If it weren’t for all the mayhem and pain likely to come in the meantime, it would be a blessing that we have 2 ? years until the sturm-und-drang of next Presidential election. Of course, in our perverse media/money-driven system, the major potential candidates are already getting organized and positioning themselves. Even without the particularly dysfunctional nature of our political parties, it’s not likely that we will see a candidate who is really ready to tackle the fundamental issues facing the country. Indeed, whoever wins is likely to fail badly.
Of course, I have zero confidence in the likely GOP standard bearers. If you multiply the imagination, compassion, and integrity of either Vance, Rubio, Ron DeSantis, or Ted Cruz, you might well get a negative number. Anyone else on that side with the capability of being President has either bowed out of our Trumpian-dominated public life or has a sufficiently low profile as to have no chance of serious consideration. As I have noted recently, the entire party seems wrapped up in issues and images of the past which, combined with the remnants of its “small government” philosophy, ensures a passive approach to the dire challenges ahead.
There are half a dozen Dem Governors in the mix (Newsom, Shapiro, Beshear, Pritzker, Wes Moore, Whitmer) plus Pete Buttigieg. They all score much higher on the imagination, compassion, and integrity combination, but face a comparable internecine (“progressives” vs. “moderates”) drag within their “party.” Once elected, they would also have to deal with reconstructing the federal government, in terms of both personnel and policy, in the aftermath of the current evisceration. Even with my suggestion of an accelerated remediation (see my proposed EAGER Act, 052325), much of their first term would be spent getting systems and programs back to the ground floor from the current sub-basement level and dealing with the “normal” range of issues and crises.
Getting Congress to act, even if it had modest Dem majorities in both houses, presents another ubiquitous hurdle to meaningful action. After all, at the end of the day, the Dems are only marginally more cohesive and effective than the GOP. They have their own share of personality squabbles, infighting, and inertia. They will also be distracted by the shiny toys of power and the opportunity to go after Trump and his many corruptions; as well as “preventing” his abuses from recuring. These are worthy targets in the abstract, but when establishing the priorities for taking care of the country, they have to be relatively low on the list
The prospect of making fundamental changes will also run into the electorate’s unwillingness to recognize root causes and bite the short-term bullets necessary for long-term improvement. Indeed, the one-word summary of today’s popular concern is “affordability.” However, the economic data show that this isn’t really a problem for most of the (middle class to well-off) folks currently complaining. There is something much deeper going on and it’s not susceptible of quick fixes. This includes the loss of the “American Dream” (some version of “Ozzie and Harriet”), uncertainty about our place in the world (aka “globalization”), and a loss of confidence in society’s and government’s ability to maintain coherence and progress.
Even if addressing those historical concerns was feasible, they wouldn’t reach the underlying problems that demand prompt and radical action: climate, inequality, housing, and the imminent disruption of AI on our workforce and demographics.
There are, of course, well-articulated proposals to deal with this list (except for AI where no one has any idea what to do). They require, however, a degree of radicalness that is alien to our self-satisfied and incremental political culture. New tax structures can generate much of the necessary revenue for comprehensive health care, housing, and basic income. Climate changes can be addressed. It is far more a matter of political will than of developing solutions.
The best model of breaking out of this doldrums in the US is the famous “100 days” of the first term of FDR’s administration in 1933. Huge Congressional majorities and a widely-recognized major economic crisis enabled some radical thinking to take hold. There is caution in this tale, however. A conservative Supreme Court struck down many components of FDR’s program and it’s not at all clear how effective those moves were in ultimately providing an exit ramp from the Great Depression.
All in all, the chances that the US will be in better shape in 2032 than in 2028 are, therefore, not so great. Indeed, things might well be worse given the amount of damage that is currently being done (and I haven’t even touched on international complications yet). So, if a moderately progressive administration comes in, they’re not likely to look very successful four years on. Even if there is great success on fixing the current damage, rebuilding institutions, and laying the foundations for the solutions to long-term problems, that administration is not likely to be able to give much of an answer to the perennial question of electoral politics: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
Given the friable nature of the electorate, a further zig-zag is quite plausible. Indeed, the volatility of this zigzagging is part of what makes more extreme parties and leaders increasingly popular. This is especially visible in Europe. There are structural problems, to be sure: the difficulty of enacting programs with demonstrable effects within a single term. Added to this is the fundamental nature of the problems facing the country and the difficulty of devising solutions. The electorate, however, has—even in the best and most deliberate times—little patience for considering these constraints. The upshot is that whoever wins risks the specter of failure and subsequent rejection.
Of course, I have zero confidence in the likely GOP standard bearers. If you multiply the imagination, compassion, and integrity of either Vance, Rubio, Ron DeSantis, or Ted Cruz, you might well get a negative number. Anyone else on that side with the capability of being President has either bowed out of our Trumpian-dominated public life or has a sufficiently low profile as to have no chance of serious consideration. As I have noted recently, the entire party seems wrapped up in issues and images of the past which, combined with the remnants of its “small government” philosophy, ensures a passive approach to the dire challenges ahead.
There are half a dozen Dem Governors in the mix (Newsom, Shapiro, Beshear, Pritzker, Wes Moore, Whitmer) plus Pete Buttigieg. They all score much higher on the imagination, compassion, and integrity combination, but face a comparable internecine (“progressives” vs. “moderates”) drag within their “party.” Once elected, they would also have to deal with reconstructing the federal government, in terms of both personnel and policy, in the aftermath of the current evisceration. Even with my suggestion of an accelerated remediation (see my proposed EAGER Act, 052325), much of their first term would be spent getting systems and programs back to the ground floor from the current sub-basement level and dealing with the “normal” range of issues and crises.
Getting Congress to act, even if it had modest Dem majorities in both houses, presents another ubiquitous hurdle to meaningful action. After all, at the end of the day, the Dems are only marginally more cohesive and effective than the GOP. They have their own share of personality squabbles, infighting, and inertia. They will also be distracted by the shiny toys of power and the opportunity to go after Trump and his many corruptions; as well as “preventing” his abuses from recuring. These are worthy targets in the abstract, but when establishing the priorities for taking care of the country, they have to be relatively low on the list
The prospect of making fundamental changes will also run into the electorate’s unwillingness to recognize root causes and bite the short-term bullets necessary for long-term improvement. Indeed, the one-word summary of today’s popular concern is “affordability.” However, the economic data show that this isn’t really a problem for most of the (middle class to well-off) folks currently complaining. There is something much deeper going on and it’s not susceptible of quick fixes. This includes the loss of the “American Dream” (some version of “Ozzie and Harriet”), uncertainty about our place in the world (aka “globalization”), and a loss of confidence in society’s and government’s ability to maintain coherence and progress.
Even if addressing those historical concerns was feasible, they wouldn’t reach the underlying problems that demand prompt and radical action: climate, inequality, housing, and the imminent disruption of AI on our workforce and demographics.
There are, of course, well-articulated proposals to deal with this list (except for AI where no one has any idea what to do). They require, however, a degree of radicalness that is alien to our self-satisfied and incremental political culture. New tax structures can generate much of the necessary revenue for comprehensive health care, housing, and basic income. Climate changes can be addressed. It is far more a matter of political will than of developing solutions.
The best model of breaking out of this doldrums in the US is the famous “100 days” of the first term of FDR’s administration in 1933. Huge Congressional majorities and a widely-recognized major economic crisis enabled some radical thinking to take hold. There is caution in this tale, however. A conservative Supreme Court struck down many components of FDR’s program and it’s not at all clear how effective those moves were in ultimately providing an exit ramp from the Great Depression.
All in all, the chances that the US will be in better shape in 2032 than in 2028 are, therefore, not so great. Indeed, things might well be worse given the amount of damage that is currently being done (and I haven’t even touched on international complications yet). So, if a moderately progressive administration comes in, they’re not likely to look very successful four years on. Even if there is great success on fixing the current damage, rebuilding institutions, and laying the foundations for the solutions to long-term problems, that administration is not likely to be able to give much of an answer to the perennial question of electoral politics: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
Given the friable nature of the electorate, a further zig-zag is quite plausible. Indeed, the volatility of this zigzagging is part of what makes more extreme parties and leaders increasingly popular. This is especially visible in Europe. There are structural problems, to be sure: the difficulty of enacting programs with demonstrable effects within a single term. Added to this is the fundamental nature of the problems facing the country and the difficulty of devising solutions. The electorate, however, has—even in the best and most deliberate times—little patience for considering these constraints. The upshot is that whoever wins risks the specter of failure and subsequent rejection.
RSS Feed