Against the backdrop of the Brexit vote, the election of President Donald Trump, and the growing power of anti-immigration parties in Europe, political scientists have been reassessing the traditional typology of left versus right that has been used to identify political movements.

According to a growing scholarly consensus, the political split in Western democracies today is not between conservatives and liberals, but between movements that advance a globalist approach amenable to open borders, free trade and multiculturalism and parties that embrace a nationalist worldview that is hostile to immigration, promotes protectionist policies, and advocates a return to the historical roots of the nation. The globalist movements draw their support from educated professionals who reside in the large urban centres and are allied with members of ethnic and minority groups, while the nationalist parties rely on the votes of the less educated and relatively poor segments of the population, of blue-collar workers and those who reside in rural areas and tend to be more culturally conservative.

The problem with the new typology, like with the old one, is that it's difficult to classify many voters whose views and interests aren't always aligned with either of the two political orientations. Many blue-collar workers in the United States who are employed by foreign companies end up in the globalist column, while highly-educated young Europeans who cannot find jobs may be attracted to xenophobic agendas. Both the leaders of Brexit and President Trump, demonstrating a sense of political entrepreneurship, were able to take advantage of the nationalist sentiments among those who feel betrayed by the policies pursued by the globalists. But the results of recent elections in France - as well as in Holland and Austria - suggest that campaigning against international immigration and trade isn't necessarily a winning electoral formula.