideas to gain traction. Critics of U.S. foreign policy are labeled unpatriotic or sympathetic to foreign adversaries, stifling debate and reinforcing a binary and fear mongering narratives. Those who criticize U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, calling for diplomacy or questioning NATO's expansion, are accused of parroting Kremlin propaganda. Those who oppose American imperialism in the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan are labeled as Beijing allies. All these ploys echo the Cold War-era tactic of discrediting leftists by associating them with enemy states. Similarly, activists who challenge U.S. support for Israel through movements like Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) face legal challenges in various states and are labeled "anti-Semitic." The FBI’s targeting of leftist and socialist activists through surveillance further limits room for systemic critique. For instance, activists associated with groups like Antifa or Black Lives Matter have been monitored and investigated for allegedly posing "domestic terrorism" threats.

Even with glaring social problems in the U.S. like rising inequality and the high number of unhoused people, socialism remains a marginalized ideology in American politics, weakened by a state propaganda machine that masterfully alienates the population. Philosopher and independent presidential candidate Cornel West recently lamented the weakness of the American left. Figures like West himself, and other presidential candidates like Jill Stein, and Claudia De la Cruz, who offer alternatives to the capitalist status quo, face significant political and legal obstacles. Meanwhile, prominent liberals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a.k.a AOC) call Stein’s third-party candidacy “predatory,” on the grounds that it could undermine Democratic efforts to defeat Republicans. 

In contrast to liberals, socialists advocate for a systemic change, and the ostracism of socialists in U.S. political debate for over a century has led to a false perception that liberals represent the "progressives." Yet, this deeply distorted view overlooks the limitations of liberalism, which, while addressing certain social issues, rarely confronts the systemic nature of economic inequality or global power dynamics. Although aligned with certain progressive causes, liberals compromise with forces of Capital and the Empire. While socialists see these structures as the primary drivers of inequality, suffering, and conflict, liberals focus on incremental and superficial solutions, such as individual consumer choices, recycling, billionaire philanthropy, and wealth taxation. While these ideas can bring some positive outcomes, they fail to address the roots of social injustice. On geopolitical issues, socialists see the material conditions that shape our present day, while liberals treat events like the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the war in Ukraine in isolation, ignoring the contexts of colonialism, Zionist supremacy, imperialist ambitions, and NATO's aggression and provocations.

As obstacles hinder alternatives outside the American two-party system, the U.S. continues to drift further to the right and toward fascism, insensitive to true popular causes. The U.S. continues to fund Israeli genocide, while Giorgia Meloni's Italy has begun an arms embargo against Israel, showing that Americans are further to the right than self-proclaimed Italian fascists. The bipartisan system is a mask for a single fascist party: the military-industrial complex. Both Trump and Harris have accepted million-dollar donations from AIPAC, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group that courts both parties. Successive U.S. presidents from both political parties have conducted bombing campaigns in the Middle East and Africa. Capitalism remains the cornerstone, and any genuine efforts for progressive change—like cutting military aid to Israel and instead funding infrastructure, health care, and other social projects for the working class—are stifled by the propaganda machine that skillfully keeps American people pliant, distracted, and misinformed. The success of both the co-optation of politicians and the manipulation of voters in the U.S. is self-evident.

In recent decades, a noticeable realignment has occurred in U.S. politics, particularly between the Democratic and Republican parties. Historically, Republicans were seen as the party of big business, while Democrats were more aligned with labor unions and working-class interests. But as globalization and economic shifts redefined American politics, Democrats have increasingly garnered support from industries like tech, finance, and entertainment—that once leaned Republican. This shift has coincided with the Democrats becoming more collaborative with the national security apparatus, which includes the CIA and 17 other U.S. intelligence agencies. During the Cold War, Republicans staunchly defended U.S. military interventions abroad, but today, the Democratic Party is often more hawkish, supporting interventions in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. From this angle, it’s clear that by aligning with the Democratic Party, liberals ultimately reinforce the capitalist and imperialist system, contributing to the alienation of the masses.

There are third alternatives in the 2024 elections: Cornel West, Jill Stein, and Claudia De la Cruz—each in their own way representing a desire for a departure from the capitalist and imperialist framework that both major parties uphold. The question is: will the American people recognize these third-party or independent candidates beyond the narrow and artificial stage created for them by the military-industrial complex, corporations, and the intelligence community? Or will they remain trapped in the political illusions projected by the Pentagon, Wall Street, and the billionaire class that keeps them docile, submissive, and compliant? There is a beacon of hope: according to a Gallup poll, Democratic voter support for a potential third party increased to 53 percent in 2024, up from 46 percent in 2023.

It is time for a new politics—one that goes beyond surface-level divisions and tackles the underlying factors of inequality and wars. Only then can there be a genuine alternative, committed to truth, peace, and social justice, instead of the preservation of power for the privileged and the pleasing of individualists. Many worthy goals are at stake: public resources allocated for public good, instead of weapons; immediate arms embargo on Israel and ceasefire; ranked-choice or runoff voting for third-party representation; and the end of the Electoral College.