Fall is upon us and will soon deepen. In the United States, the fall before a presidential election year gives shape to the long race to follow. The campaign so far has defied the experts as establishment candidates who once seemed invincible have faltered, while insurgents have gathered strength. For political junkies, it is one of the most fluid situations in recent memory, which makes for good sport.

Earlier in the year, it appeared that Hillary Clinton would cruise toward the Democratic nomination almost unopposed. On the Republican side, Jeb Bush appeared to be the strongest candidate in a crowded field. The political class resigned itself to a Clinton Restoration or a Second Bush Restoration. The voters were not impressed. Early on, Jeb Bush has been dogged by “Bush fatigue,” mostly stemming from his brother George’s troubled presidency in the 2000s. Hillary, meanwhile, has become bogged down in questions about her use of a private server when she was Secretary of State.

Donald Trump’s entrance into the Republican race turned things upside down. As soon as he declared his candidacy, pundits wrote him off as a fringe candidate with no chance, but Trump surged rapidly in the polls. After a series of gaffes and altercations with other candidates and the media, Trump took the lead and has continued to hold it. His slogan “Make America Great Again” has an optimistic ring to it, but Trump spends most of his time blaming foreigners and establishment politicians rather than offering policy details.

Trump’s candidacy has helped other non-establishment candidates gain traction in both parties. Ben Carson, a renowned neurosurgeon, has risen steadily in the Republican race and now holds second place. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina was barely registering in early polls, but has been attracting more attention recently. Like Trump, Carson and Fiorina argue that their lack of political experience is an advantage because establishment politicians have failed to deliver.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has faced an increasingly strong challenge from Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont. Like Trump and Carson, pundits wrote Sanders off as a fringe candidate who had no chance against the Clinton machine. His candidacy gradually gained strength and he has recently taken the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early, trend-setting contests. Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist and appeals to progressives who want decisive action to address economic inequality, climate change, and festering social issues.

The root cause of the turmoil is extended dissatisfaction with the state of the country. Since 1979, Gallup has polled Americans on this question, and dissatisfaction has been stronger than satisfaction since 2004. The most recent figures show that 72 percent of those polled are dissatisfied. Ratings for Congress have been very low since then, and currently 75 percent disapprove of the job it is doing. President Obama has been more popular the George Bush, but currently 50 percent disapprove his performance as president. Since 2001, terrorist attacks, two wars, and tepid economic growth combined with increasing inequality have left Americans very frustrated.

Few in the political class expect Trump, Carson, or Sanders to be the next president because they expect the establishment to rally behind another establishment candidate if Clinton or Bush fade. Vice President Joe Biden has been considering a run and there is speculation that previously defeated candidates such as Al Gore, John Kerry, or Mitt Romney might consider a run.

Political history in the U.S. and other democracies shows that people choose a new direction during periods of dissatisfaction. The longer and deeper the dissatisfaction, the sharper the change. The current situation in the U.S. suggests a sharp change ahead, which explains why Clinton and Bush are facing such strong headwinds.

What is less clear is the direction of the change. Change in U.S. politics usually means a rightward or leftward move away from the existing course. The heart of the problem is the weakening of the middle class as result of sustained deindustrialization and globalization. Since the 1980s, the establishment has profited greatly from this change and has become increasingly isolated from the rest of society. This has turned the U.S. into a nation with a happy elite and angry masses.

That candidate, establishment or otherwise, who offers hope to the angry masses will win. For Korea, the change in direction will raise questions about the health of the middle class that will help frame the debate for the 2017 presidential election.

By Rober J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. -- Ed.