The Stagnation of Ideological Politics:
A Shift from Progress to Preservation
The political landscape today is dominated by a growing sense of disillusionment with traditional ideological frameworks. As progressivism, conservatism, and liberalism increasingly fail to provide meaningful solutions to the problems of modern society, they have become little more than defensive forces, protecting the stagnancy of the center. This stagnation is not only ideological but also deeply structural. Political elites, detached from the needs of ordinary people, persist in defending systems and policies that have proven ineffective. The ideologies that once defined the political spectrum—progressivism’s vision of social change, conservatism’s protection of traditional values, and liberalism’s commitment to liberty—are now trapped in a cycle of preservation. They are less about moving forward and more about defending a status quo that no longer serves the people. As this stagnation deepens, populist movements have gained traction by promising to break free from the gridlock and offer a new, radical direction. But what happens when progress itself has lost its direction?
Progressivism’s “Woke” Culture:
A Culture of Recognition Over Structural Change
Progressivism, once the engine of social reform, is now dominated by what is often referred to as “woke” culture—a focus on symbolic recognition, identity politics, and cultural gestures rather than tangible structural reforms. This shift, according to Noam Chomsky, has diverted progressive movements from addressing core issues such as economic inequality and systemic power dynamics. In his critique of the current political climate, Chomsky argues that the focus on symbolic acts of social justice—such as shifting language, promoting diversity in media, and enforcing political correctness—has overshadowed real, material concerns such as access to healthcare, housing, and education.
Chomsky has long contended that true progress requires a deep, structural overhaul of economic and political systems, particularly the neoliberal order that consolidates power in the hands of the few while disenfranchising the many. In the era of “woke” politics, progressivism has become less concerned with challenging the economic structures that perpetuate inequality and more focused on correcting the language and imagery of public discourse. While these cultural issues are important, they often serve as distractions from the economic transformations that are necessary to address the root causes of social injustice. The risk is that progressivism becomes absorbed in identity-based battles at the expense of its broader, materialist agenda, ultimately leaving people disillusioned with a movement that no longer seems to address their real needs.
Slavoj Žižek, in his critique of contemporary liberal and left-wing movements, similarly points out the contradictions inherent in “woke” culture. Žižek has noted that while the desire to confront systemic racism and sexism is legitimate, the tendency to focus on symbolic gestures often leads to a form of ideological purity that ignores the lived reality of most people. In his work, Žižek often argues that the focus on identity and recognition obscures the fundamental economic and political structures that perpetuate exploitation and inequality. The focus on culture wars—such as the debate over pronouns or cancel culture—becomes an outlet for progressive energy that could otherwise be used to challenge the capitalist system, which he sees as the primary force driving inequality and alienation.
Thus, both Chomsky and Žižek suggest that progressivism’s focus on recognition over redistribution ultimately diminishes its potential to bring about the systemic changes that would address the true sources of inequality. The failure to engage with capitalism as the root of global inequality leads to a situation where progressivism becomes little more than a set of cultural norms to police, without any meaningful shift in the underlying power structures.
Conservatism’s Demand for “Respect”:
The Paradox of Preserving a Changing World
Conservatism, traditionally associated with preserving societal institutions, values, and traditions, is facing a profound paradox. As society evolves—through technological advancements, globalization, and demographic shifts—many of the values and institutions conservatives seek to protect seem increasingly out of step with contemporary realities. This has led to what some have called a “conservatism of nostalgia,” which clings to idealized notions of the past even as the world around it changes in ways that demand adaptation.
The conservative demand for “respect” often takes the form of a call for society to honor traditional values, norms, and customs that are seen as essential for social cohesion. However, as Michael Polanyi has pointed out, the notion of “respect” becomes problematic when it is rooted in a desire to preserve outdated traditions that may no longer have relevance in a rapidly changing world. In The Tacit Dimension, Polanyi emphasizes the importance of personal knowledge and the evolution of society’s tacit understandings—those invisible frameworks that shape our interactions and institutions. When conservatives demand respect for traditions without acknowledging the need for these traditions to evolve, they risk reinforcing stagnant power structures that no longer serve the common good.
Polanyi’s concept of “tacit knowledge” suggests that social progress cannot be achieved by simply conserving the past; rather, it requires an ongoing, dynamic engagement with the present and future. Conservative demands for respect, in their most rigid form, often ignore the lived experiences of marginalized groups and the changing realities of contemporary life. As Žižek argues, conservative nostalgia for a “better” time often disregards the ways in which those very times were marked by exclusion and inequality.
This tension between tradition and progress is particularly evident in the conservative response to issues like multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ rights, and secularism. Conservatives often frame these issues as threats to social cohesion and national identity, demanding that society “respect” traditional values in the face of such challenges. Yet, as both Chomsky and Polanyi suggest, this resistance to change often stems from a failure to recognize the evolving needs of society—needs that require a more flexible, inclusive approach to tradition.
Liberalism: The Erosion of Liberty
in the Age of "Laissez Faire" and "Regulation"
Liberalism, the ideology traditionally committed to individual liberty, free markets, and responsible governance, has undergone a significant transformation in recent decades. Where liberalism once sought to protect personal freedom and limit the reach of the state, modern liberalism has increasingly embraced state intervention and regulation, particularly in the realms of social justice and environmental protection. This shift has led to a situation where the very concept of liberty, which was once central to liberal thought, is being redefined in ways that diminish individual autonomy.
Žižek critiques this shift, arguing that liberalism’s embrace of state intervention—particularly in the form of policies that regulate social behavior—has created a paradox. While these interventions may be motivated by a desire to promote equality and social justice, they often come at the expense of individual freedom. Žižek’s concern is that liberalism, in its quest for social fairness, has allowed the state to encroach on personal liberties, undermining the very principles of freedom that once defined the ideology.
In contrast, Chomsky has long warned against the neoliberal policies that have come to dominate liberalism in the 21st century. Neoliberalism, according to Chomsky, consolidates power in the hands of global corporations and elites while weakening democratic institutions. This neoliberal turn within liberalism has led to the erosion of the welfare state and the abandonment of policies that promote economic equality. This corporate dominance under neoliberalism often results in the erosion of workers’ rights, the undermining of environmental protections, and the exacerbation of economic inequality. In this context, the neoliberal agenda of economic “freedom” often leads to the concentration of power in the hands of a few, leaving ordinary citizens with little recourse against corporate abuses. Rather than promoting freedom, neoliberalism has entrenched economic inequalities and reduced the capacity of the state to protect individuals from the excesses of the market. And this corporate dominance often results in the erosion of workers’ rights, the undermining of environmental protections, and the exacerbation of economic inequality. In this context, the neoliberal agenda of economic “freedom” often leads to the concentration of power in the hands of a few, leaving ordinary citizens with little recourse against corporate abuses.
Modern liberalism is caught in a profound contradiction: while it claims to protect individual liberty, it simultaneously embraces both expansive state intervention and neoliberal capitalism, both of which can undermine personal freedom. The regulatory state, in its attempt to address social and environmental issues, encroaches on individual autonomy. At the same time, the neoliberal agenda has concentrated economic power in the hands of a few, limiting the true freedom of individuals to make meaningful choices about their lives. Thus, liberalism today is caught in a difficult position: its once-clear commitment to individual liberty has been eroded by its embrace of state "regulation" and corporate power. The result is an ideological incoherence that leaves liberalism unable to respond effectively to the challenges of the modern world.
The Center’s Struggle to Defend Stagnation
The political center is facing a profound crisis that reflects not just the shifting dynamics of ideologies but also the fundamental disconnect between the needs of the populace and the responses offered by traditional political structures. Historically, the center has been seen as the locus of moderation, compromise, and pragmatic problem-solving. It was conceived as the area where diverse political factions could find common ground, bridging the gap between extremes in pursuit of stable, workable solutions to the challenges of governance. However, in recent years, this vision of the center has eroded, and it has become increasingly apparent that the center no longer serves as an effective counterbalance to the ideological extremes on either side, nor does it offer a meaningful way forward.
At the heart of this erosion is the growing irrelevance of traditional ideological categories like conservatism, liberalism, and progressivism. These labels, once powerful in shaping political discourse, now seem inadequate to address the pressing issues of the moment—issues that range from systemic economic inequality to climate change, from global instability to the challenges of digital transformation. As the traditional left-right spectrum becomes more fragmented, these once-stable ideologies appear to be losing their coherence and their ability to offer solutions that speak to the lived realities of many people. In this environment, the political center, far from offering innovative or responsive leadership, has increasingly become a place of stagnation, desperately clinging to outdated paradigms that fail to address the changing landscape.
The center, in its current form, has become a force not for progress but for the defense of a status quo that is increasingly untenable. This is a status quo defined not only by entrenched economic hierarchies and institutional power but also by a set of cultural and political norms that many people now see as outdated, ineffective, or even oppressive. In a sense, the center has become a bulwark not against extremism but against change itself. It defends institutions, structures, and policies that, though they may have worked in the past, are no longer equipped to solve the deepening crises of the present. Whether it's the inability to address economic inequality or the failure to confront environmental degradation, the center has lost its capacity to offer real solutions, instead resorting to defensive postures that seek only to maintain the status quo.
Žižek's critique of the center in this context becomes particularly salient. He argues that the center no longer has the tools or the will to offer meaningful answers to the complex problems of our time. Instead of proposing visionary alternatives or daring to imagine new forms of governance, the center simply seeks to preserve what is. And in doing so, it inadvertently fuels the very dissatisfaction that is rising from the fringes of the political spectrum. By refusing to acknowledge the depth of structural inequality, by offering only incremental reforms rather than radical change, the center finds itself increasingly irrelevant to the demands of a disillusioned electorate.
Meanwhile, both conservatism and progressivism have become more reactive forces, more concerned with defending their respective worldviews against the perceived onslaughts of the other than with tackling the systemic issues at the heart of modern political life. In this sense, both ideologies, far from being agents of change, have become custodians of cultural and political battles that no longer serve to resolve the deeper issues of economic, social, and environmental crises.
Conservatives, for example, often position themselves as defenders of traditional values, invoking nostalgia for a past that many believe was more stable and morally grounded. Yet this defense of tradition often obscures the ways in which those traditions are bound up with systems of power and privilege that perpetuate inequality. The focus on "respect" and "order" among conservatives, then, becomes less about fostering a just society and more about protecting an established social order that is increasingly seen as unjust or out of touch with contemporary realities. While there is a legitimate concern for preserving social cohesion and stability, the conservative focus on the cultural wars—whether over issues like immigration, family values, or national identity—often distracts from the broader structural issues that generate inequality and division.
On the other side, progressivism has similarly devolved into a defensive posture. The focus on "woke" politics and identity issues—while important in terms of addressing historical and ongoing injustices—has sometimes become a way of signaling virtue or moral superiority rather than creating systemic change. The fixation on language, representation, and the policing of social norms can, at times, obscure the larger economic and political forces that shape people's lives. Progressives are often more adept at identifying the symptoms of inequality (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) than at challenging the underlying structures of capitalism, neoliberalism, or global financial systems that perpetuate these injustices. In this sense, the current form of progressivism risks becoming a form of symbolic politics, more concerned with moral gestures than with achieving substantive structural reform.
Both conservative and progressive forces are, in their own ways, defending a political center that is increasingly discredited. These ideologies no longer seem capable of offering anything beyond symbolic victories or rhetorical battles, and their focus on cultural identity and values often distracts from the more pressing material issues that people are facing—issues like the erosion of the middle class, environmental destruction, job insecurity, and growing wealth inequality. In the process, both extremes become entangled in the politics of recognition and the defense of cultural or ideological purity, rather than offering a new vision of how society might be reorganized to address the real challenges of the modern world.
This growing sense of dissatisfaction with the political center and the ideological extremes is a symptom of a deeper crisis in democracy itself. The belief that any single political ideology, whether liberal, conservative, or progressive, can offer a universal solution to the problems of the world is increasingly seen as naïve. As the center crumbles and the extremes grow more entrenched, the political discourse becomes more polarized, and the possibility for meaningful dialogue and compromise diminishes. The result is a political landscape where stagnation becomes the default, and where real change seems ever more elusive.
Ultimately, the struggle to defend stagnation—whether by the political center, conservatives, or progressives—reflects a failure to come to terms with the fundamental transformations required to address the crises of our time. Without a genuine willingness to reimagine social, economic, and political systems in ways that reflect the needs and aspirations of people today, the political class risks continuing down a path of irrelevance, unable to meet the moment. As the pressures of inequality, environmental collapse, and technological change mount, the defense of the status quo becomes ever more unsustainable. It is only by breaking free from this cycle of stagnation—by rejecting the false comfort of ideological purity and embracing the complexity of modern challenges—that a new, more dynamic and responsive politics can emerge.
Populism: The Call for Radical Change?
As traditional ideological movements—liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism—struggle to address the needs and frustrations of the populace, populism has emerged as a powerful force calling for a radical overhaul of the political system. Rejecting the established order, populism asserts that current political structures are corrupt, elitist, and disconnected from the needs and voices of ordinary people. Rather than merely critiquing the status quo, populism advocates a new political direction that abandons old ideological divides, aiming to reshape society according to the will of “the people.”
Populism is not simply a rejection of centrist or establishment values—it is a reimagining of the political order from the ground up. As Karl Polanyi argued in The Great Transformation, when existing systems fail to address the basic needs of the population, radical change becomes a necessity. Polanyi posited that unchecked market capitalism erodes social bonds and creates deep inequalities, eventually triggering a reaction from society in the form of demands for transformative change. Populism reflects this reactionary spirit, tapping into the frustration of those who feel disenfranchised by the prevailing economic and political structures.
Yet, while populism taps into legitimate grievances, it often faces the challenge of avoiding authoritarian impulses. Slavoj Žižek warns that populism, if not grounded in a coherent vision of justice and equality, risks devolving into authoritarianism. Without a principled foundation, populist movements may succumb to simplistic solutions that prioritize short-term gains or the power of a charismatic leader over sustainable structural change. Žižek contends that, in this sense, populism’s emotional appeal can mask a lack of substantive ideology, making it susceptible to authoritarian tendencies if unchecked.
Noam Chomsky’s critique further underscores this risk, noting that populist movements sometimes fall prey to reactionary forces that exploit popular dissatisfaction for regressive agendas. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky highlighted the ways in which elite interests manipulate public discourse, even within ostensibly democratic systems. Populist movements that fail to recognize these manipulative dynamics can become co-opted by those same elite interests they initially sought to resist, ironically reinforcing the very systems of power they aim to dismantle.
Yet, populism’s volatility is part of its potency. Figures like Edward Limonov embody the radical possibilities of populism—an unconventional intellectual who combined cultural rebellion with sharp critiques of the political elite. Limonov’s blend of punk-like defiance and ideological innovation exemplifies how populism can unsettle established norms and draw attention to the shortcomings of traditional ideologies. However, his trajectory also illustrates the danger of populism’s susceptibility to extremism. Limonov’s mix of nationalism and revolutionary zeal reveals the precarious balance populism must maintain: it must energize the people without slipping into xenophobia, authoritarianism, or an overly simplified political agenda.
Ultimately, the challenge for populism is to harness the anger of the people constructively, offering a vision that transcends both ideological extremes and the stagnant center. For populism to avoid veering into authoritarianism, it must develop a clear, democratic vision rooted in justice, equality, and systemic reform. Populism’s potential lies in its capacity to mobilize the disillusioned and to critique elite domination. If it can remain guided by democratic values and resist reactionary temptations, populism might succeed in challenging the status quo and opening pathways to a more responsive and inclusive political order.
Conclusion: A New Direction Amid Stagnation
In conclusion, the stagnation of the center, the incoherence of today's liberal, conservative, and progressive views, and the rise of populism all point to a broader crisis in political thought. As Chomsky, Žižek, and Polanyi have argued, the failure of the center to address the core issues of economic inequality, social justice, and political power has created a vacuum in which radical alternatives flourish. However, the path forward requires more than simply rejecting the old political order; it requires a new vision that takes into account the changing realities of the modern world and offers a path to genuine, systemic transformation.
