The stunning victory of Donald Trump marks a new phase of United States politics. He appealed to the working class and to the dwindling middle class crushed by the Wall Street’s domination. He inspired the revolt of the Main Street against international finance capitalism. His victory has domestic and international implications.

Trump’s victory is bigger than Brexit but it is rooted in the same rejection by the common people of business as usual by elite politicians owned by the Wall Street and “The City” in London.

This rejection is part of a larger awakening in the Western world which is opposed to uncontrolled finance capitalism and to its malignant influence over Western politics and economics.

Overall, it is clear that in the West significant numbers of voters reject uncontrolled finance capitalism as a model of economic and social organization. Instead, people want to liberate productive forces in society and in the economy and orient them toward peaceful development.

So it is no wonder that Trump triumphed. The American people have been ill-served and exploited by the incompetent politicians subservient to the Wall Street during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

This election was a chance to strike back against massive corruption, endless war, and economic and social decline. Like late President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), Trump gathered the blue collar working class vote which clearly put him over the top in such battleground states in the “Rust Belt” such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

Seen in the context of American history this is not a new phenomenon by any means. During the late 19th century, millions of voters backed populist and progressive forces against the Wall Street. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) and his cousin President Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945) supported progressive policies against monopolistic financial and industrial interests.

A New Foreign Policy?

Trump’s victory, like Brexit, came as a surprise to ruling elites who thought they controlled the political process. A little over a year ago, it was common wisdom among mainstream pundits and corporate press that 2016 would see Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush.

In this game of financier controlled puppets, the Wall Street hoped to win either way because both candidates would continue the same basic domestic and foreign policy lines.

But Jeb Bush and the entire Republican Party array of candidates collapsed except for Donald Trump who gained in strength nationally. He gained because he is a maverick outside the corruption of the present party system.

The establishment elites in finance, media, and entertainment joined forces to block Trump and to support Hillary Clinton. Significantly, foreign policy experts who supposedly were Republican shifted over to the Clinton campaign and condemned Trump.

This behind the scenes move grew out of the remains of the Mitt Romney 2012 election campaign. Back then, within the Republican Party, a neoconservative led foreign policy network coalesced around candidate. After his defeat, this network looked ahead and morphed into a group that advised most all of the 2016 election Republican candidates. All except Trump that is.

What has been at stake in foreign policy is a continuation of the hawks’ U.S. policy of imperialism in support of unipolar hegemony. The mantra of the foreign policy establishment is that because the U.S. “won” World War II it had the right to step into the shoes of the former British Empire to become the self-appointed “indispensible” state in charge of organizing and of policing world order.

In contrast to this imperial vision, Trump in his first major foreign policy speech rejected foreign policy as usual. He called into question the utility of obsolete Cold War alliance structures. He denounced hawkish foreign policy networks such as the neoconservatives. He called for a new diplomacy which emphasizes negotiation rather than coercion.

In this context, Trump became well known for his view that the U.S.-Russia relations must be truly reset on a sustainable basis. He constantly emphasizes that as a businessman he is focused on negotiations and win-win outcomes.

This working style can appropriately translate into constructive foreign policy and statesmanship. Instead of the foreign policy incompetence and failures of the Bush-Obama administrations it is possible that the U.S. can provide positive input and cooperation to solve pressing challenges facing the international community.

The author is an educator and former Senior Professional Staff Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee