With the tumultuous events of the past year slowly receding in our rearview mirror, we can reasonably say that the world of 2017 is going to be fundamentally different from that of 2016. A great transformation has occurred in the past few months that will leave the United States and the world dramatically changed.

The election of President Donald Trump, which left many conservatives elated and many liberals in despair, is only part of a larger picture of a revolution in world affairs. In the aftermath of the Cold War, many commentators described a “new world order,” in which ancient conflicts of us-against-them were all replaced by America's leadership in a community of nations. For a long period from 1989 to very recently, America developed friendships with Russia and China. We had strong allies and friends around the world in Europe and the Middle East. Despite the rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups who were animated by a hatred of the United States, we continued a policy of advancing our mutual interests with much of the Islamic world. In 1990, we fought alongside Arab nations to curb the aggression of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We “led from behind” against first al-Qaida and then ISIS, helping to stabilize nation-states in crisis, while avoiding direct U .S. involvement, which would foster more hatred of the U.S. During this time, the global community was further strengthened by expanding economic markets with the European Union and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.

The new world order began to unravel in 2003 with George Bush's decision to invade Iraq and has continued during the Obama presidency. Russia and China have entered a new phase of imperialistic expansion. Old allies — Turkey, the Philippines and recently Israel — are increasingly antagonistic. The European Union has been weakened by the British decision to leave, with other nations nearing important decisions on their future in the union.

In the United States, the election of Donald Trump is only one sign of a great revolution in world affairs. His personal, confrontational style, which propelled his success in business, will be translated into American foreign policy with much more uncertain results. A realignment of our international relationships, especially with Russia, Israel and the United Nations, threatens a period of increased instability around the world. Meanwhile, American domestic policies, particularly concerning issues of immigration, abortion, health, education and the environment are being wrenched in a radically conservative direction.

Despite the swiftness of these dramatic changes in world and domestic affairs, we should perhaps not be surprised. The storm was brewing for a long time before the clouds opened up and the lightning struck. The expansion of the role of mass media and social media, which allow each of us to cherry-pick the news and the facts that we want and identify with communities that know no geographic boundaries, has allowed numerous factions to form in opposition to the status quo.

The power structures, centralized political institutions, scientific and educational organizations that offered intellectual coherence, political stability, prosperity and some degree of justice to large numbers of people have been largely discredited, despite their undeniable accomplishments. In this environment, groups with very narrowly focused agendas, from the tea party to ISIS, have proliferated.

Corporations and big businesses have played both a positive and a negative role in this by advancing globalization through the expansion of markets, while at the same time appealing to smaller and smaller market niches.

Similarly, American political parties have played an important role. Both parties mix pragmatic realism with abstract ideology, and both parties embrace the ideal of personal freedom. There the similarities stop, and it is a disservice to both of them to argue, as many people do, that both parties are alike. For most Republicans, personal freedom depends on ideals of individual initiative, moral responsibility and “pulling yourself up by the boot straps.” Ironically, these ideals, while noble in themselves, have fostered a degree of social inequality unseen before in U.S. history. Democrats, on the other hand, have fought against these headwinds believing that personal freedom depends on equal opportunities to education, access to health care, good jobs and a clean environment, and that only a strong and active government can ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.

There are strong arguments in favor of both personal responsibility and government activism, but until we work out these fundamental contradictions, the world will probably continue to unravel.

Alexander O. Boulton is a professor of history at Stevenson University; his email is aoboulton@hotmail.com.