The Neoliberal US Elections
The U.S. presidential election serves not only as a significant domestic event but as a touchstone for global socio-political dynamics and a means of shaping the world order in the neoliberal age. The election is an unparalleled spectacle, drawing worldwide attention from state and non-state actors, multinational corporations, and various ideological factions. In the post-political world, where market forces guide decision-making as much, if not more, than political ideals, the American electoral process has morphed into a commodity. Its utility has become instrumental not just for Americans but as a linchpin in global power structures, influencing other nations’ approaches to governance, diplomacy, and economic policies. Under the sway of neoliberalism, U.S. elections appear less concerned with fostering democratic ideals and more with preserving an economic status quo, favoring market dynamics over collective civic duty.
Neoliberalism’s ascent in the 1980s redefined American political priorities, transforming the electoral landscape into one where corporate interests frequently dominate the discourse. The candidates in the 2024 U.S. election—represented by the Republican nominee Donald Trump and the Democratic ticket led by Kamala Harris—exemplify the market’s hegemony over policy-making and public sentiment. Campaign financing, branding, and media manipulation have commodified political trust, where party lines act less as ideological battlefields and more as corporate brand distinctions. Trump, with his populist right-wing rhetoric, appeals to certain corporate interests, particularly those in the energy and real estate sectors, who benefit from reduced regulations. Meanwhile, the Democratic establishment, represented by Harris, appeals to Silicon Valley, healthcare, and green technology interests, using the language of progressivism to maintain a neoliberal framework where markets, not citizens, hold sway over policymaking.
This erosion of electoral trust is not isolated to the United States. Globally, voters are becoming disillusioned as American elections come to symbolize the commodification of democratic ideals. In Pakistan, where political and economic stability is often tied to U.S. foreign policy decisions, the outcome of an American election can recalibrate strategic alignments and diplomatic tensions. Similarly, India’s engagement with the U.S. is partly influenced by how American leadership views economic alliances, trade partnerships, and defense collaborations. The Middle East, with its intricate web of alliances and conflicts, watches American elections closely, as shifts in U.S. policy can dramatically affect regional power balances and economic interests. European nations, bound by both shared democratic values and strategic dependencies, also feel the effects of U.S. electoral outcomes, where the rise of either candidate might signify differing approaches to NATO, trade policies, and responses to Russia’s geopolitical maneuvers.
In fact, the U.S.-Russia dynamic offers a prime example of how American elections are instrumentalized in global power play. Russia’s own narrative on U.S. elections often emphasizes Western hypocrisy and seeks to leverage American instability as a justification for its actions on the global stage. This underlines a post-political narrative where the U.S. election is both a political and economic event, driven by power struggles and interests that transcend national borders, casting doubt on the intrinsic democratic values it purports to uphold.
When viewed through the lens of postmodernism, the U.S. electoral process exemplifies a political system wherein “truth” is a construct shaped by media and elite interests. Jacques Derrida’s ideas of deconstruction resonate here, as the American election system can be unpacked to reveal layers of manipulated narratives, subjective “truths,” and entrenched biases. The language of freedom and democratic values is often a facade for policies that promote neoliberalism, aligning more closely with corporate agendas than with those of the average citizen. Louis Althusser’s concept of ideological state apparatuses finds expression here as well; through education, media, and political institutions, neoliberalism perpetuates itself, crafting an electorate whose desires align with market demands rather than with substantive democratic engagement.
The influence of the U.S. elections in the global market economy recalls Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. The United States exerts cultural and political hegemony by promoting a neoliberal worldview through its political process, exporting an ideology that benefits multinational corporations and consolidates a global market economy. This hegemony manifests in American elections as two-party competition that seemingly presents choice but ultimately sustains capitalist structures. Neo-Marxist perspectives argue that the election is not so much a democratic exercise as it is a ritual that preserves the illusion of choice within a capitalist framework, one that prioritizes consumerism over citizenship, the individual over the collective, and market value over social value.
In the 2024 election, the two dominant parties act as vehicles for different corporate interests, reflecting Marxist notions of class struggle. Yet, instead of proletariat versus bourgeoisie, the struggle is between different elite interests, leaving the average voter in a subordinate role, alienated from any meaningful influence on policy. The commodification of political trust, seen in the millions spent on campaign ads, data mining, and influence campaigns, underscores the Marxist critique of capitalism’s control over democracy. As Robert Cox’s theories on global political economy highlight, such a system solidifies the power of multinational corporations, allowing them to dictate terms that transcend national borders and erode the sovereignty of individual nations.
Frantz Fanon’s critique of colonial structures and Paulo Freire’s concept of “pedagogy of the oppressed” illuminate the ways in which U.S. elections reinforce a hierarchy that disadvantages developing nations. In a neo-colonial twist, the outcomes of U.S. elections indirectly perpetuate systems of economic dependency, debt, and interventionism in less powerful countries. Through trade policies, military alliances, and economic sanctions, U.S. leadership can significantly alter the socio-political fabric of nations worldwide, particularly those once colonized by European powers. By promoting neoliberalism through its political apparatus, the United States sustains a global hierarchy reminiscent of colonial times, with developing nations largely subjected to the whims of American political cycles and policy shifts.
U.S. elections also expose the contradictions within neoliberalism, especially in the way they present themselves as democratic and free. The market-driven nature of American politics in the neoliberal era dilutes the essence of true democratic choice, replacing it with a consumerist approach to voting. Political campaigns, reliant on sophisticated marketing techniques and data analytics, transform candidates into brands and policies into products. This process commodifies electoral trust, reducing political engagement to a transactional exchange and diminishing the collective civic spirit.
Is there hope for electoral emancipation within this system? American elections, steeped in market influences, seem ill-equipped to deliver genuine change as they reinforce an existing power structure that prioritizes economic interests over democratic principles. However, social movements, both within and outside the U.S., are increasingly pushing for reforms that prioritize the common good over corporate profits. Movements for electoral reform, climate justice, and social equity reflect a global yearning for a democratic process unshackled from market control.
The U.S. presidential election, with its vast implications for global power dynamics, underscores the limitations of neoliberal democracy. It is a symbolic event in a post-political world, where market tendencies supplant civic unity and consumerism overshadows citizenship. The 2024 election, like its predecessors, is unlikely to shake the structural foundations of neoliberalism, which continue to prioritize corporate interests at the expense of genuine democratic engagement. As such, while the U.S. election may shift the immediate contours of the world order, it remains a tool within a system fundamentally resistant to substantive change, perpetuating a status quo that aligns more with market ideologies than with the democratic ideals it claims to uphold.
