The American HuperObject

In American political discourse, much is made of the divide between Democrats and Republicans. Both are painted as polar opposites, with one representing progressive ideals and the other standing for conservative values. But when we strip away the surface, both parties operate within the same framework: the American Hyperobject. This Hyperobject, a concept introduced by philosopher Timothy Morton, refers to something so vast and complex that it defies individual understanding. In the case of American politics, it is the Empire itself—an intricate web of corporate interests, military power, and global influence that transcends party lines. It’s the machinery that drives both sides, no matter what language they use to justify their actions.

The Subjunctive Democrats

The Democratic Party, often cast as the party of progress and reform, frequently uses language that leans heavily on the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive is a grammatical form that expresses wishes, hypothetical situations, or conditions contrary to fact. In Democratic rhetoric, this takes the shape of grand visions of what could be, but so rarely what is. “If we were to secure universal healthcare…” “Were we to pass immigration reform…” These statements dangle possibilities in front of voters, but they remain suspended in a realm of hypothetical action, rarely materializing into reality.

This subjunctive framing allows Democrats to maintain a sense of idealism while evading accountability for not achieving their goals. It gives them space to come back every four or eight years, repainting the Empire with a fresh coat of promises, while never having to confront the system itself. Instead, they offer a kind of corporate McKinsey makeover, rebranding policies without addressing the underlying structures. The McKinsey approach isn’t about fixing what’s wrong; it’s about managing perceptions, making people feel as though something is being done when, in truth, very little changes.

The Faux Indicative Republicans

If the Democrats exist in the subjunctive, it would be tempting to frame Republicans as the party of the indicative—straightforward, action-oriented, and direct. But this too is an illusion. Republicans often present themselves as tough, decisive, and libertarian in spirit. They talk of small government, deregulation, and individual freedom. Yet, in practice, what they do is often the opposite. Their policies tend to reinforce power structures, setting up corporate stooges and expanding governmental control over personal freedoms in ways that contradict their rhetoric.

Like the Democrats, Republicans have their own form of McKinsey-style makeup. They cloak themselves in the language of toughness and libertarianism, but underneath, they serve the same interests as their opponents—those of Empire and the corporate elite. They pretend to act decisively, but what they actually accomplish is a reinforcement of the status quo, merely packaged in a different aesthetic. Their ‘toughness’ becomes another performance, a means of managing expectations while continuing to expand the power of the Hyperobject.

The American Hyperobject

What we’re talking about, then, isn’t just two parties with different philosophies. It’s the American Hyperobject—a massive, sprawling entity that encompasses the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, financial markets, and a foreign policy rooted in maintaining global dominance. It’s so large that it’s hard to see all at once, and it operates regardless of which party is in power. The Democrats may promise a kinder, gentler empire, while Republicans talk of a stronger, more independent nation, but neither truly disrupts the system they serve.

Both parties apply their own versions of McKinsey spin to the Empire. The Democrats appeal to voters with the hypothetical, the subjunctive dreams of what might be possible if only they had more power. Republicans, on the other hand, sell a fantasy of rugged individualism and small government while expanding the state’s power in practice. Both are different expressions of the same reality: they are managing the Hyperobject, not dismantling or even significantly altering it.

Conclusion

The American political system, as it currently exists, functions less as a battle of ideas and more as a maintenance of the status quo. Both parties engage in performances designed to manage the perception of change, without ever fundamentally addressing the Hyperobject that governs the structure of Empire. Democrats lean on the subjunctive, offering a future that never quite arrives. Republicans adopt the guise of the indicative, pretending to take decisive action while merely reshuffling the same players. In the end, both are simply keeping the machinery of Empire well-oiled, maintaining the American Hyperobject in all its overwhelming, inescapable complexity.