Donald Trump

Reconstructing American Politics

Trump, Failed Political Regimes, and the Illiberal Politics of the Future


On a recent episode of The Bulwark podcast with Charlie Sykes, Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie noted that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had more in common than we often think, pointing in particular to the deregulatory wave that began under Carter. Music to my ears.

The connection is worth thinking about. Stephen Skowronek, a political scientist at Yale, has provided some useful insights into the relationship between presidents and political parties over the course of American history. In what he called the "politics of political time," he noted that such surprising pairings as Carter and Reagan could help us see deeper patterns in the development of American politics. Individual presidencies exist within a matrix of ambition, opportunity and strategic constraints. I found it pretty useful for thinking about the relationship between presidents and judges and the contours of American constitutionalism as well.

Some presidents, which Skowronek called reconstructive, are able to significantly remake American politics, reorganizing ideological commitments, political interests and public policy in ways that leave a lasting impression on the political landscape. For a generation or more, politicians operate in their shadows. Historically great presidents like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan fit this mold.

The politics that characterize other presidencies are defined, in part, by their relationship to those reconstructive moments. Some presidents, such as James Polk and Lyndon Johnson, build on those legacies. Others, like Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton, accommodate themselves to a political era defined by the priorities and values of their partisan opposition. Still others, like Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, are trapped by their association with a failing political regime that cannot respond effectively to the needs of the moment. Skowronek gave this last group the somewhat awkward title of disjunctive presidencies.

Disjunctive presidencies have some interesting features in part because they tend to anticipate the reconstructive politics still to come. Hoover's bitter criticism of Franklin Roosevelt tends to obscure the extent to which his brand of Progressivism foreshadowed the New Deal. Ronald Reagan's effort to distance himself from the failed Carter presidency masks the extent to which Carter's efforts to remake the Democratic coalition and Democratic policies found echoes in what Reagan subsequently built.

Corey Robin, Julia Azari, and Jack Balkin have pointed out that the Donald Trump presidency looks much like the politics of disjunction. Trump claims the mantle of an old and established political party, but the coalition seems hollowed out and often a parody of itself. The competing demands of the old coalition are increasingly irreconcilable, and the old policy palliatives seem played out. Trump happily casts aside some of the intellectual, electoral and political constituents of the old Reagan coalition while trying to draw in his own set of Trump Democrats. He is willing defy conservative ideological orthodoxy, but has no meaningful ideology of his own.

All of which raises the question of what comes next. The future is hardly set in stone. Partisans always imagine that they are riding the wave of an electoral realignment that will wash away the political past and reveal a new political future. Donald Trump's partisans have embraced such fantasies themselves. They may well be right that the Republican Party that emerges from the present moment will bear the mark of Donald Trump rather than that of Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, the prospects of such a party commanding an electoral majority do not seem promising. On the other hand, the Democrats might well overplay their hand and follow the path of William Jennings Bryan into an electoral dead end of their own.

What elements of the Trump presidency will be incorporated into the future political order? The norm-busting and institutional erosion? The race-baiting and identity politics? The economic nationalism and trade protectionism? The populist statism? For libertarians, the tenor of American politics in the long shadow of Ronald Reagan was hardly ideal but frequently reasonably good. The coming years look rather bleak. The future might not belong to Trump, but it might be pretty Trumpy.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There’s race baiting going on, but not by Trump.

    1. Yes indeed. I truly grow tired of the quick, superficial comments like that above that a key element of Trump’s platform is “race baiting.” Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to political and cultural events of the last few years can see who the true race baiters are.

      What a silly column.

      1. I truly grow tired of the quick, superficial comments like that above that a key element of Trump’s platform is “race baiting.”

        Considering that most of his stated policies (when he actually has one) are racist in origin (see the wall) it can reasonably be stated that racism is a key element of Trump’s platforms.

        1. So stopping illegal immigration is racist. Seems that makes EVERY nation in the world racist, since they all attempt to stop it.

          Have you looked at how Mexico, our neighbor to the south, treats illegal immigrants? Or is racism simply something that can only be attributed to white Americans?

          1. You need to consider the most apt historical analogy & see whether it applies today. In the first half of the Nineteenth Century, a new party formed known as the Know Nothing Party. It was led by sleazy politicians who told an easily-conned base of supporters that ALL their problems were caused by some Other – in this case Irish, Italian, and Catholic immigrants. These loathsome demagogue pols railed against their chosen scapegoats : They were brutes. criminals, they threatened the very future of the country, a danger to decent people’s women and children. Every crime by an Irish or Italian immigrant became a screaming headline to work the mob of dupes and chumps. Now this mob was made up of people facing some hard times. Yeah, none of that was the fault of the Irish or Italians, but that didn’t seem to matter. Eventually the massive con job burned out, as this one eventually will. So:

            (1) Sleazy conman politician : Check
            (2) Hysteria over chosen scapegoat : Check
            (3) Wild agitprop on grossly exaggerated “danger” : Check
            (4) Banana republic-style theatrics about this chosen “enemy” : Check
            (5) None of it having anything to do with peoples real problems : Check

            Seems like a pretty clear match to me….

            1. To the DNC? yes.
              Race hustling was always their stock in trade. From the Reconstruction era South, to both Tammany Hall and the Know Nothings, to the Progressive era’s Klan and Scientific Racism, to the Solid South, to the current White Scare, it’s always about divide and conquer tactics. The Democrats greatest success occurs when they’re pinning one group against another.

              1. The Know Nothings formed in the mid 1850’s with the dissolution of the Whig party. They were opponents of the Democrats. And I’m not sure the Democrats of the 1870’s have much to do with the Democrats now. But in my view, down with ALL political parties.

        2. … most of his stated policies (when he actually has one) are racist in origin (see the wall) …

          So claims regexp, the quadruple racist living inside a house that has four walls, and that’s just the outside!

          Wall, barrier, secured border, etc. The American working class doesn’t care about their co-workers’ skin color, sexual deviance, place of birth, beliefs in a sky-god, or any of a host of supposed ‘-phobias’. They do care that their pay won’t get frozen at 1980s levels or they won’t be replaced by three immigrants whose combined wages save the corporation 10%.

          THAT is the core of the conflict: high immigration may be good for America (the corporate and professional types) but is bad for Americans, the blue-collar working stiffs.

        3. There’s nothing racist about the wall.
          What’s racist is importing pseudo-slave labour to be your nannies, work your fields and fill your factories on a massive scale through illegal immigration. Legal immigrants and citizens have protections that drive up the cost to more than you want to pay for a gardener or a maid.

          The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist, but this is always just about defending their class interests.

        4. I earned $8000 last month by working online just for 6 to 9 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come.
          Try it, you won’t regret it!…..

          SEE HERE >>=====>>>>

        5. Right — anyone who doesn’t agree with your de facto open borders policy is racist of course.

          Was that satire?

      2. I truly grow tired of the quick, superficial comments like that above that a key element of Trump’s platform is “race baiting.”

        You are probably tired of all of this damned progress in America throughout your lifetime, too, and you are not going to like America’s future, either. Backwardness is waning and our vestigial bigots are becoming less relevant and less acceptable in modern America.

        Carry on, clingers. Not for much longer, though.

        1. “Carry on, clingers. Not for much longer, though.”

          Are you hoping for a final solution for the clingers, Reverend?

  2. Trump is part of the New Right Regime, a continuation of Reagan’s landslide, and it was Obama who was the disjunctive president.

    1. Well there it is…. the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. And that includes the “race baiting” elsewhere in this thread.

      1. No… the stupidest thing written today was when you called the wall “racist”.

        1. No, the stupidest thing is when you suggested that illegal immigrants come here against their will and remain as pseudo-slaves.

    2. it was Obama who was the disjunctive president.

      What are you even talking about with this one?

      1. I have actually read the Stephen Skowronek book that Whittington is referencing (and that he does a shitty job explaining). In it, Skowronek periodizes American presidential history based on when a new “regime” coming to power in an electoral re-alignment election. For instance FDR in 1932 was one such election, and that New Deal “regime” was in power until 1980 when the New Deal Coalition fell apart (basically from the inside first). Basically, every Republican since 1932 had to play on the terms of the new status quo. For instance, Ike didn’t even dream about rolling back the New Deal. These presidents who are from the opposite party but who have to play on the terms of the regime are called “disjunctive”.

        When Reagan’s landslide put him into power, Skowronek called it the New Right Regime, and every democrat since has had to play under the new status quo. For instance, Clinton had to be a moderate. Obama, despite all his efforts to transform the country, it stayed center right. Trump, for all his blustery rejection of the “swamp,” is still a president under the New Right Regime. If, and only IF he wins in a landslide in 2020, will we have a (fill in the blank) regime.

        And thank you for engaging in a thoughtful manner.

        I’m very disappointed as Whittington for this blog post. His published work is so much better than this.

        1. So…Obama isn’t actually disjunctive then. FDR and Reagan are.

          1. No, FDR and Reagan started a new political order, a “regime” as it were that stays in place until a landslide election indicates it was rejected by the populace. FDR and and Reagan founded such “regimes”. A disjunctive president is one from the opposite party who has to moderate their view while being president under the dominate political order (regime).

            Ike was disjunctive under the New Deal regime, and Obama was disjunctive under the New Right Regime started by Reagan.

            So, until we have another landslide election where the populace chooses a new political order sending the opposition into the wilderness for a generation or two, we operate under the New Right Regime.

  3. If there is a next President.

    I see 2016 as a slap in the face for US two-party representative-democracy. The purpose of a slap is to shock the other party into awareness leading to change and compromise. But I see no sign of a move to the center by either side for 2020. Even more extreme polarization seems to be the trend.

    I worry about violence in the months leading to the election. Even today, we see demonstrators and counter-demonstrators bringing weapons to the event. Worse, I fear that neither side will accept defeat in the 2020 election. American democracy is imperiled.

    Our Constitution is flawed. It made no provision for the people to replace government without bloodshed; the right we assert in the preamble to The Declaration.

    If this government collapses, I sure hope the next one is wise enough to provide for a non-violent revolution where the people can vote to bring down the entire government, along with all laws and constitutions, and start over from scratch, without bloodshed. The very threat of such a vote would almost surely induce moderation on all sides. Widespread dissatisfaction with government would be intolerably risky if the voters had that power.

    I think the majority in 2016 was in a rebellious mood, but the ballot choices gave them no way to directly express that.

    1. These comments were said about W Bush and about Obama. They weren’t true then. They aren’t true now.

    2. “Our Constitution is flawed. It made no provision for the people to replace government without bloodshed;”

      Many people forget nowadays the proper course of action when you are unhappy with the outcome of an election: you wait for the next one. No bloodshed necessary.

      1. Or amend the Constitution. If a big change to government can’t be agreed on by most (not just a bare and transient majority) it probably shouldn’t happen. The ideas that seem so important in the moment aren’t the driver in this — historical change to dictatorship is.

      2. So look at what that produced in 2016. Some (not all) of those rebellious people voted for a protest candidate whose mission it was to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of government and to slap American democracy in the face.

        The ballot box is much too blunt a tool. There are no provisions to have a “none of the above” line, or “abolish the office” line on the ballot. Prior to Trump, all previous nominees for President were what Ross Perot called “ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between them.” The people can choose, but the system delivers up a very limited list of choices.

        I am thinking of the following words from The Declaration. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …” Those words do not mean a new regime, they call for a new “form of government.” An amendment does not accomplish that unless it repeals the whole constitution.

        Our Constitution expressly forbids advocacy of violent overthrow, and does not provide nonviolent overthrow so it rejects this tenant of The Declaration.

        To be fair, no government I know, expressly permits violent revolution. That is why I call for a more enlightened way to “abolish” without violence.

        1. You should look up the proper origin that quote about a “dime’s worth of difference” between the parties, it might surprise you, and why it was said.

          1. Say what you will, but the guy could turn a phrase. “The only four-letter words those hippies dont know are ‘w-o-r-k’ and ‘s-o-a-p.'”

            Bonus points for having a first wife named Lurleen. I have unfortunately not been able to confirm whether she went on to a successful country music career under the guidance of one Col. Homer Simpson.

        2. “The ballot box is much too blunt a tool…the people can choose, but the system delivers up a very limited list of choices.”


          In my 40-odd years of political awareness I have (IMHO) seen a continuous downward trend in the quality of options. I liked that Reagan operated from some core convictions even though some of his choices were awful. Slick Willy had no core principals other than self-interest, although his centrist approach seemed to work pretty well. W was cringe-worthy. Obama was easier to listen to but also made awful choices. Then came 2016…

          Thought experiment – prior to the 2008 primary season, if each member of the electorate had been asked to submit a list of the ten people they’d like most to see as president, what percentage would have included Obama or McCain? How about 2004, how many would have included Kerry? 2000, how many would have written down George W. Bush? If there was a line in Vegas, I’d bet the under.

          It’s a difficult road to the top of the party apparatus. This is of course no accident, the parties will happily sabotage any of their own who fail to swear fealty to the leadership. Their greatest concern is power regardless of whether their policies are important to the electorate. And so we have what we have today.

          I had a chilling thought the other day. Every cycle I think to myself that it can’t get any worse and in 2016 it seemed we’d gotten as far down as it’s possible to get. But what if I’m wrong?

      3. The problem with this is that the unconstitutional administrative state has become a fixed, static federal government that operates largely free of interference from democratically elected politicians.

    3. Thanks for this thought-provoking comment. I hope there are some substantive responses.

    4. Our Constitution is flawed. It made no provision for the people to replace government without bloodshed; the right we assert in the preamble to The Declaration.

      Really? You believe that? What exactly do you think elections are for?

      For too long people have been taught their vote doesn’t matter. About 40% of the populace who could vote in 2016 didn’t vote. If they had all voted- How would the election have turned out? We’ll never know. They didn’t vote.

    5. we can vote to remove the President, all of the house and 1/3 the Senate. How much more replacement is needed?

    6. I suggest you look up the Compromise of 1877 if you think that we are in uncharted territory. We are not.

  4. The norm-busting and institutional erosion? The race-baiting and identity politics? The economic nationalism and trade protectionism?

    The first two look like continuity carried over from the Obama years. The last looks like a new Trumpian disjunction, which will be continued by his successors. But for his successors, as with Trump, we don’t really know whether trade protectionism is trade protectionism simpliciter, or trade protectionism as a weapon to force others to back off their own trade protectionism.

  5. When New York Times editorialists and multitudes of tenured professors openly wish for the death of white men, it seems pretty clear that race-baiting is now institutionalized and will be with us for a long time.

    1. If it ever loses political expediency for the Democrats it will disappear overnight. Everything used in their pursuit of power is disposable.

    2. wish for the death of white men

      or certain white men are so fragile they see their death written everywhere.

      I’m a white guy and must admit I’ve somehow missed all this oppression.

      1. You’re like that good negro in 1910 who hopes he won’t have any problems if he “yes’ums” properly.

      2. “I’m a white guy and must admit I’ve somehow missed all this oppression.”

        Never see any “white men shut up” articles or Twitter posts? Very common.

        You are a Girondist, thinking the Jacobins will never come for you.

        1. Randos on Twitter tell lots of classes of people to shut up. It’s more telling that you see a threat when it’s white men and not anyone else.

          1. Its not just randos.

            Sara Jeong, for instance, is on the New York Times editorial board. Don Lemon has a CNN show.

            Its telling that you deflect by calling me a white supremeicst. As I said, Girondist. Being shot last means you are still dead.

            1. I’m guessing that if anyone in this country is going to start systematically shooting people, it will be the ones with all the guns, not Don Lemon or Sara Jeong.

              A race war against whites, really? That’s some Charles Manson shit there. “When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide…”

  6. Keith has the modalities wrong here.

    Instead, what you’re looking at is the realignment of the political parties around a new paradigm, and the resulting distortions of that realignment. While there are various factors to the alignment of the political parties, one is economic

    Historically, (~1950’s on) the Republican class represented the upper middle class professionals that occupied the suburbs. Meanwhile, Democrats represented the working class, both within the urban cores, and within the country.

    What you are currently observing is the flipping of these electorates, and who they support, as well as the policy distortions of the flip. Currently Democrats are making increasing gains upon the upper middle class professionals in the suburbs. Meanwhile, Republicans are increasingly the party of the working class, which has migrated to the outer suburbs and the rural areas, as the urban cores regentrify. Policies such as tariffs and limits on cheap immigrant labor are increasingly promoted by the Republican party. Such measures generally support the working class. Meanwhile Democrats increasingly the opposite parties.

    1. There is an argument that immigration restrictions help the working class, but it’s very far from a clear winner.

      There is no serious argument that tariffs do so.

      1. There is no serious argument that tariffs do so

        Well, it depends a bit on what you mean by “serious argument.” There’s a “serious argument” that free trade (inc zero tariffs) helps the “economy as a whole”, ie treating a dollar’s cost of consumption by Joe Blow as commensurate with a dollar’s cost of consumption by Larry Ellison. But there’s also a “serious argument” that particular tariffs help particular groups of people. Such as farmers. Tariffs have general income destruction properties, but they also have particular income distribution properties.

        Moreover most econometric analysis of tariffs is done as tariff v. no tariff (or lower tariff) which then incudes within the benefit of no tariff, the basic economic benefit of lower taxes. To get a “more serious argument” about the economic costs of tariffs, you need to analyse tariffs vs. no tariffs, but higher general sales taxes raising as much tax as the tariffs would have raised. No tariffs would still win (at the general population level) but not by as much as on the traditional calculation.

      2. Depends on the nature of the restrictions.

        To help the working class, what you want is to minimize the number of incoming low and middle skilled workers, who compete with them for wages, while increasing the number of high skilled workers, who compete with the elites. Thus bringing down the wage differential.

        This is, of course, our nominal immigration policy, but the opposite of our de facto immigration policy of the last few decades.

      3. “Humanity may in this case require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market, as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence. The disorder which this would occasion might no doubt be very considerable.” Adam Smith

    2. Excellent comment, and I hope that Whittington responds.

  7. Here is something to notice, because it provides insight into a likely future. For almost 30 years presidential leadership in this country has been in the hands of baby boomers (or maybe one near-baby-boomer, in the case of Obama). That can’t continue, because no generation is immortal. It is possible, but probably unlikely, that a baby boomer will emerge as president in 2020. It is nearly impossible after that.

    By 2024, if not by 2020, presidential leadership will shift down not just a little bit, but to a much younger generation, just as it did when John Kennedy, and then Bill Clinton, led generational changes previously. For now, the politics favored by that new generation (it will likely be the millennials after 2024) remain inchoate.

    We really don’t know what those younger people will decide to want from politics. It will not be anything in the tradition of either Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama, or Donald Trump. The one thing millennials are already sure of politically, is that the legacies left by those guys aren’t working for them.The many acolytes now panting to take over and extend today’s politics will simply be skipped over, and mostly retired along with the baby boomers. America will be the better for it.

    1. Obama was born in 1961 so is a baby boomer.

  8. “What elements of the Trump presidency will be incorporated into the future political order? The norm-busting and institutional erosion? The race-baiting and identity politics? The economic nationalism and trade protectionism? The populist statism?”

    Norm-busting and institutional erosion is done by bureaucrats. Trump is just getting them to reveal themselves. Pro-tip: if you’re the one constantly bringing up race YOU’RE the race baiter, not Trump. There’s more international free trade under Trump because Trump isn’t letting foreign governments bend Americans over, the way libertarians want. And the state is in decline under Trump

    In short, your entire last paragraph is nothing short of, I want to say breathtaking dishonesty, but it’s all too expected dishonesty.

    1. No, not dishonest. You just disagree with it. Learn the difference.

  9. Sure. Trump provoking dysfunction by actions like nominating Kavanaugh. If he would only be “nice”, things would be fine. Romney had a dog on car roof and folders of women

  10. You can’t say one presidency was “failed” and another “successful” without looking at what the presidents involved were trying to achieve.

    Let’s say there are two sets of parents. One tells their children to eat their vegetables and do their homework. The other tells their children they can eat all the candy they want and blow off their homework. Guess what? The second set of parents gets listened to. They are “effective”. To Whittington, the first set of parents are “failed” and the second are “successful”.

  11. WV just equated being Muslim with doing 9-11.
    Race and IQ id brought up with frequency on this very blog, but only by one side.
    The occasional birther still shows up to this day, and not on the left.

    Can’t imagine why people see the right as having more issues with racism in it’s ranks.

    I expect the realignment will be generational on the left, with the new generation (younger than me) is one who doesn’t think socialism is a dirty word. Which is going to be interesting coming up against a GOP who cries crisis at everything, but especially socialism.

    For all the crowing about how old the right is, they’re doing much better in that respect. But they do keep doubling down on extremist policies and methods, which makes for a brittle coalition, especially in the face of defeats as happen as political cycles do.
    I don’t know how it’s going to break, but I doubt it’s going to be pretty. Probably it’s just Reason’s policies, but the number of death threats I’ve gotten on this blog has certainly increased in the last couple of years. Not the sign of a people with winning arguments, nor ones that will take losing well.

    1. Some dude in … “WV just equated being Muslim with doing 9-11.”

      Perhaps you should focus on your own coalition, which is currently furiously debating whether or not a law professor can defend someone accused of sex crimes without discriminating against female students.

      And is furiously debating whether or not to print enough money to build enough trains to eliminate air travel.

      You think AOC will follow through with her threat to primary all the moderate Dems if they don’t toe the progressive line?

      1. Furiously debating? I read liberal forums as well, and I’m not seeing that particular deep cut.

        Eliminate air travel is some seriously bad-faith reading of AOC’s fact-sheet.

        And I’n not super worried about the turmoil of the insurgent left versus the moderate Dems. Had to happen sooner or later. I blame the Clintons.

    2. “WV just equated being Muslim with doing 9-11.”

      The whole state? Wow!

      Random sign guy in W Va v. congresswoman who uses “Jew money” and “dual loyalty”. Who is more dangerous?

      1. It was a legislator, and no one in the WV GOP seems to have spoken out against it. Which says quite a bit about WV voters.

        But your distancing the GOP from such a sign speaks well of you and what you think is acceptable discourse.

        1. Where did you get the legislator from? It was a random woman. And everyone condemned it once they found out about it.

          “no one in the WV GOP seems to have spoken out against it.”

          Well, except for the state party chairwoman and the House Speaker..

    3. Don’t take the commentary here are representative of anything except perhaps the opinions of the strongly partisan.

      1. Here? It’s the intellectual partisans of the right. And it’s losing the fight.

        1. That’s a matter of perception.

  12. “The norm-busting and institutional erosion?”

    If this refers the slow degradation of the power of the unconstitutional administrative state, then one can only hope it accelerates greatly.

    “The race-baiting and identity politics?”

    That’s not an element of the Trump presidency, and it’s exceptionally stupid to suggest that it is. Rather, the element of the Trump presidency is to finally stand up to decades of race-baiting and identity politics of the left. The ultimate effect should be neutralizing and reduces the influence of racial identity politics, as we get to the point that things like immigration policy can be assessed rationally, rather than a one-way propaganda push for open borders wielding destructive accusations of racism as a political weapon.

    “The economic nationalism and trade protectionism?”

    Yes, hopefully U.S. international policy will put the American people first, even as we seek free trade but only in mutual bilateral terms rather than unilateral.

    “The populist statism?”

    I hadn’t noticed any, please link. Was it the massive scale deregulation? The push to stop endless unauthorized foreign wars? The appointment of originalist conservative judges? The war against socialism? The criticism of the fake news media in favor of real freedom of speech and of the press belonging to the people?

  13. The future actually belongs to God. I came to be a believer later in life, but many instances of things (often very serendipitous and ironically coincidental things popping up in strangely meaningful ways) convinced me that murky, unfathomable plans are afoot behind the fog of existence.

    So I try to hold my breath and let it happen, then hold my tongue when it does happen. I do have some conclusions based on more-or-less settled knowledge or strong trends.

    (1) Space flight will be common to asteroid belt by 2100, which will be exploited. Venus not at all and Mars not so much, but our moon will be mined.

    (2) Space will be militarized.

    (3) Wars may be a brutal but subtle combination of pinpoint nuclear attack, info war, internal sabotage and sedition. We will have instant images but won’t trust any news.

    (4) Cancer may be cured and other medical miracles. Retirement age could go to 90.

  14. “What (about) the future political order?”
    The split is likely to devolve into the Party of Government and the Party of Liberty (less government). Present day Democrats are clearly the party of government. Trump will likely be remembered as a pillar of the party of liberty; and liberty will have a period of long ascension.

Please to post comments