The wave of change that has occurred in the countries of the capitalist peripheries 10-15 years ago has reached the West. Before the economic crisis, the post-materialist struggle prevailed. The main debate focused on the conflict between lifestyles and attitudes. Simplifying, we refer to the conflict between liberal and progressive culture in urban centers of high educational level and the conservative culture of traditional classes. This explains why Barack Obama achieved the highest electoral support among those earning more than $200,000 a year, while Republican candidate Mitt Roomey earned less than $50,000 in the category of white employees.

Between these two sets of values, American society has been able to navigate, aided by the false illusion that created some economic bubbles. But the reality has been very different, over the last 20 years wages have been steadily losing purchasing power, which has led to the concentration of American wealth in a few hands increasing the distances between classes. In other times, Washington balanced these kinds of situations by conquering new raw materials and markets: although the share of labor in the distribution of wealth decreased in percentages, the economic pie increased in absolute terms and the workers did not suffer losses. But the process of autonomization of the capitalist periphery has created problems for the United States to increase its pie, as it is losing control and share in the world economy. To a large extent, this explains the hyperactive and interventionist attitude of the Americans at the international level, which often promotes coups d'état and wars.

With the hindrance of imperialist politics and the piercing of all the bubbles, it has narrowed the internal contradictions of the United States and shaken and questioned all the balances as the crisis progresses. The fractures of class, gender, generation, geographic, cultural and racial have been reinforced in the midst of the crisis. The wounds of the fall of the Empire are very profound and obvious. Now the debate is not between Obama and the tea party movement, now the debate is between Occupy Wall Street and right-wing populism, among others.

Obama appealed to the need to reclaim the idea of the “American dream” to emerge from the crisis. But it couldn't work. The main political characteristic of the middle class is the perception of socio-economic security and security of what their children will inherit and expand their heritage for the future, so they do not see the need to get involved in the struggle for redistribution. However, today this post-war model has been broken, and the struggle has been caused by the interpretation and management of that rupture, by the left Bernie Sanders, by the right Donald Trump, and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

In the primary schools, the outsiders are the main protagonists. As in some European countries, rejection of stablishment is becoming more widespread. People rely more on politicians than on politicians outside the apparatus of parties. Trump raised the banner of class struggle without ideology, while Sanders stirred up his speech against the financial world and put socio-economic differences at the heart of the debate. However, the latter will not have it easy. Factual powers, Democratic superdelegates (parties not chosen in the primaries, mainly supporters of Hillary Clinton), Clinton’s client relationship with minority leaders and useful vote, face Bernie Sanders.