Inertia and Vision
Contradictions, Consolidation, and the Shape of What’s to Come
Political orders begin during crisis, but not every crisis results in a new political order. We are nearly two decades removed from the 2008 financial crisis, and several years past the shock of COVID-19. The neoliberal order that emphasized globalization and the primacy of the free market, individual responsibility and balancing budgets, has failed. No clear ideological model has yet emerged, but both parties have undergone dramatic shifts in the last few election cycles, and there may be more to come.
Republicans planned for years to reduce New Deal spending and cut social welfare programs, but when Eisenhower was elected in 1954, he chose to expand Social Security and left unemployment insurance alone. Bill Clinton was initially opposed to NAFTA, but signed it into law in 1993, then repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. These capitulations were… popular.
Popular ideas and grievances that could give rise to a new order are all here. But contradictions that plague political discourse remain unresolved.
Key Tensions
Economic Nationalism vs. Industrial Capacity
The U.S. postures as a global leader, especially in financial services and fiscal rule-setting. The dollar is still the global reserve currency, and much of international trade is conducted in dollars. But the stability that leadership was associated with, is no more. Stephen Mirin claims this is in effort to restructure global trade in favor of American prosperity, and reshoring American manufacturing. But, there aren’t any economists that treat the plan earnestly, and the Trump administration flip-flops on goals. Tariffs across sectors prime distributors to raise prices, to pay for imports, which lessens demand, which affects suppliers.
The spending package being discussed in the Senate provides subsidies at 100% of cost for real estate to be used for manufacturing. The CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have injected billions into domestic semiconductor and green energy manufacturing too; the Biden-Harris admin added closed to 700,000 manufacturing jobs. However, as a share of the economy, manufacturing jobs are just ~9% as of 2023, whereas they were ~31% in 1970. Your average manufacturing job today pays ~$27/hour, or $57k a year, according to BLS.
I have nothing negative to say about these jobs, these are some of the hardest workers in the country, but that salary is still $20k/year less than the median income in America. They deserve more. And if the vision is that manufacturing will restore an American middle class, it won’t. Housing, healthcare, and grocery costs have all seen inflation outpacing wage growth.
Immigration vs. Groceries
Manufacturers can often cut costs using the labor of undocumented immigrants. Immigrant families live in our communities, their children go to our schools, they stand in line at our grocery stores.
In less than 6 months the Trump-Vance administration has created an obtrusive and toxic environment for asylum seekers, while actively attempting the biggest crackdown on illegal immigrants residing on U.S. soil.
Foreign students pay into our universities, and train for highly skilled jobs most will find here in the country. But predictably, H1B visa applications for FY26 have declined 25%. J1 visas are expected to mirror this shift. The labor shortages in key economic sectors will limit choice and exacerbate inflation at the grocery store, in construction, hospitality, and other areas.
Urban Economic Engines vs. Housing Inaccessibility
The cities that generate economic growth and innovation are increasingly unlivable for the working and middle class. Cities, in the past, offered higher wages and opportunity for white collar workers and blue collar workers alike. Today, this is still mostly true. However, blue collar workers often can’t afford to live in cities where they work.
Federal housing proposals, like Biden’s Housing Supply Action Plan, provided millions in grants, but projects to actually build housing are intensely localized. William Fischel’s Homevoter Hypothesis hasn’t aged, but our impatience with NIMBYs has grown.
My two cents are that it’s hard to address understandably material concerns, emotionally. Calls to reform local zoning often try to appeal to homeowners sense of a greater need, a better future for the hypothetical family who wants to participate in their community. But a home, or a mortgage, is still the largest financial asset most Americans have. Home value isn’t just listing value; it’s opportunity cost to be near your job, your kids’ school, it’s borrowing leverage for future disasters. Expanding supply in the areas we need it the most will involve a combination of tough leadership, innovative incentives, and the participation of local or neighboring communities, because these projects are longer than political cycles.
Healthcare Access vs. Resource Collapse
There’s real convergence around healthcare affordability. Discourse involves bipartisan support for capping drug prices, protecting Medicaid, and even expanding public options. Yet hospitals are closing, provider burnout is worsening, and the core public systems (Medicare, Medicaid, the VA) are under threat.
Just this month, a bill adding 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over the next 7 years was proposed. This addresses a dramatic coming shortage of primary care doctors in America, but ignores a coming crisis of healthcare capital. If Medicare and Medicaid are cut, hospitals will close. As Americans age, long-term care facilities will fill up. If unchecked, private equity will buy up hospitals. In fact, PE firms own 488 hospitals in the U.S. right now. This is increasingly worrisome as the economic outlook turns down. Not all medical care is compensated the same, and it’s actually emergency services that are often the biggest money sink. When PE loses money on an investment, they sell off the assets and close the doors.
Center of the Venn-Diagram
These tensions overlap in ways that strain the legitimacy of our system. People from blue states move to red states in search of affordable housing, meanwhile people from red states drive to blue states for life-saving healthcare.
In the middle, immigration and healthcare reform are being reframed by populist platforms across both parties. Democratic candidates have endorsed increasingly harsher immigration stances. Meanwhile pharma price caps, Medicaid defense, and even child tax credits have found conservative defenders.
The shape of the next political order will be defined by both a vision for bold ideas that cohere these populist platforms into communicable and actionable strategies, and the inert resistance of status quo governance.
The needs are not mysterious: health, housing, groceries, and an economy of real opportunity. Expectation-setting is the most honest starting point, and we’ll start there, next time.