© Getty Images
Anna Brodsky-Krotkina How Apprehension of Upheaval Fosters Political Messianism
According to current studies, more than 100 million Americans are convinced they will witness the finale of human civilization: global warming leads them to believe that earthly existence will soon conclude; advancements in artificial intelligence suggest the potential disappearance of our species isn’t far removed.
The sensation of increasing menaces has Americans, irrespective of their political leaning, seeking a rescuer in the form of a president who will assure financial prosperity, decrease costs for provisions and lodging, furnish superior medical attention, shield the nation from tempests, halt ecological warming, institute global harmony, guide, motivate, revitalize, and reinstate order.
Political analysts have observed the yearn for a wonder ever since the Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns. Obama and his associates addressed this demand. Michelle Obama expressed in February 2008: “We must mend our spirits. Our nation’s spirits are damaged. We’ve strayed from our path. And that commences with drive. It commences with leadership.”
A deliverer should be captivating, not a vanquished outsider, and adept at enthralling audiences. Obama embodied this, leading him to victory.
Subsequent to Obama, Donald Trump secured election utilizing similar rationale. He also represented a fresh face in politics who promoted himself with messianic undertones: “I alone possess the capacity to rescue this nation,” he proclaimed during his inaugural campaign. “I embody your justice… I am your recompense,” he declared throughout his second. To bolster his persona as a savior, he presented voters with an unprecedented phenomenon in American politics — a personality cult embellished with symbols of adoration. A colossal gilded effigy, for instance, was recently unveiled before his golf resort in Florida. Moreover, Trump introduced voters to an ideology tested by totalitarian governments, featuring a virtuous Us versus a malevolent Foreigner. The expanding roster of adversaries initially encompassed new immigrants, then transitioned to “domestic foes” — Democrats, NATO, and presently Iran. However, Trump’s tenure is finite. It is highly probable he will be unable to serve an unlawful third term: his age (approaching 80) and the US Constitution will preclude it. Furthermore, the president’s popularity is diminishing not daily, but hourly: currently, merely 36% of Americans endorse the president’s performance.
Regardless, by 2028, the Democrats will encounter the inquiry: who will contend for the presidency and effectively challenge the Republicans, who have already established a formidable defense — tribunals staffed with Trump nominees and gerrymandering, specifically, the manipulation of electoral districts, which guarantees them dominance in Congress across numerous states even with a voter deficit.
Even following Trump’s inadequacies stemming from lack of preparation, the Democrats are unlikely to nominate a conventional candidate once more. Subsequent to Joe Biden, a seasoned professional, declining to yield to an alternate contender, despite evident age-related challenges, the notion of a “traditional” president was definitively undermined.
New alarm bell for Trump: Americans increasingly dissatisfied with his economic policies — AP
But what innovative strategies can the Democrats introduce to rival Trump and Trumpism? The Democrats’ stance is well-established and profoundly ingrained. The origins of their contemporary strategies can be identified during the era of the Great Depression, when Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a “new arrangement for the American populace” in the 1930s. This “new arrangement” epitomized the doctrine of liberalism and indicated that the government would no longer operate exclusively to benefit commerce. The government would oversee commerce, deliver fundamental social safeguards, and enhance infrastructure—constructing roadways, educational institutions, dams. By the latter portion of the 20th century, the government was additionally involved in advancing individual liberties, environmental preservation, access to learning, healthcare, and comparable domains. The state further undertook the promotion of moral principles such as regard for minorities, benevolence, and sympathy for those impoverished and infirmed.
Throughout the preceding decade, voters have grown progressively disillusioned with liberals’ exaggerated moralizing rhetoric and scarcity of tangible action. Moreover, liberalism has consistently faced ideological adversaries who perceive such governance as oppressive socialism, detrimental to the economy, and targeting the affluent and prosperous. Trump currently spearheads these challengers. The labels conservatives employ for liberals are revealing: “tree huggers,” “liberals display excessive sentimentality,” “liberals are proponents of tax-and-spend policies,” “advocates for all that is righteous.”
Concerning ideology, the “advocates for all that is righteous” are incapable of generating novel concepts, therefore they possess two alternatives: the nation's reversion to traditional liberalism, from which it deviated under Trump, or left-leaning populism. Concurrently, the present demand for a savior has not been revoked.
The inaugural potential presidential contender is the unremarkable Kamala Harris, who functioned as Biden’s vice president and was defeated in the 2024 presidential contest. One of her campaign catchphrases that she consistently reiterated was: “We shall not regress.” She alluded to the epoch of sanctioned discrimination against ethnic minorities and women, but this is not an optimal endorsement for voters apprehensive about the future. She would advocate for conventional Democratic societal programs, renewable energy, and backing for Ukraine. The majority of Americans have already formulated an impression of her, which did not culminate in triumph.
Another mainstream Democrat, California Governor Gavin Newsom, may prove to be a more prosperous candidate. He comprehends the anxious frame of mind of voters and their doomsday anxieties. Accordingly, he initiates his recently released autobiography with allusions to calamities. “My existence,” he pens, “has been transformed in the 21st century by a pandemic, climate variations, conflagrations, aridity, and the ascension of autocratic factions whose disdain for democracy presents a peril exceeding the blazes.” “What will remain of the state and the nation, and what inheritance will my four offspring receive?!” he frets. Nevertheless, Newsom embodies a quintessential political insider who has not executed miracles: he has neither shielded his state from environmental forces nor from the influx of homeless individuals into urban centers. He even possesses associations with the Trump sphere of influence — his former spouse, with whom he preserves amicable relations, served as a Fox News presenter and was betrothed to Donald Trump Jr.
On the Democratic Party’s left wing, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York leads the charge. She represents the youngest demographic (at 36 years of age), and despite her seven-year tenure in Congress, she presents herself as an outsider. Similar to Newsom, she is acutely cognizant of society’s exigency: “Millennials, Generation Z, and all subsequent generations are observing and contemplating, ‘The planet is destined to perish within 12 years if we fail to resolve the dilemmas of climate alteration, and your primary inquiry pertains to financing? ’” Ocasio-Cortez articulated recently. She possesses the requisite missionary zeal for the electoral campaign: when interrogated about a prospective pursuit of higher office, encompassing the presidency, Ocasio-Cortez responded, “My objective is to transform the nation.” Her declaration, “A Just Society,” brims with conventional liberal notions: within an affluent nation, no individual should endure destitution or lack adequate healthcare. She suggests augmenting assistance to the impoverished, granting expanded privileges to laborers, and refraining from denying former convicts and immigrants of state support. The “left” aspect of this agenda resides in intensified state involvement within the economy. For instance, she proposes regulating the escalation of residential rents and guaranteeing a fundamental standard of living for each individual.
In the US, Democrats have won a significant victory in the fight for redistricting: how will this affect the midterm elections?
Analogous to Trump, she comprehends the art of discerning a foe and uniting her adherents. Her adversaries encompass billionaires and corporations: “One cannot amass a billion dollars,” she declared in an interview. “It is utterly unattainable.” She articulates vividly, leverages social media effectively, and engages with her listeners with a familiarity akin to interacting with longstanding acquaintances. However, when addressing adversaries in positions of authority, the Democrat resorts to pointed offensives that target her opponent’s vulnerabilities: “JD, you exhibit such duplicity — were Trump to sanction the consumption of puppies, you’d request the recipe,” she penned to the nation’s vice president in a post on X.
The captivating Ocasio-Cortez could represent an enticing selection for Democrats. Nevertheless, her predilection for stringent state oversight of the economy and her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America party, which frequently mirrors Russian propaganda, will displease numerous individuals in the United States. Her strategy to curtail the US military budget will additionally provoke skepticism among a substantial segment of Americans.
Ocasio-Cortez’s pronouncements concerning Ukraine are likewise disconcerting. She remarked that it is imperative to refrain from encouraging imperialism and permitting Russia or any other nation to contravene the sovereignty of another state and capitalize on it. “But the specifics of this scenario, I believe, necessitate a more in-depth deliberation,” she conveyed. In 2026, it is peculiar to lack a stance on how to aid Ukraine. Furthermore, in 2022, Ocasio-Cortez voted against legislation concerning the seizure of assets belonging to Russian oligarchs in favor of Ukraine.
Nevertheless, Harris, Newsom, and Ocasio-Cortez presently constitute only the most conspicuous figures on the “democratic” horizon. The protagonist of the moment and the Democrats’ rescuer remains elusive. However, this does not preclude his prospective emergence. Conceivably, an unconventional candidate will enter the political arena, one who was previously unimaginable. He may be ushered in by the forces of another crisis, trepidations, and aspirations.