Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

Also, in the realignment, how do the social issues and regional attitudes on them evolve? Do Southern states become more socially liberal or not, do major cities become more socially conservative etc. And which ones will fade into irrelevance or burst onto the scene?

I don't know exactly. I do know cities will be defined by the attitudes of millennial urban workers who dominate them in a pan - racial coalition. I anticipate a highly technocratic liberalism to rule the cities. Perhaps something like Technocratic Timmy.

I don't actually know the major upcoming social issues of the 2030s and 2040s, because technology and social changes will probably take us in a lot of directions we haven't anticipated today.

For example one reason South Carolina and Florida return Democratic in 2024 is global warming. The coastal areas and South Florida vote Democratic with an eye to dealing with global warming. So it's hard to guess how the regions act going forward.

I would probably know by the 12th year of the Democratic hegemony (and whether a Republican was elected in that 12th year or not). But as of now I don't know exactly.

[The_Doctor]

Read this article. Bringing down Trump will require his base to give up on him. It will not be a months long process but potentially years. His supporters among the working class are angry at the institutions undergirding society. They will continue to back Trump as long as they believe he is damaging these institutions. This is the type of people he won, too.

The day they believe Trump is part of the mess in Washington is the day they turn on him. That's the reason the Azerbaijan scandal is the one that comes first, as a sign of Trump self-benefiting. It also comes during the economic slowdown, which angers his base. This is why the 2018 midterms, in particular, will be Republican friendly on the federal level. I don't anticipate the scandal penetrating the bubble of Trump voters before 2018.

The dirty secret is that Donald Trump is the epitome of neoliberal conservative ideology and has loyally backed the federal Republican tickets dating to 1980. Trump was an early backer of Ronald Reagan and was on his Finance Committee. His apostasies never carried onto the presidential level. As president, Trump is demonstrating he is a fairly down the line Republican President. The AHCA and Trump backing it wasn't just Trump being ignorant. It's that Trump generally buys into the ideology enough to link arms with Paul Ryan, even if he doesn't understand half of what he believes and why.

In this timeline he's generally pretty standard Republican edition infused with nativist ideology. But most critically he does not reject the basics of the Reagan Revolution.

The dirtiest secret is that his base is not ready to cross over to Sanders liberalism. They're hurting but things haven't ruptured that badly that the bubble bursts. That's a reason Brown loses to Pence. They're ready to listen but it will require the Great Crisis to force a realignment and to mentally abandon the Republicans.

And of course the day the anti-neoliberal Democratic nominee becomes the nominee - Cordray -  and squares off against the epitome of neo-liberal politics, the Reaganite Pence, you know what happens.

[Virginiá]

What do you think the chances are that we experience this shift in a way that is akin to what Reagan experienced, where his presidency marked the beginning of a new era but he didn't actually sweep Republicans into power in Congress and at the state level. In fact, aside from the impressive but somewhat temporary Senate gains, Republicans were in really bad shape at the state level and in the House for his presidency. He was lucky to have the right circumstances that allowed him to push favorable policy. If the realigning Democrat was to get a split or even GOP Congress, given how toxic things have become, he/she would be unlikely to get much done and likely face a bevy of investigations and smearing akin to what we've seen with Obama, no?

I guess what I'm saying is, do you think the chances of all the pieces coming together at the same time are high, or is it possible this realignment takes place over a period of years like it did with Republicans in the 80s/90s?

Also, if you have the time, I'm interested in your view of why it happened that way for Republicans as well. In 1994, it seemed like everything kind of just fell apart at once. I always assumed it was at least partially to do with the fact that incumbent presidents tend to act as a weight around their party downballot, and once the opposition takes back over, an appropriate contrast to the new order is made and acts a trigger, which can be worsened by politicians who start switching teams upon realizing what is going on.

[Virginiá]

So I don't think the New Democratic majority will look like 1980 where the Reagan Revolution only picked up the senate and presidency and didn't take back the congress until 14 years later. The GOP will be so stubborn and rigid in their ideology that they will refuse to back down until they American people sweep them out of power and keep them there until they're forced to moderate or die as a political party.

This is what I mean. They aren't going to be amicable with Democrats, and the parties are too ideologically polarized to the point where there are no large groups of liberal Republicans that Democrats can lean on to pass parts of their agenda. So if Republicans manage to block Democrats from forming a true governing majority and enacting liberal policy, isn't that kind of wasting the limited time Democrats have to enact their agenda? If Republicans manage to obstruct for the entirety of the Democratic reign of the White House, then at least slightly adjust with their own president, they would then manage to prevent any significant movement to the left on policy in a short span of time. If you look at the time since 1980, Republicans have not had a whole lot of time with a unified federal govt to go "full conservative" - there has often been either a Democratic president or a Democratic chamber(s) of Congress to hold them back somewhat, and I wonder if Democrats could find themselves in a similar situation.

Of course, given how polarized voting behavior has become and the large majorities Democrats are racking up & holding among younger generations, perhaps it is impossible to have a repeat of the past ~37 years (in reverse).

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did some research on Gubernatorial elections from 1980 to 1986. Interestingly the Republicans left the Reagan 1980s roughly the same as they entered it but with a very different composition. Texas, and a number of Southern and Plains States began electing Republican governors. The critical problem for the Republicans is that the Southern blue dogs complicated the voters' doing a clean realignment. Reagan headed a Republican - Blue Dog Democratic majority coalition in the 1980s and that represented a sort of sea change culminating in 1994. Since 1981 we've been ruled by a conservative coalition and since 1995/2001 a Republican one.

The election of 2024 is highly unlikely to see such a coalition that keeps the Republicans in power in the states for a number of reasons. (1) There are no northern Republicans and moderates to consistently win. The New England Republicans have been cleaned out as have been California statewide Republicans and other blue states. (2) the Republican coalition is vastly more conservative and partisan and thus if the Republicans fall into minority status under a liberal hegemony it's much harder for the Republicans to rebound.

The blue dogs kept the Democratic Party in play for most of the 1980s by coopting Reaganism and cooperating with the national Republicans. I don't see a corresponding Republican movement during the Cordray era.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The (southern) EHardings of the world screwed up in realigning and stayed Democrats through the 1980s, preventing a clean realignment until Clinton tried a old style liberal government in 1993-1994, thus finally pulling the move to realign in 1994. They were functionally Republican but stayed registration Democratic.

Had the Blue dogs not been around Reagan wouldve probably swept the House and then the southern state governments in 1982 or even 1986. (The Republicans picked up eight governorships that year).

The other possible reason is that the Republican Party didn't resonate on an economic level as much and voters chose to keep the Democrats as a check on the newly resurgent Republicans. You'll notice that the Republicans have never established New Deal type majorities in this country and that's because in part the Republican agenda hasn't had the kind of popular constituencies for it that would create such majorities.

We've existed in this tension since 1981 to a considerable deal. Were Republicans to break through this issue the second half of the Republican hegemony would probably be much longer and deeper. For the record had the Republicans established a clearer mandate in 2016 instead of the tortured win they underwent they could've done this but it sounds increasingly probable that 2000 kicked off the second half of the Republican majority.

[Virginiá]

I don't think I have anything left to add. Thank you for your views on that, TD & TT

[Frodo]

Trump strikes at North Korea Regime; Disables Nuke Program

(October 2017) -- (Washington, D.C.) -- President Donald Trump struck at the North Korean regime in a surprise attack at dawn (Pyonyang time) and disabled the nuclear program that the regime had built. After months of warning and negotiations between the United States and China, the Americans had decided to unilaterally disarm Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear capabilities.

President Obama had advised his successor that the North Korean nuclear program would need to be seriously curtailed or else the region faced imminent danger. Soon after President Trump was inaugurated, the United States held high level secret talks with the People’s Republic of China. They put pressure on Beijing to rein in Pyonyang and to force Kim Jong-Un to dismantle his program. The Chinese stalled, angry at the United States’ economic retaliatory measures and for months, talks dragged out without resolution.

In early September, the National Security Council convened to draw up plans to take out the Korean nuclear missile program unilaterally. In a series of limited strikes, the United States would attack and take out North Korea’s missile program - the first time any military power had taken action against another military power for the express purpose of destroying its nuclear program. The President, not usually a man prone to military action despite all his bravado, approved the limited strikes and advised his Council that the Chinese would need to be onboard with the program.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson shuttled between Washington and Beijing, brokering a high level deal where the Chinese agreed to turn over intelligence regarding the program and to refuse to come to North Korea’s aid in the aftermath. In response, the United States would give in on key concessions regarding China’s dominance in the South Pacific. Japan’s Abe Shinzo was also appraised and signed off on the mission as did the South Korean government.  

In early October, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was sent to the naval base in Yokosuka, Japan and prepared for the mission. In final secret negotiations, Kim Jong-Un refused to give up his nuclear warheads and Washington walked away. Believing that the talks would continue on the North Koreans were in the dark.

On the morning of October 12, 2017, U.S. bomber planes flew over the secret facilities and struck them, decisively and with precision. Before a single nuclear warhead could be fired, U.S. warplanes had taken out the facilities, rendering North Korea without the capabilities to take out South Korea or Japan. Shortly after the 8:00 bombing runs, the Chinese Ambassador to North Korea notified the government that China would not help in any retaliation against the United States - and indeed, were action to be taken to that end, China would respond with military action against the regime.

Furious, Kim Jong-Un tried to rally the military for an armed invasion of South Korea. But without the nuclear warheads and with the USS Reagan sitting offshore,  the regime’s leader was not in much of a position to argue. He reluctantly agreed, within 48 hours, to allow the United Nations to investigate freely any nuclear facility within the country, and to allow international inspectors free rein. The regime was seriously destabilized by the attack and Kim Jong-Un’s power was under siege. Within a few years, the North Korean regime would fall and Kim Jong-Un would be forced to flee overseas for his personal safety.

At home, the Trump Administration was applauded for its decisive action on the North Korean nuclear program. China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea all lauded the White House for decisively ending a threat to regional stability and for a time, the President would be praised as a decisive leader.

There are times I wonder whether Trump or someone in his administration read your timeline...

[The_Doctor]

If they did wouldn't they be trying to avoid the final outcome of said timeline? I know Bannon read the Fourth Coming and thinks Trump can guide the new era.

I wrote up the North Korean article when I read a Hill piece where Trump said Obama told him NK was the most dangerous item on the agenda. I figured that ultimately Trump would push a military solution since I couldn't see them doing diplomacy and here we are....it's a “splendid little war.˝ I've read that China is increasingly tired of their North Korea problem, so I anticipate Beijing greenlighting the U.S. intervention.

I'm aiming for an update matching the timeline to reality in June.

[The_Doctor]

Does the undercut fade out of style in favor of the Cordray cut?

If this is about Trump's "hair style," I hope to God so. That hair is an international atrocity and a barbarous butchered dye.

[CapoteMonster]

TD, this question is a little old for this thread, but hear me out?

If your scenario is correct and poor whites/minorities make up the base of the Democratic realignment, will this in turn make the Democratic party less socially liberal while making the GOP less socially conservative?

[CapoteMonster]

Interestingly enough, Bannon seems to understand our current era; but he's dead wrong about his position (along with President Trump's) in it.

He thinks that the "gray champion" that Neil Howe and William Strauss wrote about in their book, The Fourth Turning, is Donald Trump. The gray champion is basically the political leader who unites the American people and guides us through the fourth turning along with the inevitable secular crisis that occurs during it. The 3 gray champions in American history were Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.

There's two things Neil Howe has stated that will indicate whether Trump is the gray champion: he must not only win reelection by either a decisive victory or a landslide, but he must be propelled strongly by the youth. Lincoln won against the former commander of all Union soldiers, General George B. McClellan, in 1864 because the young Union soldiers ultimately broke very strongly for Lincoln (75.8%-22.9%). In 1936, FDR won reelection with somewhere around 85% of the under 30 demographic going for him.

Could Trump simultaneously win reelection solidly and boast strong support among millennials? I highly doubt it. And that's why I think Bannon has miscalculated greatly with Trump being the supposed "gray champion" who will lead America through the fourth turning.

Where did you get that info come from? I really would like to find those numbers.

[brucejoel99]

Politico feature on Cordray & the Ohio governor's race

[The_Doctor]

TD, this question is a little old for this thread, but hear me out?

If your scenario is correct and poor whites/minorities make up the base of the Democratic realignment, will this in turn make the Democratic party less socially liberal while making the GOP less socially conservative?

Don't worry about the question. I'm writing (or trying to write (paging this project's resident economic advisor, TT)) an article about the working class that has seen significant stagnation and economic losses since 2000. I'm thinking of doing Britain and the United States as case studies to demonstrate that their economic weakness has been around since the last confirming President (George W. Bush). But it's kind of a massive project and I don't have a foundation in economics. So it's taking a while.

Anyway: to answer your question - most likely not. Poorer whites will however be more markedly anti-immigrant, it is plausible. I note in my timeline that we have a markedly hawkish immigration line because of the tension between these whites and Latino Democrats; and how Cordray has to keep everyone happy. I could see gun control being sidelined in rural areas and Democrats moving to the center and limiting handguns around the cities but allowing gun rights to prevail in rural areas. There will have to be some compromises and some wheeling and dealing to satisfy all the Democratic constituencies on these issues (and there will be existential tensions).

Beyond that, as far as issues like abortion, gay marriage, I expect the prevailing liberal orthodoxy to rule since I don't think the Democratic coalition cares that much about these issues in terms of disagreement. Democrats have always had rougher times on social issues (slavery & abolitionism, civil rights, and 1970s bra burning stuff) rather than economic times.

I don't expect this great  harmony among Democrats in the coming era any much than it existed in prior Democratic ruling coalitions. So I'd say it's a 75 agreement, 25 disagreement deal.
 

[The_Doctor]

Politico feature on Cordray & the Ohio governor's race

And so, the story begins. The 32nd and 47th Presidents look a bit similar, don't they?



(I don't know how it will end up. But I'm rooting for him to run for Governor at the very least).

[The_Doctor]

Climate Change: The Great Global Warming Threat

Let's talk global warming.

The Facts

On April 21, 2017, the “Mauna Loa Observatory recorded its first-ever carbon dioxide reading in excess of 410 parts per million.” While this isn’t a big deal to some of you, it should be. Global warming, if left unchecked, will make the planet uninhabitable by the second half of the century, if not sooner. The military has been on record saying climate change presents a huge issue for our planet and is a national security concern. Additionally, coastal areas like Miami (Florida) and other areas have already begun to feel the impacts of global warming. While the United States has emissions levels at the rates of 1995 (which is great), the reality is that the rest of the world is rising. During the economic crisis of 2008-2013, global emissions stayed flat because of the weak economy but has slowly begun rising again.

Now, if you dispute all this and believe global warming to be a trumped up liberal scheme -- well, Mr President, I’m very glad you’re reading my timeline, but don’t you think you should be working to avert the worst of this timeline? (Ditto to you, Mr Vice President. You aren’t getting off so easy either).

Let’s start with the basics, and what it means for the United States. Climate change is a huge deal because it presents a huge threat to coastal areas, which is where a lot of civilization was built and remains on. In the United States alone, a series of major cities are built near coastal areas such as Houston, Boston, New York, Palm Beach Florida, San Francisco, Seattle and a few others. Climate change would present major existential challenges to these cities. Major other cities around the world, mentioning Liverpool, Edinburgh, and a ton of major world cities would also face existential challenges from sea levels rising. Likewise, with stormy weather, that can cause major challenges (the drought in California has been linked to climate change, for example).

Overseas, climate change has been linked to potential geopolitical issues such as access to water, access to resources, and farmland issues. That in turn can be linked to warfare and competition for resources in a world that is already under strain. Syria's civil war, it has been argued, has some roots in climate change.

An aside on Europe, by the way. Europe’s early embrace of climate change as a serious issue and the push to embrace renewable standards and energy was first pushed by more liberal coalitions, then ultimately, parties like the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom came in line with it.

The Likely Future

The United States has a very pragmatic internal and external set of policies: which is to maximise its survival chances. This entire timeline has been written with that guiding principle in mind. The United States seemingly undergoes political revolutions that seem random, based on human choices, and while that’s true to an extent; in fact, the United States executes a very rational set of economic and geopolitical actions that promotes her interests at home and globally.  

So: if the United States determines that climate change is going to put tens of millions of Americans at risk within its borders and that threat is an imminent one rather than distant one (which they perceived it as such in the 1980s to 2010s), it will swiftly adopt a set of policies to prevent it. More ever, if it believes that climate change presents a threat to maintaining global stability and makes its job of maintaining the international order harder, it will present the need to combat climate change as a necessity. This is what underpins the Paris Accords. Like many things President Barack Obama did, it did not come from a place of liberal ideology but cold rational reality.

So, what might that mean for our future? You’ll notice the states of Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia all returned Democratic in 2024. You’ll notice that Democrats won every state near a coast. This was not by accident. Take Texas. You can reliably expect Houston and surrounding areas to vote heavily Democratic (as they did in 2016). In part, that will be driven by liberal politics but also climate politics. Likewise, expect heavy Democratic turnout in Miami, Florida, and South Florida, which has a Republican mayor talking about the very real risks of climate change. In addition, note that much of South Carolina’s population is on the oceanfront, which will likely raise the stakes of climate change politics and present them with a reason to vote Democratic.

Now, you say “Hold on, what about the oil and coal industry?” And here’s what I think will happen in the coming decades. As solar energy drops in price, as well as natural gas, the political power of these industries will wane. Eventually, these industries will be replaced. Coal is already hemorrhaging jobs - just look at West Virginia. West Virginia has been steadily losing coal jobs and that’s not coming back, no matter what. Coal in Pennsylvania and Ohio will be replaced by natural gas (at best; there are fracking issues with natural gas), you should expect the United States, under Democratic leadership, to force a new revolution in energy production that emphasizes low or no carbon emissions.

President Richard Cordray’s Initiatives

President Cordray will be acutely aware of all this. He will also be aware that he has no choice and must push through a set of climate change reforms that reorient the United States’ energy path towards renewables. Natural gas will be part of the plan for a while but fracking presents ecological issues (it’s causing earthquakes in Oklahoma, for instance) and will be inherently phased out in favor of renewable energy standards and new technologies.

One major challenge for the United States at this juncture will be to produce, rapidly, new technologies to bring us near zero sum emissions and to make sure these technologies are adopted globally and on a rapid scale. The scientists will be telling President Cordray and the U.S. military, as well as the U.S. diplomatic corps, that if measures are not quickly taken to address climate change, the United States could be facing a dystopian future that would be a threat to its existence and the U.S. - led international order.

In response, President Cordray will make climate change a major centerpiece of his first term. The President will use his considerable mandate to ram through the most sweeping set of carbon emissions regulations in American history. On the international front, in a strong reversal from the Trump-Pence Administrations, the Cordray Administration will push for the adoption of clean energy technology and the world to create an even stronger Paris Accords to deal with climate change issues. It is possible a revenue neutral carbon tax will be also implemented.

On multiple fronts, this will intersect neatly with the Democratic agenda. For one, it will put nations like Russia (a major resources producer) on the defense. This will work well for the Democrats, who will be aggressive towards Russia in the mid 2020s. It will also play into their mandate to promote universal college education, in order to boost the country’s technological edge. On the international front, it will require considerable cooperation and more multilateral work to bring the various nations together.

Over the duration of the Cordray - Castro Administrations, a new energy framework will be put together that builds upon the Obama framework and goes further. Republicans will initially fight it, but as their economic base changes, they will slowly adapt and get onboard.

By the election of the next Republican White House, Republicans will pledge to continue Cordray’s work on climate change. It will be seen, at this point, a bipartisan initiative to deal with climate change. The GOP President might talk a good game about pleasing the oil and natural gas industry, but a sea change will have taken place in climate change policy. No longer will it be the source of contentious partisan battles, but considered part and parcel of the United States’ national security interests.

Why doesn’t the GOP embrace climate change?

Some of you might ask, why don’t the GOP embrace the kind of changes President Cordray will initiate and head him off?

For one, the GOP’s economic and voter base are in states that are currently dependent on production of natural resources. States like West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are all major oil and coal producing states. The Trump and Pence White House don’t have a part of the GOP coalition pushing against the interests of these states. If California, or other major states that are decidedly liberal on climate change was in the Republican coalition, President Trump or President Pence would have a political coalition capable of pushing climate change as a serious issue. But, they don’t. Secondly, oil, natural gas, and coal are major Republican donors. Again, with renewables heavily Democratic, and considered a Democratic priority, the GOP is not in a position to resist internally, even if the science is pointing heavily towards taking action.

This is a major reason President Trump has taken the side of coal and gas against the environmental lobby. The situation has not reached critical mass that the United States must change its policies overnight (well, it might have reached critical mass; but let’s put it this way, the economic situation has not yet occurred and made it an urgent crisis). Since Presidents Trump and Pence will never win (or even come close) to winning California, New York, Oregon, Washington, or New Jersey, it is highly likely that they will be reliant on the electoral votes of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, and Louisiana to power their victories. Neither are their parties dominant in these states; they are reliably blue on the state level as well, thus denying climate change Republicans a voice in the seats of power. Given this, Presidents Trump and Pence will conclude that they need to focus on placating the states that they won in 2016 and 2020 (as well as 2018 and 2022, such as they are).

Part II Below

[The_Doctor]

Even if there is slippage in these states by 2020, the coalition needed to power changes will come from the Democratic Party, which has a natural base in California, New York, Florida, and other coastal areas to power its climate change energy agenda. The lion’s share will come from the liberal coalition, who will be needed to sustain the 47 - 48th Presidents’ energy agenda. It is only after considerable change has been enacted in the Gulf States and major coal and natural gas producers have been sidelined in favor of renewables and other zero carbon emissions industries that the Republicans will be able to respond positively to climate change initiatives to limit carbon emissions. (The Republican President of 2036 - 2040, or whenever, will see Washington and Oregon going Republican for the first time since 1988).

The best we can expect is that President Trump will remain in the Paris Accords because to do otherwise would alienate our allies. However, given the United States’ low emissions, and the belief that other nations will step up to the plate, it is likely the Trump Administration will decide to opt out and hope for the best. It will not be a positive legacy for President Trump, President Pence, or the 2016-2024 Republican Party. History will judge their political choice as borne out of political necessity but lacking the true courage to move the needle on climate change and a lost opportunity to strike a grand bargain. The truth will be honestly, limited by the political circumstances and coalitions, the Trump and Pence Administrations will be allowed to do very little.

Conclusion

Climate change will be another reason, if little discussed, why the realignment occurs. It will be fortuitously timed with the economic crisis, but the reality is that climate change, on its own, could power a Democratic hegemony on its own, potentially, given the economic and geopolitical ramifications.

Democrats, starting in 2024, will initiate a huge and sweeping set of change in climate change policies designed to promote renewable energy and shift economic and political power away from the natural gas, oil, and coal industries, in order to deal with climate change. Republicans will accept the vast majority of these changes and accept them down the line.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Love that you mention climate change in your latest discussion. However, besides domestic impacts, you also mention foreign impacts, like drought driving the Syrian Civil War. Since resource conflicts like that, as well as severe natural disasters, will only increase infrequency, it'll likely drive migration patterns. Wouldn't that serve to increase populist nationalism and social conservatism in the developed world, thus helping the GOP (even if Pence abandons that aspect)?

[The_Doctor]

Love that you mention climate change in your latest discussion. However, besides domestic impacts, you also mention foreign impacts, like drought driving the Syrian Civil War. Since resource conflicts like that, as well as severe natural disasters, will only increase infrequency, it'll likely drive migration patterns. Wouldn't that serve to increase populist nationalism and social conservatism in the developed world, thus helping the GOP (even if Pence abandons that aspect)?

Well, first of all, that's a limited answer and doesn't address that with the interconnectedness of our world, if there is significant turmoil, that affects the economy.  For one, access to resources. If we're dependent on oil, climate change can pose a threat to that. If the oil fields are inaccessible for whatever reason as we transition to renewable energy that creates a compound economic effect. (And oil wouldn't be the only resource impacted)

The impact of climate change is that ultimately it will require a global response to survive it. We can turn away refugees (and this is in fact what's happening) but ultimately the crises will become much worse. It will require an overcoming of any natural social conservatism in favor of a global and unified response.

What you're forgetting is that we need the cooperation of these people as much as we need to do more to keep emissions under a certain level. This creates a somewhat level playing field in international terms. Everyone has equal say and skin in the game, which is the survival of our planet.

America and Europe die if India and China don't play ball. Everyone suffers if nobody plays ball. By definition that means that we help the suffering regions to limit the damage and increase international cooperation to head off much worse. We can't put up a high enough wall for the oceans to not overwhelm our cities and states. We can't save just our ecosystems that keep us nourished with the things we want (see honey, deaths of bees, etc). At a level of greenhouse gases being severe enough our planet literally becomes Venus.

Yes there will be initial resistance but political leaders around the globe will understand that only a unified response will be able to salvage the planet. And there will be concerted effort to educate and pull along our populations.

This is a bit off tangent but I want to say it anyway.

Climate change and the effects will force the creation of super national entities that deal with climate issues. Of course terrorism, nuclear weapons, and other similar issues will do the same thing but you get the idea. By the time we get to become near a Type I civilization in 2100 AD, we have to play ball with the idea that we're more than just nation states with individual interests (if we survive).

Survival is what brings us to a cold understanding that we need an international framework to govern our society and we are no longer individual societies that can ignore whats going on halfway around the world. It is literally death for the human race without a sharp increase in international cooperation on a wide range of issues.

[The_Doctor]

Anyone good with international elections and populist versus neoliberal candidates and parties in the world? Hit me up; I'd like to run a future article by you for your thoughts.

Thank you for your help in advance.

[Pericles]

Anyone good with international elections and populist versus neoliberal candidates and parties in the world? Hit me up; I'd like to run a future article by you for your thoughts.

Thank you for your help in advance.

What about France? How will Macron do-I'm cautiously optimistic he will succeed. Perhaps if he fails it could be Melenchon vs Le Pen in 2022. The UK Labour Party also looks likely to get crushed this year, but by 2022 the Tories may be more unpopular and Labour could have a more popular leader. Maybe the Tories get a bare majority that ends up as nothing by 2024 forcing a new election and Labour wins. Also in New Zealand Labour will lose to National this year but National may be forced to depend on Winston Peters for power, and so Labour could win power in 2020 with Jacinda Ardern. It seems like Labor will win the next Australian election too.

[The_Doctor]

So a short snippet of my forthcoming article on how well this timeline has aged:

The answer is that Trump has been far less effective than in this timeline and the political institutions are now at serious risk of damage, as they are usually before a realignment. We are in pretty much the 1850s, 1929-1932, and the 1970s era as the Reagan Republican majority grapples with new challenges and new crises with aging political norms and a loss of public confidence. All we're waiting for is the economic crisis to finally bring everything down (or a major constitutional crisis but I'll explain in a bit why economic, not political). (Sidebar: I do expect tax reform and maybe an infrastructure package as they are fairly easy to pass).

The Comey firing underscores one thing. It seems that on their way to a 1980 the Republican Party is revisiting the ghosts of Richard Nixon, a fundamental distrust of the media, and a faith in strongmen ideology. But it won't save them.  Their loss of standing among half the country (52% disapprove of Donald Trump and certainly that number will go up during the coming recession) has crippled their ability to govern effectively and decisively. Having half the country continually oppose you no matter what makes it hard to govern.

Make no mistake the Nixon impeachment, the Southern strategy, and resistance of a preconcieved liberal establishment guides the Party's id. They view the era between 1950 and 1980 as a huge cultural loss and this has hardened their determination to fly into the storm come what may. Even with a captain many of them personally do not like.

Trump sped up my timeline's realignment and is proving why too. His constant controversy and constant scandal has constantly put the GOP on the defensive. The widening gyre between Republican officials and their president - and their constant efforts to defend him - is slowly taking a toll on the Party and its grassroots base. Trump is also politically a neophyte that has caused himself a ton of damage and guaranteed a highly divisive presidency. Read about that here some more.

If you read RRH you'll see a very muted resignation and not much discussion. They're honor bound to defend him but partisanship also makes it harder for them to talk about this. The links between the leadership and the base has been eroding since 2010 and they're only eroding faster. I read one prominent GOP election commentator on Twitter where he acknowledged he hadn't kept up with the Russian story -- and thats one sign they know that this is increasingly difficult to do.

Trump appears strong with the Party's base and congressional leadership but in fact he is now in the weakest position. Remember humans never like being on the defensive for long periods of time, especially when they view incompetence. They're defending him more out of a fear of the Left than a belief he's right. If you look at #fakenews, it taps into their cultural resentment against the famed “eastern establishment.” Their fears of a liberal dominance has been in the conservative imagination since the 50s even as it is more legend than reality now.

Trump's political opposition, lack of experience, and very weak political party standing (especially with the weakened ties between party and base) stand in the way of a dictatorship. They may for a time (and I did warn you, they will) succeed in styming an investigation and for a time they will look successful but they are inadvertently empowering the political movement against them. Each battle costs them the war and each pointless battle even more. I've written about that here. 

Meanwhile the Democratic opposition has never been more energized and galvanized. Trump and Congressional Republicans eagerly play the role of villains for them each and everyday. For them there is no downside in playing the part of King Arthur's loyal troops until the Rightful King (or Queen!) restores the land. They step into the role of rebels and fight to restore Camelot. The Carter era and fights of the 1960s are behind them; they are freer than they ever have been. And Trump is the wind in their sails. He, like no other president, has fulfilled their stereotype of a Republican. And they have 50% or more of the country with them.

The looming battle will be economic for one major reason. The base will finally collapse because a significant portion of Trump's base is economically weak. The party's war on the ACA and the safety net is a significant reason that the Trump middle and lower classes revolt, because they're dependent on them. Note that Trump isn't shoring up the protections on the middle and lower classes - and remember Obama never solved that underlying problem.  This group is one economic crash away from significant debt overwhelming them if they already haven't been. Debt underlay a lot of the response to 2008 (including the ACA) but since we're in the Reagan era the response was limited.

So the base will hold out but when push comes to shove they'll choose their economic interests over the GOP's. Their political alignment will continue as long their families aren't at economic risk. The moment that happens the GOP will face a 1980. The first economic downturn most likely won't be major but will play a role in Trump's downfall. The second as you all know brings down Pence.

Remember I mentioned King Arthur? Well, that legend is hugely popular for a reason. The cycle of a land in turmoil, governed by malignant forces that threaten the land and then a young King pulls out Excalibur and restores the land, driving out the malovent forces.  As he says, “The old order changeth, yielding place to new.“ Which sounds awfully like a realignment.

[Pericles]

Perhaps Trump is Nixon +Carter and 2020 is the year of the realignment IRL?

[The_Doctor]

Perhaps Trump is Nixon +Carter and 2020 is the year of the realignment IRL?

I doubt it because the economic crisis won't come by 2020. Obama left a very strong economy that will carry the weakest parts for a while. Also the last presidency of the era embodies the worst ideological excesses. Trump would probably fulfill #2 but not #1. Pence probably is a perfect era ending presidency.

Also, Pence may not be the 2024 nominee because to be eligible for 2024 he needs to take power after January 20, 2019. The constitution only allows you to run twice if you fulfill less than half of your predecessor's term [22nd amendment]. It depends on when Trump implodes.

[Pericles]

But with strong job growth for years a recession is due and it's possible the economy is weaker than it appears. Plus it's possible Pence loses 2020 to a progressive Democrat.

[Deblano]

Would the late 2010s ITTL be considered similar to the late 1970s aka a period of "malaise"?