The world, not just the U.S., is experiencing severe political polarization: Britain, Chile, Italy, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, Greece, Germany, Brazil, etc.

My wife and I returned recently from Britain, a country basically divided in two on the edges with little in the middle. We talked to people on both sides, virtually all of whom understood the division but had little idea on how it would come out.


This is the age of uncertainty, but it has a definite shape. We see it in the current presidential race. It has a basic structure, but it is mystifyingly complex. On the simple level it consists of nationalism versus internationalism, where nationalist President Donald Trump and his Republican loyalists confront establishment Democratic internationalists.

Both sides also have their internal divisions, that is, Republicans include business, government, and non-governmental internationalists and Democrats have many domestic reformers, even nationalist revolutionaries such as U.S. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

This raises a wild card in the presidential race. What if a nationalist far-left Warren or Sanders captures the nomination to battle nationalist Trump? My next column, backed by lots of poll data, will suggest answers.

For now, let’s assume front-runner internationalist Joe Biden challenges nationalist Trump. How will this come out? We’ll start by exploring the beginning of this great divide.

The early years of this century found the internationalists ascendant, a continuation of the first President Bush, then the Bill Clinton years through those of the second Bush and Barack Obama. Then the political divide burst on the country with the Trump versus Hillary Clinton contest.

A very big dent by Trump was inflicted on internationalism, an era born at the end of the Cold War. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it seemed as if the whole world could and would get along. No longer an era of us versus them, the threat of World War III vanished. International cooperation was in the air: the unification of Germany, the all-encompassing World Trade Organization, unity against terrorism, treaties on the Iran nuclear program, climate change, trade [NAFTA, TPP], and the explosion of international business. As my acquaintance, Tom Friedman of the New York Times wrote, “The World Is Flat.” Globalism emerged triumphant.

Surprisingly to many, a reaction spawned by internationalism burst onto the United States and the world — populist nationalism. It propelled Trump to the White House. Globalism produced lots of enemies; many people felt left out. The world became too big, complex, and less American. And who ran it? Moneyed elites and their partners in politics, media, government, and corporations.

Their members were called “Davos Men” after those attending the elite World Economic Forum in Switzerland {I attended in the 2000s and it included women]. The movement of people — yellow, brown, and black — circled the world, often immigrants and refugees.

Who was left behind? The influx of non-white immigrants squeezed working-class whites here and around the world, taking jobs, not speaking the local language, and not sharing or respecting the national culture. For many, their country was being lost. While the elites made enormous profits and high wages, working-class wages stagnated. Their political leaders weren’t working for the common man or woman, only for themselves. That made them corrupt.

Nationalism became their populist refuge. And those who represented and propagandized it became their heroes. The powerless attached themselves to the emerging powerful. Those who paid attention to the well-being of the masses, their traditions, interests, and culture created a rabid following.

Trump, even though part of the elite appeared to reject that status. It won him key Electoral College rust belt and Southern states to put him in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He glories in being their supreme leader.

Convincing these alienated American voters that the Democratic presidential candidate can cure their angst and anger with needed reforms will determine the results next Nov. 3. Failure to do so probably ensures four more years of Donald Trump.

Stay tuned.