Love these big-picture articles. Hard to find stuff like this in the mainstream press (it does exist, but often gets buried beneath all the day-to-day news).
I'm not sure some of this stands up as well as any of us might hope. If the Biden administration were "deeply unpopular," as you assert, why did it lose by just under a million votes? The Electoral College inflates the actual number of Trump/GOP voters, and I think that throws us off. While I agree the Democrats lost for a variety of reasons, the policies on which Harris ran were more popular than you suggest. Second, in what way was Reagan "transformative"? Having lived through his administration, I can see not much beyond his massive increases in federal debt, from which we have yet to recover or reckon with--the current GOP has just made it much worse--and he was fortunate in his Soviet opponents. He deserves little credit for ending the Cold War--other writers give credit to the then-pope, which I don't fully agree with--I do think the Soviet economy had reached a point of collapse, and Gorbachev was able to make a deal. Reagan was good at projecting an image of strength and wisdom, but I am not sure how much that was really him. And of course there's Iran-Contra.
So transformative? No. FDR and LBJ, yes--New Deal, Great Society, Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts that essentially ended formal segregation in the US--I don't think Reagan did anything that matched that. Viet Nam, to be sure, overshadows the Johnson era, something with which we're still reckoning. But his domestic record is very much still with us. I am happy, BTW, you point out that the deregulation that he took credit for was largely Carter's work.
I do agree that Trump is sui generis. No one else can mock Jesus and attack the Pope and put out foul-mouthed official statements at all hours of the day (including Easter Sunday) and continue to retain self-styled Christian voters. His very long rope is finite, though, and he seems increasingly bent on finding out just where it does end.
Also, I'm deeply, deeply skeptical of the idea that the DSA is the left wing's equivalent of MAGA, as one questioner stated. MAGA means nothing more or less than loyalty to Donald Trump, which on any given day may involve being pro- or anti-war, pro- or anti-deficit, pro- or anti-free trade. Also MAGA has (by all reasonable accounts) controlled the federal government, and a number of states, for over half of the last ten years. Meanwhile, DSA is a specific political organization that endorses specific candidates and specific policy proposals. Most involved were inspired by Bernie's campaigns, but Bernie is not a member (see above) and the organization predates the 2016 election by decades. There are no particularly powerful DSA politicians on a national or state level; no governors or currently serving senators would identify as DSA, and only a handful of House members would.
"The more the center acts in the name of universality, the more the periphery sees managed civilizational division. So, every imperial enforcement act now has a double output. On a tactical level, maybe coercion works, maybe it doesn’t. On a symbolic level, universal legitimacy continues to decay."
Love this long-distance, objective view of things - really helpful and insightful as ever Gabe!
Thanks, Lynn!
Love these big-picture articles. Hard to find stuff like this in the mainstream press (it does exist, but often gets buried beneath all the day-to-day news).
Thank you!
I'm not sure some of this stands up as well as any of us might hope. If the Biden administration were "deeply unpopular," as you assert, why did it lose by just under a million votes? The Electoral College inflates the actual number of Trump/GOP voters, and I think that throws us off. While I agree the Democrats lost for a variety of reasons, the policies on which Harris ran were more popular than you suggest. Second, in what way was Reagan "transformative"? Having lived through his administration, I can see not much beyond his massive increases in federal debt, from which we have yet to recover or reckon with--the current GOP has just made it much worse--and he was fortunate in his Soviet opponents. He deserves little credit for ending the Cold War--other writers give credit to the then-pope, which I don't fully agree with--I do think the Soviet economy had reached a point of collapse, and Gorbachev was able to make a deal. Reagan was good at projecting an image of strength and wisdom, but I am not sure how much that was really him. And of course there's Iran-Contra.
So transformative? No. FDR and LBJ, yes--New Deal, Great Society, Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts that essentially ended formal segregation in the US--I don't think Reagan did anything that matched that. Viet Nam, to be sure, overshadows the Johnson era, something with which we're still reckoning. But his domestic record is very much still with us. I am happy, BTW, you point out that the deregulation that he took credit for was largely Carter's work.
I do agree that Trump is sui generis. No one else can mock Jesus and attack the Pope and put out foul-mouthed official statements at all hours of the day (including Easter Sunday) and continue to retain self-styled Christian voters. His very long rope is finite, though, and he seems increasingly bent on finding out just where it does end.
Great overview of what the future might bring. Lot of names I’ve haven’t paid enough attention to. Thanks again for the enlightenment!
Really good article, appreciate this insight thank you!
Bernie Sanders is not a member of DSA.
Also, I'm deeply, deeply skeptical of the idea that the DSA is the left wing's equivalent of MAGA, as one questioner stated. MAGA means nothing more or less than loyalty to Donald Trump, which on any given day may involve being pro- or anti-war, pro- or anti-deficit, pro- or anti-free trade. Also MAGA has (by all reasonable accounts) controlled the federal government, and a number of states, for over half of the last ten years. Meanwhile, DSA is a specific political organization that endorses specific candidates and specific policy proposals. Most involved were inspired by Bernie's campaigns, but Bernie is not a member (see above) and the organization predates the 2016 election by decades. There are no particularly powerful DSA politicians on a national or state level; no governors or currently serving senators would identify as DSA, and only a handful of House members would.
Can I assume based on this article that you mean to assert MAGA = Trumpism? With the end of Trump comes the end of MAGA?
Excellent analysis Gabe.
So value your deep mind, Gabe:
Just came across an extraordinarily deep (and wide) lens for viewing (and making clearer sense of) this moment in Global turbulence :
THE GATED AGE by Teodor Mitew
On the Iran war and the metaphysics of imperial collapse
https://turbulence.substack.com/p/the-gated-age
"The more the center acts in the name of universality, the more the periphery sees managed civilizational division. So, every imperial enforcement act now has a double output. On a tactical level, maybe coercion works, maybe it doesn’t. On a symbolic level, universal legitimacy continues to decay."