Slavoj Žižek, in his analysis of the global political situation offers a sweeping and unflinchingly critical diagnosis of the contemporary geopolitical order, locating the rise of Donald Trump not as a deviation or historical anomaly but rather as a concentrated symptom of broader, long-developing systemic failures.
According to Žižek, Trump’s emergence on the political stage accelerated a transformation that was already underway—a transition away from the neoliberal consensus that had structured global capitalism since the late twentieth century. This shift is not an aberration, but rather a consequence of the exhaustion of the post-World War II political-economic model, which saw the establishment of the Bretton Woods order, the welfare state, and rules-based multilateralism. Neoliberal globalization succeeded this framework, driven by deregulation, free-market expansion, and the financialization of the global economy, from which the United States initially benefited immensely. Yet, with the economic ascent of China and the widening gap between the wealth of billionaires and the stagnation faced by the working class—particularly in the U.S.—the contradictions of neoliberalism have rendered it increasingly unsustainable.
Žižek critiques both the mainstream liberal center and the traditional left for their inability to grasp the depth of this transformation. In particular, he singles out the Democratic Party in the United States for retreating into a politics of cultural symbolism and identity, thereby alienating large swaths of working-class voters—especially white, rural, and industrial workers—whose grievances went unanswered. This discontent was neither irrational nor simply manipulated by right-wing demagoguery; rather, it was a rational response to a political establishment that no longer offered substantive alternatives. In this context, Trump’s appeal was not in spite of, but because of, his transgressive rhetoric and outsider persona. He appeared as the only figure offering real change, while his electoral rival, Joe Biden, was perceived as a hollow representative of the status quo. Žižek insists that the American electorate’s choice in 2016 cannot be dismissed as a moment of collective irrationality; it must be understood within the framework of competitive democracy, wherein Trump—however flawed—was seen by many as a changemaker, while Biden embodied inertia.
Reflecting on his controversial stance from 2016—that a Trump presidency might catalyze an awakening on the left—Žižek concedes disappointment. Although figures like Bernie Sanders brought democratic socialism into mainstream discourse and revitalized certain elements of the left, there was no coherent or sufficiently forceful political movement that emerged in opposition to the neoliberal consensus. Žižek’s wager had been that allowing Trump to govern would expose the contradictions of reactionary populism and create fertile ground for a renewed leftist project. However, that dialectical reversal never fully materialized. Instead, what followed was a deepening of authoritarian tendencies, an intensification of political polarization, and a retreat from transformative politics.
Trump, Žižek argues, must be understood as a reaction to the failings of liberal democracy, particularly its inability to distribute the gains of globalization equitably. Under the neoliberal model, American oligarchs profited from the exploitation of both Chinese labor and the displacement of American workers, creating a “double extraction” that enriched the few while impoverishing the many. The illusion that this process could be reversed by restoring mid-century manufacturing jobs is, according to Žižek, an ideological fantasy. Capitalism has moved beyond the Fordist model of industrial production; the structural transformation of the global economy renders any such nostalgic restoration both politically regressive and economically impossible.
Žižek then expands his analysis to the international arena, identifying an ominous shift toward a new geopolitical order that eerily mirrors the dystopian vision of George Orwell. In this emerging configuration, the world is divided among three major blocs: the United States and its Anglo allies (Oceania), Russia and its sphere (Eurasia), and China. Within this multipolar arrangement, great powers pursue their interests with increasing indifference to normative justifications or liberal pretenses. Trump and Putin, despite ideological differences, share a geopolitical grammar of brute power and transactionalism. Their unspoken accord reflects a new cynicism in international relations, wherein sovereignty is asserted without regard for the ethical or legal frameworks that once underpinned the liberal order. Europe, caught in this maelstrom, is increasingly fragmented and geopolitically adrift. According to Žižek, it is condemned—not merely encouraged—to evolve into a superpower, not to emulate the United States or China, but in order to maintain agency in a world governed by force rather than rules.
The Brexit referendum, from Žižek’s perspective, exemplifies the contradictory impulses of national sovereignty and global integration. While British voters expressed a desire to reclaim control from Brussels, the practical outcome has been a UK increasingly dependent on U.S. influence, threatening its actual autonomy. The illusion of national self-determination, in this case, masks a deeper subservience to a different hegemon. Žižek warns that unless Europe constructs a clear, collective political vision—capable of confronting external pressures from Russia, China, and the United States—it risks fracturing irreparably. Surprisingly for a thinker on the left, he advocates for a form of intelligent militarization in Europe, not in the service of imperial expansion, but as a means to establish a political core capable of defending democratic sovereignty. He points to Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a historical example: a charismatic, quasi-authoritarian leader who enacted sweeping changes while operating within democratic structures. The left, Žižek contends, needs its own version of such leadership—one that can combine decisiveness with democratic legitimacy.
What Žižek ultimately calls for is a radical reorientation of the left, away from the sentimentalism of the welfare state and the performativity of postmodern irony, toward a new synthesis of economic pragmatism and moral integrity. He provocatively suggests that the left must become a kind of “neoconservative left”—not in the reactionary sense, but as a force that asserts the necessity of controlled markets, robust public institutions, and a reaffirmation of common decency and civic virtue. The current postmodern left, which has embraced subversion, irony, and cultural relativism, has unwittingly ceded these values to the right. Trump, with his bombastic contradictions and performative vulgarity, is a postmodern figure par excellence. Bernie Sanders, by contrast, represents moral consistency and democratic sincerity—qualities Žižek believes should form the ethical backbone of a revitalized left.
The contemporary geopolitical moment, in Žižek’s words, marks the beginning of a “new age of shamelessness,” in which global actors pursue their objectives without even the façade of moral justification. The United States, under Trump, mocked the multilateral alliances it once led, criticizing Europe’s defense dependency while demanding greater financial contributions to NATO. Yet Žižek acknowledges the legitimacy of some of these critiques: Europe’s complacency, nurtured by decades under the American security umbrella, must be overcome if it is to maintain any semblance of sovereignty. The liberal establishment’s failure lies not in its diagnosis of Trump’s vulgarity, but in its inability to offer a compelling counter-vision.
In the end, Žižek refuses facile condemnations. Instead, he insists that Trump’s rise reveals an historical impasse in which both left and right have failed to provide credible futures. What is needed, he suggests, is not a return to the politics of the past, but the invention of a radically new political horizon—one that combines moral seriousness, structural reform, and democratic legitimacy. If that path does not materialize, the alternative may be a long and dangerous descent into autocratic cynicism and geopolitical nihilism. In this tragic interregnum, the only hope lies in the possibility that widespread dissatisfaction—both in Europe and the United States—can be harnessed to forge an emancipatory alternative. As Žižek provocatively concludes, such an alternative may even take the form of a “leftist Trump”: not in imitation of Trump’s style or ideology, but in the capacity to act decisively, to confront historical necessity, and to do so in the name of a more just and egalitarian future.
Simon Gros 
Leave a comment