Fareed Zakaria arrived at the polls on November 3, 2026 convinced that the decade-long global wave of right-wing populism is about to hit its first real crack — and that the reason is simple arithmetic. The voters Donald Trump pulled into his coalition are leaving, and they are leaving in numbers large enough to redraw the map.

Speaking to Scott Galloway on The Prof G Pod, the CNN host and Washington Post columnist put a number on the shift: 45% of the American electorate now calls itself independent, the highest share ever recorded, and that bloc is moving away from the president. "Hispanic support has collapsed by close to 20 points" from 2024, Zakaria said. The small surge Trump posted among Black men has collapsed. The roughly 10-point gain among young voters has fully reversed, landing back near the 2008 Obama-era split. The old political rule that voting twice for a party locks a voter in for life, he noted, is exactly what is not happening.

The stakes are not merely partisan. Zakaria's claim is that populism has been entrenched globally but is delivering few results, and 2026 is the first place it might visibly recede. He points to Britain, where Brexit has left the country, in his words, worse off than before. He points to Trump's own record: manufacturing has not returned, the American economy was not decoupled from China, and the tariffs, the Iran war, the cost of living, inflation and aggressive ICE raids have all underdelivered against what was promised.

Why gerrymandering may not save the Republicans

Galloway raises the obvious objection: only about 38 House seats are genuinely competitive, and the map has been drawn to protect incumbents. Zakaria flips the argument. Redistricting can backfire when a wave hits — districts redrawn from safe 20-point Republican seats into two comfortable eight- or nine-point seats become losses if the national swing reaches D-plus-12. Galloway says South Carolina and Kansas are now in play, which would have been unthinkable three months earlier.

Iran is the first American war that was unpopular from day one

Zakaria calls the Iran war the most unpopular conflict in American history, and the distinction matters. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq all began with public support and soured over years. This one never had a honeymoon. He offers two reasons why.

The first is that nobody understands why it started. Six months after a bombing campaign that had set back Iran's nuclear program by months or probably years, Trump launched a regime-change effort that appeared to be a whim — and it failed within three days once the Iranian regime clearly survived. The second is inflation. The link between the war and prices is obvious and undenied even by the administration, whose only defense is that costs will ease once the fighting stops. Six months in, it has not stopped.

For Zakaria, Iran is also the clearest opening for Democrats to confront something larger than a war: an executive branch that has swollen beyond its constitutional bounds. "The president is meant to faithfully execute the laws that Congress passes. Faithfully execute the laws. He was really seen as a kind of steward," he said. "He has become a kind of king." A war fought without congressional authorization, backed by Supreme Court rulings that have broadened presidential power, is the strongest case yet for reining it back in.

America's real loss isn't a policy — it's the trust

This is the heart of the conversation, and it is where the investor read-through lives. Zakaria argues the durable damage of the past two years is not any single tariff or withdrawal but the collapse of trust — and that other nations are hedging even if a Democrat wins in 2028.

Canada is the cleanest example. It spent decades binding its economy to the United States; a single North American car has auto parts crossing borders roughly 15 times during assembly. Now Prime Minister Mark Carney is cutting deals with the EU, China and India to regain leverage. India offers the second example. It gets about 80% of its weaponry from Russia and had been steadily moving toward American arms — until Trump's treatment of India, and of Ukraine, changed the calculation. India's big fighter-jet order this year went to France, not the United States. Elite Indian opinion of America has shifted even as ordinary Indians remain strongly pro-American.

Galloway supplies the framing that makes it legible to anyone with a brokerage account. Buying 33% of a company costs a certain amount; buying 51% costs roughly twice as much, because 51% confers control. The United States held a controlling interest over a bloc representing 60-70% of world GDP — allies who depended on the US Navy, settled trade in dollars and modeled their legal systems on America's. It has now voluntarily moved down to 33%.

Zakaria agrees and adds the founder's analogy: you can own 20% of a company and still hold 60% of the voting rights. That is essentially what the postwar arrangement gave Washington, and it was cheap. "You would never as a shareholder willingly go from a majority to a minority position," he said. "It just absolutely makes no sense."

What actually made the West different

The historical case Zakaria makes is the intellectual spine of the episode, and it is a direct rebuttal to the right's romance with raw power. "What he's describing — strength, power, resourcefulness, might — Genghis Khan had all of that, the Russian Empire had all of that, the Germans had all of that," he said. "What sets the west apart is the enlightenment, the idea that all human beings have equal rights."

Every society practiced slavery, he notes; only the West produced an anti-slavery movement. Every great power was imperial; only the West reflected on it. And after 1945 the United States did something without precedent: it rebuilt its defeated enemies as equal partners and opened its own markets to them. "After '45 the United States took its defeated foes and said not only are we going to welcome you back as equal partners, we are going to help fund your reconstruction," Zakaria said. "That was unprecedented in human history." The Marshall Plan scale he cites: roughly $200 billion in today's terms.

Galloway's version is blunter. "The idea that the number two and number three economies in the world would subcontract their foreign policy to the number one country historically never happened in the world. And it was American genius," he said. "And it has now been American stupidity and recklessness that has wrecked that system."

India's factories show the hedge is already real

Zakaria's prescription is action rather than rhetoric: lock in a 15-year trade agreement with Canada, build long-term economic and technological partnerships with India, and honor the AUKUS commitment to sell Australia three submarines — a promise Australians now suspect Trump is deliberately slow-walking, leaving them having angered China for nothing.

But one piece of the hedge is already visible in the real economy. Three years ago, essentially no iPhones were made in India. Today, every new iPhone sold in America is made there, and 25% of all smartphones sold in the US are manufactured in India — a shift built on Apple's partnership with Tata. India's scale, in Zakaria's telling, is the only serious offset to over-reliance on China.

Force the veto: the playbook Democrats should run

Galloway proposes that Democrats immediately pass a resolution committing the US to Ukraine's defense alongside Europe — more money, the latest technology, the best intelligence — and let Trump veto it and explain why. Zakaria calls it a great idea on two grounds.

The first is moral and strategic. Ukraine matters because the postwar norm that territory cannot be taken by force has largely held since 1945, and Russia's violation of it against a liberal democracy is the defining political struggle of the age. The second is tactical: Trump and Musk are right that the war needs to end, but the path chosen pressures the victim rather than the aggressor. "It's politically stupid," Zakaria said. "It's morally obtuse."

His broader advice to Democrats is to pass four or five big, atomic bills — on healthcare, Ukraine and tariffs — and dare the president to veto them. On tariffs he offers a specific fix: Trump has created roughly 7,000 tariff rates through exemptions, some legitimate and some, in Zakaria's view, effectively corruption as industries buy relief. Regularize the system into a flat 5-7% consumption tax on imports, which he argues the economy and markets can absorb, and tell Americans it lowers prices. He concedes the Treasury is now addicted to the revenue, so a full return to the pre-tariff status quo is impossible.

Musk, Starlink and the cloud cover of wealth

Galloway makes the episode's most incendiary argument. In the 1930s, he says, Charles Lindbergh — an isolationist innovator — buying McDonnell Douglas and then switching off a guidance system mid-flight as fascism advanced would have been treated as treason. The Rosenbergs were executed for less. He calls Musk "a traitor to the West" and argues the deeper danger is a culture in which idolatry of innovators and money provides cloud cover.

Zakaria agrees on substance while separating Musk's engineering genius from his political understanding, which he calls shallow and frequently wrong on facts and history. He cites Musk's before-and-after photographs of African countries, which ignore that roughly 5% white populations held first-class citizenship and land while the other 95% served them. "The pyramids look fantastic, but it was built for one person by hundreds of thousands of workers," he said. He cites DOGE's promise to cut $2 trillion, which only someone ignorant of the federal budget could imagine — the government, he notes, is "basically an insurance company with an army," and the money is in benefit checks, not administrators.

He adds an India anecdote with a direct defense-industrial lesson. Musk applied for Starlink there, the application stalled, and when Mukesh Ambani's Reliance prepared to launch competing low-orbit satellites, Musk tweeted at "Prime Minister Ambani" asking him to allow Starlink for India's farmers. It backfired. Indians rallied around Ambani on nationalist grounds, asking whether they want their army dependent on a satellite system controlled by Trump and Musk in a conflict with Pakistan.

A personal verdict: disheartened, not disillusioned

Zakaria came to America in 1982 under Ronald Reagan, and he describes this period as heartbreaking for immigrants who left behind countries, cultures, family and friends because they believed in the city on a hill. What pains him is the crudeness — open racism now worn as a rejection of political correctness, and the callous dismantling of USAID. Foreign aid, he notes, is an American invention, beginning with Herbert Hoover's relief administration after World War I, and it demonstrably lifted huge numbers out of poverty and ill health. He contrasts Reagan's farewell speech, about anyone from anywhere becoming an American, with the current vice president's suggestion that a family arriving eight generations ago is more American than one that came a generation ago.

He has never considered leaving. "I feel like I made my decision. This is my country," he said. "In the worst case scenario, I'm going down with the ship." He believes the country comes back, because most Americans do not feel this way and the anger is a passing phase. "I still have so much faith in America. I still think this is a passing phase."

What to watch next

The through-line is that the United States has spent down two kinds of capital at once — political capital with its allies and moral capital with its own immigrant and minority populations — and the second is harder to rebuild because it requires actions other nations can verify over years.

The unresolved tension is Zakaria's own. He predicts a populist break and a Democratic wave, yet also predicts allies will keep hedging even after a Democrat takes office in 2028. A Democratic victory would be the start of a repair project, not the repair itself.

For investors, that translates into a market that treats the election as the removal of uncertainty rather than a verdict on policy. Financial markets have spent weeks pricing a likely Democratic House, with prediction markets as high as 95% on a House flip and above 70% on the Senate; Edward Jones data shows the S&P 500 has risen in every six-month period following a midterm since 1970, and Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson has flagged a possible 9% pullback as a buying opportunity. The live risks are narrower and sharper: a Democratic Congress would sharpen oversight of the AI data-center buildout — 63% of registered voters in an October CNBC survey opposed a data center within 10 miles of their home — while the Nasdaq 100 has already shed roughly $4 trillion over 25 days and about 58% of S&P 500 members sit at least 20% below their own peaks. And the Iran war remains the variable with no expiration date; Trump signaled no new strikes before the vote, and brokerages have flagged the possibility of renewed hostilities afterward. That is the bridge between Zakaria's two subjects: a war that was unpopular on day one is also the thing most likely to keep inflation — and the cost of America's lost credibility — compounding.

References:

More Related News