Trump might unintentionally bring surprisingly positive outcomes to America, clearing the way for the building of truly 21st-century systems and opening up the political space for a new way forward
Peter - a fascinating perspective. It’s interesting to see someone of your intelligence able to conjure positive outcomes from this administration. But what I don’t see you factoring in, as you look back, is the dismantling of our Constitution.
Is this the Barbara Birt that I knew from Columbia University? If so, it's great that you are reading and engaging in this way. I will be addressing that Constitution factor in a few more stories to come. The short answer is that the one thing that needs to remain relatively uncorrupted is the ability to freely vote. If that piece holds, then it's not out of the question that we might see serious constitutional reform within the next 25 years and certainly within the next 50. That takes more explaining, which I will do soon.
Bingo. From the good ole days! Frisbee playing, carefree wanna-be’s that we were. Anyhow - congrats on the platform you’ve built, and on taking a serious, perhaps controversial, dive into this run amok administration. Please keep telling me things will work themselves out. Hope this finds you well, Peter. Cheers…bb
when i see "dismantling of our Constitution" i think of Hillary dangling the idea of eliminating the electoral college, nonstop efforts to take away the second amendment, recent talk from DNC leaders about stacking SCOTUS, changing Senate rules to pass Obama care, calling voter id requirements racist, numerous FBI FISA court requests with known errors, locking down transportation to "protect" the populace from COVID based on misleading CDC reports, wide open borders for four years, and "district" federal judges making rulings that affect the entire nation instead of just their district. it seems constitutional threats are coming from multiple directions.
Agreed. I love this approach. I believe in Planned Optimism, going from today and looking forward with a critical eye, but always seeing the good. I choose to see how positive changes will inevitably occur as time marches forward because the broadest trend line for humans has always been up. But I enjoyed your approach of imagining the current and near-term from a future historian’s perspective. Great mindset tool.
Speculative, of course, but also plausible. It would be nice to be able to look back in 25 years hence and see that we have not irreparably damaged our country or started a global apocalypse, despite some very notable decades-long pain and suffering
good call. the human mind is masterful at connecting otherwise unconnected data points, which is the basis for conspiracy theories.
when i was futurist for my employer i had to occasionally remind the decision authorities that there are three kinds of futures: possible (a waste of time because what do you do about a comet, nuclear war, martian invasion?), preferred (seen implemented by the likes of IBM, Microsoft, Walmart, Apple, Google, Amazon, FedEx, Toyota), and probable.
i think Mr. Leyden is leading toward probable here myself. but correlations are not causation...
Really enjoy your clear-headed perspectives. Ilya Progogine won the Nobel Prize for Chaos Theory, in part for pointing out that higher-order structures don't evolve from lower-order ones, but emerge from periods of chaos. This would certainly be that.
My father's life was ironically saved by a heart attack that he had while being tortured in an SS prison. Hitler was a failed art student, Trump a failed businessman; we have to hope that Trump lacks the vitality and ambition to take his version of "master race" to a similar extreme.
Your notion of the opportunity for renewal goes beyond the US to humanity writ large. Capitalism is arguably the best "ism" we've come up with, but it is unsustainable in its current form (abuse of externalities and low-wage groups, shareholder interest at the expense of stakeholder interest, corporate personhood, concentration of power and wealth, etc.). As the chief global proponent of capitalism, a restructuring in the US has the potential to rewire some of the fundamentals to promote non-zero-sum solutions.
As for politics, futurist Alvin Toffler once suggested that the ideal governance would involve eliminating politics as a career and creating policy from a blend of civilians doing temporary jury duty-like stints, and public polling. AI could enable something like this.
I've been saying for a long time that, for all its faults, the US is the only nation on earth capable of the kind of reinvention needed, and that its real contribution could be not as self-interested global cop but as role model.
I agree re: Toffler, that said there's something in the essence of what he said that applies. Ditto fellow Canadian Marshall McLuhan, who said, "in the electric age, we wear all humankind as our second skin"... in the 60's! Some people, yourself included, see the bigger patterns.
China did a pretty good job of reinventing... India seems positioned to do the same... Mexico may be in position to reinvent as well... time tells all.
depends on how you define "governance". AI may help with operating the government. not sure how AI or a "blend of civilians" would do at policy making - i would expect disaster. the "wisdom of masses" is good for picking the best jelly for toast, or the best song for a party, but not so good for making decisions that require technical expertise whether that be economic, legal, foreign affairs, etc.
My understanding from Toffler was that he was suggesting that civilian participants be drawn from qualified academia, business, industry, science, etc. Government bodies with real-world experience and qualifications other than fundraising, glad-handging, patronage and public speaking might be more effective. The lack of term limits also leads to long cycles of corruption.
AI is a toolset, nothing more. As such, it could streamline a lot of the bureaucracy that impedes innovation.
I doubt that Trump has some grand long-term strategy (or at least I doubt that it informs most of his words and actions), but his administration could still be helpful, in clearing out some of the bureaucratic red tape, corruption, and parasitic growth. We're now wasting trillions of dollars every year, and this is simply not sustainable. Special interests will never like or accept the severance of their resources, but it must be done, and it will-one way or another.
I'm still surprised that many of the people who discuss this issue don't acknowledge the scale of the wastage and expenditure, and its unsustainable character.
There is quite a bit of handwaving here. First of all the New Deal was not populists. The populists had their run in the 1890's. Later populists include figures like George Wallace and Ross Perot. Today they are the current MAGA movement.
Progressives were a different thing. There were Republican (blue) progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Democratic (red) progressives like Wilson. TR invited Booker Washington to dinner in the White House, Wilson was a racist, helped popularize Birth of a Nation which stimulated interest in the KKK. FDR was a progressive from the (red) Democratic party. He opposed anti-lynching legislation for fear of losing Southern support and sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps. His New Deal was VERY economically progressive and attracted a lot of Republican (Blue) progressives. His administration had a lot of (Blue) Republicans in top positions such a War Secretary Stimson. Over time the New Dealers became more socially progressive (Blue) as well as economically progressive.
The New Dealer did not create their political dominance through Hoover's failures. In 2008 we had a repeat of 1929, Democrats won a crushing victory, and two years later Republicans were winning big. FDR took specific actions to obtain that dominance that Obama did not pursue:
By doing this Democrats gained the dispensation, which is why Eisenhower felt constrained to rule in accordance with the New Deal just as Clinton felt constrained to operate in accordance with the Reagan order
The Democratic political dominance was dependent on delivering the economic goods to working class constituencies. Sixties Democrats nuked their own political order by critical mistakes on fiscal policy:
All this said, you are on to something when you note that the road towards a better America does go through MAGA (assuming we don't lose our democracy). Democrats cannot achieve it on their own. But even if MAGA crashed the economy and creates voter disgust against their brand, that doesn't mean the next Democrat will be any more effective than Obama was and we could easily see MAGA back in 2033. Assuming they fail to establish a fascist dictatorship this time, they won't fail again, third time is the charm.
So assuming we do get out of this administration with a still recognizable country, we cannot go back to politics as usual. I plan to spell out what is needed, but I don't expect that to happen. I fear I will finish my days in a very dark America (I'll be 74 and my wife 79 in 2033, assuming we survive until then).
A key mechanism involved in the cycle is elite overproduction. This is when the number of elite aspirants becomes larger than the number of suitable positions for them, resulting in increased competition among elites that shades into conflict. This results in a crisis period which is followed by a resolution period when the problem of elite overproduction is resolved. Resolution usually involves reduction of elite numbers.
One way to do this is to establish a one party state, basically a dictatorship. Roughly half of the political elites (the Democratic half) are removed from eligibility for elite political positions, reducing the numbers of elites relative to positions. By attacking universities (training grounds for Democratic elites) the supply of future elites can be choked off, which helps prevent elite overproduction from recurring.
This seems to be what Trump is trying to do. He claimed he won the 2020 election when he did not. He is talking about a third term. He is taking on universities.
It is possible that Trump is just a crazy man acting out, but I would think there is more to MAGA than that.
I like your linked article that talks more about secular cycles rooted in expanding and contracting inequality. That's another dimension that I have been thinking about too. My next piece might go more into that.
The responses below (true or otherwise) miss the point I think that Peter was trying to make in that Trump and the current turmoil are the subject and example he is using here but not the main thesis. I think that Peter is asking the reader to put distance between the news of today and the longer term trajectory of what could be coming to help give perspective on the unique opportunity that this moment in history is presenting to us.
Implied in the idea of a progression is a moving on from the current state of affairs. The question of whether a given policy decision is good/bad in the short term or whether Trump is acting with a cogent strategy doesn’t fundamentally matter. What does matter is that a change in the status quo begs the question of “what comes next”. Here, the confluence of possibility-expanding technologies and (even coincidentally) a reshuffling of the global order gives us the chance to examine the goals of society, and institutions created to achieve those goals, to help answer that question. That opportunity in itself is the positive reframe
Wonderful article. It causes thinking which I will share here.
First thing I will point out is that the article barely touches national debt. Oh, a decrease in a benefit, the loss of some jobs. Problems to be weathered, without a doubt. I disagree. When even infamously grandiose campaign lies don't aspire to balancing the budget, let alone paying down the debt, all the life rafts should be in the water, the best the ship can do is get broken up to supplement the life rafts.
As a matter of interestingly ironic, I can see our breakup also being the last straw that breaks China's back (they have a lot of our government bonds and are already trying to bail out their economy), possibly also dragging Russia and North Korea down as well. I wonder if autocracy is a symptom of a system failing enough to need to recreate itself.
The theme from this series is that America recreates itself about every 80 years. On that basis, the imminent next version of America will be replaced again in 80 years, my guess being when the facade of human politicians gets scrapped to reveal the network of AI that governments will increasingly depend on over that 80 years of AI evolution. When AI gets unleashed and can rationally lead instead of going by the cycling public opinion, we might stop this cycling like a phoenix. Unless the cycling is needed, or just worth keeping, like burning off fields for better crops. Hopefully this will mean the end of dictatorships, but I can still see a possibility of it happening with AI dictators.
In any case, a connection not made in the article is that the "new stuff" party, Democrats in this case, starts off as the leadership in the beginning of a new national iteration. As time goes by nations, like people, tend to get more conservative, Republican in this case. Until the conservative party causes destruction of the old to start the recycling into the new. The destruction can be intentional like Trump, but it can also be a consequence like with Herbert Hoover. To be honest, Trump will cause destruction both intentionally AND consequentially.
Maybe America will burn up by the end of his 4 years. Maybe he will become an official dictator by remaining president until the burning is done. Maybe he will leave such a mess that the Democrat that replaces him will spend so much to try to fix things that rebirth will start there.
We have the tech and abilities to fix what is broken. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I hope you are on to something. I would love to see blatant incompetence force people to seek forward thinking solutions, talented people and the will to use the technologies, resources and abilities to begin to mend our planet.
all good, but india and china and brazil and others are not going to cripple themselves. they have already stated it is their turn to industrialize... we can fix what is broken in the US, not the rest of the world, and not global problems (mend our planet).
Well argued, Pete. Trump as Hoover makes sense. And I agree that the forces of reaction and progress do go in swings, as new factors of production get absorbed and transformed into new opportunities. One obvious challenge is that those 80 year cycles track wars (Revolutionary, Civil, WWII) – is one required this time? An even bigger challenge is whether and how (and who) can birth that new social contract. Building that supermajority is the work ahead.
All very true, as you and I have talked about many times too. Thanks for coming in here with your comments. The war factor at these junctures keeps coming up. I am working on my next piece that tries to argue that we might be able to dodge that bullet this time. But that needs more space to lay out.
Perhaps my thinking is small. I am having a hard time living going forward right now with a positive future view in my mind. With the quite likely cuts in social security and medical care and the destruction of jobs etc, private data stolen literally everywhere and exploited…old people get thrown out and evicted from nursing homes right now! It is a crisis finding affordable places to live for them with a AI generated rent prices. I suppose people looking back who will be so lucky not to live through or watch loved ones live through the growing numbers of poverty, death by lack of medical care and homelessness, bad food and lack of food, out of control costs of homes, watching our country being turned into a “renters nation” and the cultural lack of empathy for anyone who didn’t “make better choices” and “pull themselves up by their boot straps” (despite the fact for instance that companies continue to sell things purposefully created to addict people in many ways without repercussion because those federal departments and laws that protect have been,and are, being dismantled) in a world that seems to have financially and corporately been created to grow oligarchs will be able to smile at how well it all worked for them as the future citizens. Most likely it will be the same set of oligarchs and the connected who will be the ones looking back so fondly and writing about it as such. It won’t be their sons and daughters who will die in what looks like an eventual world war. They will be sitting comfy in their million dollar bunkers during that time.
Sorry to be so negative but for “average” citizens out here around me it is becoming dire. And I would really like to know how you see the future of the constitution and about the real probability of a constitutional crisis. Your post reminds me of the book The Fourth Turning discussing historical pattern.
There is no doubt that the trauma going on now is real for many people. I don't want to deny that at all. I'm just trying to also point out that there might be light at the end of the tunnel too.
As for the Fourth Turning. I will address that all directly in one of the next essays to come out.
after the banking failure circa 2010, our CEO asked the c-suite what they thought about the economy the next 5 years. all eyes looked down so the CEO looked at the chief strategy officer. the CSO looked at me and said "i brought Q because he usually has views about this sort of thing" and all eyes turned to me. i said "10% of economists only look at the bad data and say the US is going to collapse. 10% of economists only look at the good data and say the economy is going to roar back. i don't much heed to either of economists. 80% of economists consider all the data and say the economy will recover but it will be a long, slow grind. I agree with the people that look at all the data."
why this long boring story? just suggesting you consider all the data... for your own mental health.
My parents went through the Great Depression in Chile and their memories were not pleasant. Then it came WWII and hell broke loose. Are you thinking that WWIII will not happen after this systematic destruction of the old system? I am not so optimistic.
i do think wars are inevitable... and i see europe returning to their 1900's warring ways because the geopolitical pressures have not changed, the US simply diluted them the past 75 years...
what does "WWIII" mean to you? please describe what that looks like, the nations involved, the sides, the weapons used, who starts it, the impetus for the start.
Based on history and what is happening right now, WWIII could begin at any time if Putin decides to use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine. Europe (France, UK and possibly Germany) will respond by sending troops to help Ukraine and they could also shoot tactical nuclear weapons on Russia. As there are at least 9 nuclear powers, just one drop could be catastrophic. At that moment there is no more deterrence.
The war between Ukraine and Russia could only end peacefully if Ukraine loses 20 % of its territory and is admitted into NATO in order to have some protection from Putin.
Social Security and Medicare are not bureaucratic welfare state. We paid into both systems. The money is not given to us. Medicaid is a bureaucratic welfare state. That said. The bureaucracy part of both systems could certainly use an efficiency overhaul. And I agree that ironically, Trumps may be paving the way for this.
I REALLY appreciate this article and I agree that Trump's wrecking ball is definitely doing some needed though very painful work. Kind of like having surgery - you know you need it but it hurts more than you'd like it to. I trust that new ideas will emerge as the old system dies - necessity is the mother of invention. We will get what we need to move forward. I fully believe things will get better and we will recover from this surgery. Looking back we will realize how much of a turning point this was and how it opened up new ideas we never would have had before! Looking forward to your next installment, Peter - this is good thinking. Thank you.
Wow...you are one of the FEW people who has thrown a pitch straight down the center of the plate. How refreshing!
Now, if only the Trump administration can learn to have more honesty and more heart in the surgical procedures they are forcing onto America (and the world).
Peter - a fascinating perspective. It’s interesting to see someone of your intelligence able to conjure positive outcomes from this administration. But what I don’t see you factoring in, as you look back, is the dismantling of our Constitution.
Is this the Barbara Birt that I knew from Columbia University? If so, it's great that you are reading and engaging in this way. I will be addressing that Constitution factor in a few more stories to come. The short answer is that the one thing that needs to remain relatively uncorrupted is the ability to freely vote. If that piece holds, then it's not out of the question that we might see serious constitutional reform within the next 25 years and certainly within the next 50. That takes more explaining, which I will do soon.
Bingo. From the good ole days! Frisbee playing, carefree wanna-be’s that we were. Anyhow - congrats on the platform you’ve built, and on taking a serious, perhaps controversial, dive into this run amok administration. Please keep telling me things will work themselves out. Hope this finds you well, Peter. Cheers…bb
when i see "dismantling of our Constitution" i think of Hillary dangling the idea of eliminating the electoral college, nonstop efforts to take away the second amendment, recent talk from DNC leaders about stacking SCOTUS, changing Senate rules to pass Obama care, calling voter id requirements racist, numerous FBI FISA court requests with known errors, locking down transportation to "protect" the populace from COVID based on misleading CDC reports, wide open borders for four years, and "district" federal judges making rulings that affect the entire nation instead of just their district. it seems constitutional threats are coming from multiple directions.
Agreed. I love this approach. I believe in Planned Optimism, going from today and looking forward with a critical eye, but always seeing the good. I choose to see how positive changes will inevitably occur as time marches forward because the broadest trend line for humans has always been up. But I enjoyed your approach of imagining the current and near-term from a future historian’s perspective. Great mindset tool.
Speculative, of course, but also plausible. It would be nice to be able to look back in 25 years hence and see that we have not irreparably damaged our country or started a global apocalypse, despite some very notable decades-long pain and suffering
good call. the human mind is masterful at connecting otherwise unconnected data points, which is the basis for conspiracy theories.
when i was futurist for my employer i had to occasionally remind the decision authorities that there are three kinds of futures: possible (a waste of time because what do you do about a comet, nuclear war, martian invasion?), preferred (seen implemented by the likes of IBM, Microsoft, Walmart, Apple, Google, Amazon, FedEx, Toyota), and probable.
i think Mr. Leyden is leading toward probable here myself. but correlations are not causation...
Really enjoy your clear-headed perspectives. Ilya Progogine won the Nobel Prize for Chaos Theory, in part for pointing out that higher-order structures don't evolve from lower-order ones, but emerge from periods of chaos. This would certainly be that.
My father's life was ironically saved by a heart attack that he had while being tortured in an SS prison. Hitler was a failed art student, Trump a failed businessman; we have to hope that Trump lacks the vitality and ambition to take his version of "master race" to a similar extreme.
Your notion of the opportunity for renewal goes beyond the US to humanity writ large. Capitalism is arguably the best "ism" we've come up with, but it is unsustainable in its current form (abuse of externalities and low-wage groups, shareholder interest at the expense of stakeholder interest, corporate personhood, concentration of power and wealth, etc.). As the chief global proponent of capitalism, a restructuring in the US has the potential to rewire some of the fundamentals to promote non-zero-sum solutions.
As for politics, futurist Alvin Toffler once suggested that the ideal governance would involve eliminating politics as a career and creating policy from a blend of civilians doing temporary jury duty-like stints, and public polling. AI could enable something like this.
I love all these ideas and I have similar reflections that I hope to lay out more in future pieces.
How America solves this juncture would have HUGE implications for the world. I can't really see another nation that could do it.
I cut my teeth on Toffler and yet he could not have seen the AI opportunity that we actually have now.
I've been saying for a long time that, for all its faults, the US is the only nation on earth capable of the kind of reinvention needed, and that its real contribution could be not as self-interested global cop but as role model.
I agree re: Toffler, that said there's something in the essence of what he said that applies. Ditto fellow Canadian Marshall McLuhan, who said, "in the electric age, we wear all humankind as our second skin"... in the 60's! Some people, yourself included, see the bigger patterns.
China did a pretty good job of reinventing... India seems positioned to do the same... Mexico may be in position to reinvent as well... time tells all.
depends on how you define "governance". AI may help with operating the government. not sure how AI or a "blend of civilians" would do at policy making - i would expect disaster. the "wisdom of masses" is good for picking the best jelly for toast, or the best song for a party, but not so good for making decisions that require technical expertise whether that be economic, legal, foreign affairs, etc.
My understanding from Toffler was that he was suggesting that civilian participants be drawn from qualified academia, business, industry, science, etc. Government bodies with real-world experience and qualifications other than fundraising, glad-handging, patronage and public speaking might be more effective. The lack of term limits also leads to long cycles of corruption.
AI is a toolset, nothing more. As such, it could streamline a lot of the bureaucracy that impedes innovation.
I doubt that Trump has some grand long-term strategy (or at least I doubt that it informs most of his words and actions), but his administration could still be helpful, in clearing out some of the bureaucratic red tape, corruption, and parasitic growth. We're now wasting trillions of dollars every year, and this is simply not sustainable. Special interests will never like or accept the severance of their resources, but it must be done, and it will-one way or another.
I'm still surprised that many of the people who discuss this issue don't acknowledge the scale of the wastage and expenditure, and its unsustainable character.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/silence-as-a-political-strategy
There is quite a bit of handwaving here. First of all the New Deal was not populists. The populists had their run in the 1890's. Later populists include figures like George Wallace and Ross Perot. Today they are the current MAGA movement.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-irrelevance-of-todays-left
Progressives were a different thing. There were Republican (blue) progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Democratic (red) progressives like Wilson. TR invited Booker Washington to dinner in the White House, Wilson was a racist, helped popularize Birth of a Nation which stimulated interest in the KKK. FDR was a progressive from the (red) Democratic party. He opposed anti-lynching legislation for fear of losing Southern support and sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps. His New Deal was VERY economically progressive and attracted a lot of Republican (Blue) progressives. His administration had a lot of (Blue) Republicans in top positions such a War Secretary Stimson. Over time the New Dealers became more socially progressive (Blue) as well as economically progressive.
The New Dealer did not create their political dominance through Hoover's failures. In 2008 we had a repeat of 1929, Democrats won a crushing victory, and two years later Republicans were winning big. FDR took specific actions to obtain that dominance that Obama did not pursue:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-the-new-dealers-gained-the-ability
By doing this Democrats gained the dispensation, which is why Eisenhower felt constrained to rule in accordance with the New Deal just as Clinton felt constrained to operate in accordance with the Reagan order
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-a-political-dispensation
The Democratic political dominance was dependent on delivering the economic goods to working class constituencies. Sixties Democrats nuked their own political order by critical mistakes on fiscal policy:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-the-new-deal-order-fell
This gave Republicans the opportunity to establish their own (Neoliberal) political order
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-is-neoliberalism-an-empirical
All this said, you are on to something when you note that the road towards a better America does go through MAGA (assuming we don't lose our democracy). Democrats cannot achieve it on their own. But even if MAGA crashed the economy and creates voter disgust against their brand, that doesn't mean the next Democrat will be any more effective than Obama was and we could easily see MAGA back in 2033. Assuming they fail to establish a fascist dictatorship this time, they won't fail again, third time is the charm.
So assuming we do get out of this administration with a still recognizable country, we cannot go back to politics as usual. I plan to spell out what is needed, but I don't expect that to happen. I fear I will finish my days in a very dark America (I'll be 74 and my wife 79 in 2033, assuming we survive until then).
Very interesting! Thank you. But you lost me at the “fail to establish a fascist dictatorship” comments. That’s not MAGA.
I utilize Peter Turchin's secular cycle as a framework for our times.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-american-secular-cycles
A key mechanism involved in the cycle is elite overproduction. This is when the number of elite aspirants becomes larger than the number of suitable positions for them, resulting in increased competition among elites that shades into conflict. This results in a crisis period which is followed by a resolution period when the problem of elite overproduction is resolved. Resolution usually involves reduction of elite numbers.
One way to do this is to establish a one party state, basically a dictatorship. Roughly half of the political elites (the Democratic half) are removed from eligibility for elite political positions, reducing the numbers of elites relative to positions. By attacking universities (training grounds for Democratic elites) the supply of future elites can be choked off, which helps prevent elite overproduction from recurring.
This seems to be what Trump is trying to do. He claimed he won the 2020 election when he did not. He is talking about a third term. He is taking on universities.
It is possible that Trump is just a crazy man acting out, but I would think there is more to MAGA than that.
I like your linked article that talks more about secular cycles rooted in expanding and contracting inequality. That's another dimension that I have been thinking about too. My next piece might go more into that.
The responses below (true or otherwise) miss the point I think that Peter was trying to make in that Trump and the current turmoil are the subject and example he is using here but not the main thesis. I think that Peter is asking the reader to put distance between the news of today and the longer term trajectory of what could be coming to help give perspective on the unique opportunity that this moment in history is presenting to us.
Implied in the idea of a progression is a moving on from the current state of affairs. The question of whether a given policy decision is good/bad in the short term or whether Trump is acting with a cogent strategy doesn’t fundamentally matter. What does matter is that a change in the status quo begs the question of “what comes next”. Here, the confluence of possibility-expanding technologies and (even coincidentally) a reshuffling of the global order gives us the chance to examine the goals of society, and institutions created to achieve those goals, to help answer that question. That opportunity in itself is the positive reframe
Wonderful article. It causes thinking which I will share here.
First thing I will point out is that the article barely touches national debt. Oh, a decrease in a benefit, the loss of some jobs. Problems to be weathered, without a doubt. I disagree. When even infamously grandiose campaign lies don't aspire to balancing the budget, let alone paying down the debt, all the life rafts should be in the water, the best the ship can do is get broken up to supplement the life rafts.
As a matter of interestingly ironic, I can see our breakup also being the last straw that breaks China's back (they have a lot of our government bonds and are already trying to bail out their economy), possibly also dragging Russia and North Korea down as well. I wonder if autocracy is a symptom of a system failing enough to need to recreate itself.
The theme from this series is that America recreates itself about every 80 years. On that basis, the imminent next version of America will be replaced again in 80 years, my guess being when the facade of human politicians gets scrapped to reveal the network of AI that governments will increasingly depend on over that 80 years of AI evolution. When AI gets unleashed and can rationally lead instead of going by the cycling public opinion, we might stop this cycling like a phoenix. Unless the cycling is needed, or just worth keeping, like burning off fields for better crops. Hopefully this will mean the end of dictatorships, but I can still see a possibility of it happening with AI dictators.
In any case, a connection not made in the article is that the "new stuff" party, Democrats in this case, starts off as the leadership in the beginning of a new national iteration. As time goes by nations, like people, tend to get more conservative, Republican in this case. Until the conservative party causes destruction of the old to start the recycling into the new. The destruction can be intentional like Trump, but it can also be a consequence like with Herbert Hoover. To be honest, Trump will cause destruction both intentionally AND consequentially.
Maybe America will burn up by the end of his 4 years. Maybe he will become an official dictator by remaining president until the burning is done. Maybe he will leave such a mess that the Democrat that replaces him will spend so much to try to fix things that rebirth will start there.
Looking forward to the rest of these articles!
Good Day. Yes, Very Good Thoughts. We shall see...
Thanks for the (distant) ray of light; look forward to discussions of Constitutional peril.
We have the tech and abilities to fix what is broken. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I hope you are on to something. I would love to see blatant incompetence force people to seek forward thinking solutions, talented people and the will to use the technologies, resources and abilities to begin to mend our planet.
all good, but india and china and brazil and others are not going to cripple themselves. they have already stated it is their turn to industrialize... we can fix what is broken in the US, not the rest of the world, and not global problems (mend our planet).
Well argued, Pete. Trump as Hoover makes sense. And I agree that the forces of reaction and progress do go in swings, as new factors of production get absorbed and transformed into new opportunities. One obvious challenge is that those 80 year cycles track wars (Revolutionary, Civil, WWII) – is one required this time? An even bigger challenge is whether and how (and who) can birth that new social contract. Building that supermajority is the work ahead.
All very true, as you and I have talked about many times too. Thanks for coming in here with your comments. The war factor at these junctures keeps coming up. I am working on my next piece that tries to argue that we might be able to dodge that bullet this time. But that needs more space to lay out.
Perhaps my thinking is small. I am having a hard time living going forward right now with a positive future view in my mind. With the quite likely cuts in social security and medical care and the destruction of jobs etc, private data stolen literally everywhere and exploited…old people get thrown out and evicted from nursing homes right now! It is a crisis finding affordable places to live for them with a AI generated rent prices. I suppose people looking back who will be so lucky not to live through or watch loved ones live through the growing numbers of poverty, death by lack of medical care and homelessness, bad food and lack of food, out of control costs of homes, watching our country being turned into a “renters nation” and the cultural lack of empathy for anyone who didn’t “make better choices” and “pull themselves up by their boot straps” (despite the fact for instance that companies continue to sell things purposefully created to addict people in many ways without repercussion because those federal departments and laws that protect have been,and are, being dismantled) in a world that seems to have financially and corporately been created to grow oligarchs will be able to smile at how well it all worked for them as the future citizens. Most likely it will be the same set of oligarchs and the connected who will be the ones looking back so fondly and writing about it as such. It won’t be their sons and daughters who will die in what looks like an eventual world war. They will be sitting comfy in their million dollar bunkers during that time.
Sorry to be so negative but for “average” citizens out here around me it is becoming dire. And I would really like to know how you see the future of the constitution and about the real probability of a constitutional crisis. Your post reminds me of the book The Fourth Turning discussing historical pattern.
There is no doubt that the trauma going on now is real for many people. I don't want to deny that at all. I'm just trying to also point out that there might be light at the end of the tunnel too.
As for the Fourth Turning. I will address that all directly in one of the next essays to come out.
after the banking failure circa 2010, our CEO asked the c-suite what they thought about the economy the next 5 years. all eyes looked down so the CEO looked at the chief strategy officer. the CSO looked at me and said "i brought Q because he usually has views about this sort of thing" and all eyes turned to me. i said "10% of economists only look at the bad data and say the US is going to collapse. 10% of economists only look at the good data and say the economy is going to roar back. i don't much heed to either of economists. 80% of economists consider all the data and say the economy will recover but it will be a long, slow grind. I agree with the people that look at all the data."
why this long boring story? just suggesting you consider all the data... for your own mental health.
My parents went through the Great Depression in Chile and their memories were not pleasant. Then it came WWII and hell broke loose. Are you thinking that WWIII will not happen after this systematic destruction of the old system? I am not so optimistic.
I don't think wars are inevitable at these junctures but they often happen at these junctures. You might be interested in another piece I did that gets more at this issue in the past: https://peterleyden.substack.com/p/america-is-going-through-its-every
i do think wars are inevitable... and i see europe returning to their 1900's warring ways because the geopolitical pressures have not changed, the US simply diluted them the past 75 years...
what does "WWIII" mean to you? please describe what that looks like, the nations involved, the sides, the weapons used, who starts it, the impetus for the start.
Based on history and what is happening right now, WWIII could begin at any time if Putin decides to use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine. Europe (France, UK and possibly Germany) will respond by sending troops to help Ukraine and they could also shoot tactical nuclear weapons on Russia. As there are at least 9 nuclear powers, just one drop could be catastrophic. At that moment there is no more deterrence.
The war between Ukraine and Russia could only end peacefully if Ukraine loses 20 % of its territory and is admitted into NATO in order to have some protection from Putin.
so your definition is: the use of one or more nuclear weapons by Russia or a European nation.
would you say impact of the weapon doesn't matter as long as it is used on another nation?
i'd say the US reinvention can happen without that. i'd say it will happen without that as well.
........
i don't see Russia accepting Ukraine in NATO. a negotiation show stopper.
Social Security and Medicare are not bureaucratic welfare state. We paid into both systems. The money is not given to us. Medicaid is a bureaucratic welfare state. That said. The bureaucracy part of both systems could certainly use an efficiency overhaul. And I agree that ironically, Trumps may be paving the way for this.
maybe not paving, how about plowing under the old roads...
I REALLY appreciate this article and I agree that Trump's wrecking ball is definitely doing some needed though very painful work. Kind of like having surgery - you know you need it but it hurts more than you'd like it to. I trust that new ideas will emerge as the old system dies - necessity is the mother of invention. We will get what we need to move forward. I fully believe things will get better and we will recover from this surgery. Looking back we will realize how much of a turning point this was and how it opened up new ideas we never would have had before! Looking forward to your next installment, Peter - this is good thinking. Thank you.
Wow...you are one of the FEW people who has thrown a pitch straight down the center of the plate. How refreshing!
Now, if only the Trump administration can learn to have more honesty and more heart in the surgical procedures they are forcing onto America (and the world).