The post-World War II societal model anchored in consensus and coalition-building has broken down.
The model was applied in North America, Western Europe and a few other places around the globe. It worked. Economic growth was impressive. A safety net ensured that most of those we label social losers got help. The rest of the world watched and found the model attractive.
About 15 years ago it began to lose its allure. Growth faltered. A global financial crisis erupted. Crucially, inequality and diminishing social mobility conveyed the picture of unfairness with the higher wealth lining the pocket of less than three percent of the population.
The established political elite supported by business promised, at election after election, to address the problems for those left behind. A new start or similar catchwords were marketed with vigor. In the beginning the unemployed and poor people believed in the system and voiced their frustration by voting for the opposition, but as they saw that nothing changed -- that the politicians coming in followed analogous policies to their predecessors -- they lost that belief.
The Brexit vote in Britain and Trump's victory signals that a considerable share of the population votes against the system. Hillary Clinton failed to hold on to the coalition electing Barack Obama for precisely this reason. Those who voted against her voted against the system more than for Trump, who comes into power without any coalition among voters to support him. His followers can only agree that the system did not give them a fair deal so they chose the alternative without knowing either what it is or what it should be. For this reason Trump will be unable to govern irrespective of a Republican majority in Congress.
Among the Western democracies a dividing line is drawn between, on the one hand, the U.S. plus Britain (or maybe more precisely England) preaching and practicing free market philosophy inevitably boosting inequality, and on the other hand the continental Europeans incorporating a social welfare system in their societal model, even if economic growth may suffer a bit. Or in other words, the continental Europeans are prioritizing solidarity over economic growth while it is the other way round for the U.S. and England.
Next year Germany and France face national elections. My take is that solidarity in these countries, despite shortcomings, is just sufficiently high to prevent a repetition of what happened in England with Brexit and the U.S. with Trump's victory. It looks likely that the "system" will survive. It also helps that the economy is on the mend and even more that the Europeans will discover through watching England and the U.S that it is a mixed blessing to vote those who are against into power, because governing consists of doing things -- not criticizing or preventing things from being done.
If this scenario comes true the geopolitical consequences will be strong, with England moving towards the U.S. and the continental Europeans moving away from the U.S., maybe even starting to approach Russia and China.