It seems to me that from some paths you go down in this essay, it could also be argued that a watershed moment literally is not a watershed moment at the time; the end of an era is literally not the end of an era until later events make it so. So it’s not just that you can’t know, it’s that it can’t BE, until the future arrives.
Excellent. And after 20 years of writing this stuff, I can say with confidence that "we don't know because no one can know" is the least-popular statement a journalist, consultant, or anyone else can make.
A small correction: Thomas Dewey, who lost to Truman in 1948, was seen as a moderate like Eisenhower four years later. He supported the new international consensus, and though he loved a good balanced budget, rolling back the New Deal wasn't in the cards (especially given that he'd be working with a Democratic Congress).
Fair point. What I presented was indeed simplistic. In fact, lots more points like that could be raised when you get into the weeds of each event I mentioned and the "what ifs" related to it. But in all those details, you encounter more "what ifs." And in those... So if we were to unpack with severe care to detail, it would rapidly get bewilderingly complex. And that's when we're looking backwards! Now think of the complexity looking forwards. And not for one event, but many, over years and decades. It rapidly becomes inconceivably complex -- which underscores how ludicrous it is to think we can forecast it all accurately.
Absolutely! It's a valuable point you're making, and it's absolutely right. No reader should let a nitpicky alternate history enthusiast get in the way of the central message.
Dan, I'm also an alt-history enthusiast and have so far identified or posted about 60 points of departure that cause us to look at history from different angles. tps://jimbuie.substack.com/t/alternative-history
Well said. As a geezer journalist, I've read of or endured so many "ends of eras"; "new eras" and "revolutions" that weren't: Nixon's landslide election of 1972 that supposedly ushered in an all-powerful imperial presidency. His resignation two years later supposedly weakened the presidency beyond repair, ending the imperial presidency, and beginning an era of a federal government led by Congress. Then, two years later, a new era of long-term Democratic rule began with the election of the charismatic new FDR-JFK clone, Jimmy Carter. Four years later, there was the "Reagan Revolution" that would eliminate big government, especially the Department of Education. In 1994, there was the "Gingrich Revolution" which would do the same. In 2008, the radical African Kenyan Marxist socialist Muslim Barack Obama was elected, supposedly ushering in a new New Deal. Too bad these things never happened in real life, only in the journalism that believed you had to hype the significance of events in order to keep the public interested and engaged.
The future is unintelligibly complicated and random. Nevertheless, societies tend to move in trends (serial correlation). Tomorrow, the US will probably look like the US, and Haiti will look like Haiti. Occasionally and unexpectedly, serial correlation is ripped asunder. And then there's Stein's Law (what cannot continue forever will stop), but the timing surprises us.
The US has a new head of government promising change, led by cabinet nominees who are ideologically extreme and inexperienced. Our future path is unknowable, but the odds have reasonably increased that our serial correlation shifts, if not breaks. Our perceived probable future paths have become more dispersed, with more bad outcomes. Uncertainty has increased, and uncertainty increases anxiety.
It is a clear rejection of the current system. Pax American and neoliberalism are dead. What comes next is gonna be chaos but that’s what voters want. I don’t agree with this but my side fought on issues no one cares about. Trans rights came in 22/22 among voter concerns. Open borders immigration and allowing over 6m people to game the asylum system infuriated working class of all stripes and shapes. Kareem Jeffries is the best politician Democrats have. He won’t be listening to the “ groups “ as Joe Biden was known to do. The “ groups “ lost us a perfectly winnable election by putting the party in suicide stance on marginal issues.
Two things. One, I'm pretty sure most Trump voters do not want "chaos." You (and I) may say that is what they will predictably get, but, no, "chaos" isn't top of the survey results from Trump voters. And two, may I please ask you to read the essay I linked to. There have been many apparent turning points in history when things were "clear" that turned out quite surprisingly. While I think it's quite possibly what you sketch here may come to pass, it is far from the lock you think.
It is true that one does not know if a political watershed has occurred until some time after. Using the Skowronek Political Time concept, such watersheds are the election of a Reconstructive president, whose identity is confirmed when their party wins a third presidential term. For FDR as a key indicator that he was Reconstructive was the Democratic landslide in 1934. See this:
FDR's Reconstructive status was confirmed when he won his third term in 1940. This meant the New Dealers would be in charge for WW II, when the policy creating the postwar economy and state were forged.
Republicans had run a liberal in both 1944 and 1948. Taft would probably find it very difficult to win in 1952, and even if he did., he would find the New Deal quite entrenched. As Eisenhower explained to a letter to his brother, had Republicans attempted to undo the New Deal they would have run into a buzzsaw of opposition because of the power of the political order (dispensation) established by 20 years of New Deal policy.
My current post described the power of dispensation, in our case the Reagan dispensation.
I appreciate the point being made, but were any of the isolationists you covered also deeply criminal wanna-be gangsters who planned to prosecute their political opponents, and redefine the mandate of all government institutions to prioritize personal loyalty to the President above all else? Who mused that he may remain in power after his second term, and that voters would not need to vote again.
While we may not know now with certainty how future historians will regard this moment, we can and should describe with confidence the many ways in which Trump 2.0 represents a threat of the highest order to our way of life.
Certainly! This has nothing do with what could/is likely to happen in the immediate future. It only speaks to Douthat's "irrevocable" turning point, etc.
I appreciate that. I suppose I am just trying to be mindful that while we should not get collectively over our skis in pronouncing with certainty on the unknowable, we should ensure this sensible caution is not taken to be a dissuasion from pronouncing on the threat.
I should say, I really enjoy your work and the deep intellectual honesty that seems to so often be at the heart of it!
This is speculation obviously but based on his track record and documented health decline during his campaign Donald Trump's attempts to be a reverse of Woodrow Wilson will fail in the same manner that Wilson failed. His America First agenda wiped away by his successor in 2028 (which will be someone less inclined to appease progressively circles like Biden did mixed with appeasing the right wing Anti Trumpers and be more of a centrist political figure).
Much like Bush Jr who was the last Republican to win the popular vote with a Republican Congressional majority Trump will also lose big in the midterms in 2026 with more centrist Democrats such as Ruben Gallegos of Arizona winning races in Red and Purple Districts and more progressive leaning incumbents losing Congressional seats.
According to exit polling roughly 56% of American voters either dislike or are indifferent to Trump. Whereas Joe Biden was at roughly 48% dislike or indifference. Add to the fact Trump is currently trolling the most senior members of his Congressional majority with his foolish Cabinet nominations and roughly 20% of his voters reluctantly voted for him because they believed he'd improve their personal financial situations it's likely (again speculation) Trump will fail so spectacularly that Trumpism will collapse entirely and not be remembered as a great political triumph.
Instead it'll be seen as a repudiation on progressivism/Corporate (Right of Center) Democrats and traditional Republican/Neo Conservatives. That forced different types of political candidates to the forefront to fix what Trump has broken.
This is a great piece for reflection. On the path forward that can end up in so many different unknown destinations I so wish that the world had better souls leading us. Being a boomer I inevitably compare current leaders and wonder how *they* would have navigated the Cuban missile crisis.
There is certainly a tendency to think current events have much more importance than they ultimately do, when placed in a broader context with the passage of time.
As a small grace note to your excellent post... on the day the Bastille was stormed King Louis wrote "rein" in his diary. But I can't help but think we are in a new era - tho' Trump is the effect not the cause. It is the era of horizontal information where individuals can broadcast and narrow receive.
Thank you. While we often grasp for seeming-certainty to avoid the anxiety of the unknown, in this case undetermined-ness is the great comfort.
It seems to me that from some paths you go down in this essay, it could also be argued that a watershed moment literally is not a watershed moment at the time; the end of an era is literally not the end of an era until later events make it so. So it’s not just that you can’t know, it’s that it can’t BE, until the future arrives.
Agreed. It is undetermined. It is only determined by subsequent events. Until then, we are all Schrodinger's cat.
Very similar point to what my firm wrote here: https://open.substack.com/pub/mbpolicy/p/humility?r=2jucr&utm_medium=ios
Excellent. And after 20 years of writing this stuff, I can say with confidence that "we don't know because no one can know" is the least-popular statement a journalist, consultant, or anyone else can make.
A small correction: Thomas Dewey, who lost to Truman in 1948, was seen as a moderate like Eisenhower four years later. He supported the new international consensus, and though he loved a good balanced budget, rolling back the New Deal wasn't in the cards (especially given that he'd be working with a Democratic Congress).
Fair point. What I presented was indeed simplistic. In fact, lots more points like that could be raised when you get into the weeds of each event I mentioned and the "what ifs" related to it. But in all those details, you encounter more "what ifs." And in those... So if we were to unpack with severe care to detail, it would rapidly get bewilderingly complex. And that's when we're looking backwards! Now think of the complexity looking forwards. And not for one event, but many, over years and decades. It rapidly becomes inconceivably complex -- which underscores how ludicrous it is to think we can forecast it all accurately.
Absolutely! It's a valuable point you're making, and it's absolutely right. No reader should let a nitpicky alternate history enthusiast get in the way of the central message.
"Nitpicky alternate history enthusiast" is my core audience. Nitpick away!
Excellent article. Thank you.
Dan, I'm also an alt-history enthusiast and have so far identified or posted about 60 points of departure that cause us to look at history from different angles. tps://jimbuie.substack.com/t/alternative-history
Well said. As a geezer journalist, I've read of or endured so many "ends of eras"; "new eras" and "revolutions" that weren't: Nixon's landslide election of 1972 that supposedly ushered in an all-powerful imperial presidency. His resignation two years later supposedly weakened the presidency beyond repair, ending the imperial presidency, and beginning an era of a federal government led by Congress. Then, two years later, a new era of long-term Democratic rule began with the election of the charismatic new FDR-JFK clone, Jimmy Carter. Four years later, there was the "Reagan Revolution" that would eliminate big government, especially the Department of Education. In 1994, there was the "Gingrich Revolution" which would do the same. In 2008, the radical African Kenyan Marxist socialist Muslim Barack Obama was elected, supposedly ushering in a new New Deal. Too bad these things never happened in real life, only in the journalism that believed you had to hype the significance of events in order to keep the public interested and engaged.
The future is unintelligibly complicated and random. Nevertheless, societies tend to move in trends (serial correlation). Tomorrow, the US will probably look like the US, and Haiti will look like Haiti. Occasionally and unexpectedly, serial correlation is ripped asunder. And then there's Stein's Law (what cannot continue forever will stop), but the timing surprises us.
The US has a new head of government promising change, led by cabinet nominees who are ideologically extreme and inexperienced. Our future path is unknowable, but the odds have reasonably increased that our serial correlation shifts, if not breaks. Our perceived probable future paths have become more dispersed, with more bad outcomes. Uncertainty has increased, and uncertainty increases anxiety.
Well put. I wish more pundits would speak with such care.
It is a clear rejection of the current system. Pax American and neoliberalism are dead. What comes next is gonna be chaos but that’s what voters want. I don’t agree with this but my side fought on issues no one cares about. Trans rights came in 22/22 among voter concerns. Open borders immigration and allowing over 6m people to game the asylum system infuriated working class of all stripes and shapes. Kareem Jeffries is the best politician Democrats have. He won’t be listening to the “ groups “ as Joe Biden was known to do. The “ groups “ lost us a perfectly winnable election by putting the party in suicide stance on marginal issues.
Two things. One, I'm pretty sure most Trump voters do not want "chaos." You (and I) may say that is what they will predictably get, but, no, "chaos" isn't top of the survey results from Trump voters. And two, may I please ask you to read the essay I linked to. There have been many apparent turning points in history when things were "clear" that turned out quite surprisingly. While I think it's quite possibly what you sketch here may come to pass, it is far from the lock you think.
I don’t know if you ever met a MAGA supporter but “ burning it all down “ seems a pretty common demand.
It is true that one does not know if a political watershed has occurred until some time after. Using the Skowronek Political Time concept, such watersheds are the election of a Reconstructive president, whose identity is confirmed when their party wins a third presidential term. For FDR as a key indicator that he was Reconstructive was the Democratic landslide in 1934. See this:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-the-new-dealers-gained-the-ability
FDR's Reconstructive status was confirmed when he won his third term in 1940. This meant the New Dealers would be in charge for WW II, when the policy creating the postwar economy and state were forged.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-inequality-reduction-happened
Republicans had run a liberal in both 1944 and 1948. Taft would probably find it very difficult to win in 1952, and even if he did., he would find the New Deal quite entrenched. As Eisenhower explained to a letter to his brother, had Republicans attempted to undo the New Deal they would have run into a buzzsaw of opposition because of the power of the political order (dispensation) established by 20 years of New Deal policy.
My current post described the power of dispensation, in our case the Reagan dispensation.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/my-take-on-the-election#:~:text=This%20model%20holds,one%20in%201932.
I appreciate the point being made, but were any of the isolationists you covered also deeply criminal wanna-be gangsters who planned to prosecute their political opponents, and redefine the mandate of all government institutions to prioritize personal loyalty to the President above all else? Who mused that he may remain in power after his second term, and that voters would not need to vote again.
While we may not know now with certainty how future historians will regard this moment, we can and should describe with confidence the many ways in which Trump 2.0 represents a threat of the highest order to our way of life.
Certainly! This has nothing do with what could/is likely to happen in the immediate future. It only speaks to Douthat's "irrevocable" turning point, etc.
I appreciate that. I suppose I am just trying to be mindful that while we should not get collectively over our skis in pronouncing with certainty on the unknowable, we should ensure this sensible caution is not taken to be a dissuasion from pronouncing on the threat.
I should say, I really enjoy your work and the deep intellectual honesty that seems to so often be at the heart of it!
History puts things into perspective. Thanks.
This is speculation obviously but based on his track record and documented health decline during his campaign Donald Trump's attempts to be a reverse of Woodrow Wilson will fail in the same manner that Wilson failed. His America First agenda wiped away by his successor in 2028 (which will be someone less inclined to appease progressively circles like Biden did mixed with appeasing the right wing Anti Trumpers and be more of a centrist political figure).
Much like Bush Jr who was the last Republican to win the popular vote with a Republican Congressional majority Trump will also lose big in the midterms in 2026 with more centrist Democrats such as Ruben Gallegos of Arizona winning races in Red and Purple Districts and more progressive leaning incumbents losing Congressional seats.
According to exit polling roughly 56% of American voters either dislike or are indifferent to Trump. Whereas Joe Biden was at roughly 48% dislike or indifference. Add to the fact Trump is currently trolling the most senior members of his Congressional majority with his foolish Cabinet nominations and roughly 20% of his voters reluctantly voted for him because they believed he'd improve their personal financial situations it's likely (again speculation) Trump will fail so spectacularly that Trumpism will collapse entirely and not be remembered as a great political triumph.
Instead it'll be seen as a repudiation on progressivism/Corporate (Right of Center) Democrats and traditional Republican/Neo Conservatives. That forced different types of political candidates to the forefront to fix what Trump has broken.
This is a great piece for reflection. On the path forward that can end up in so many different unknown destinations I so wish that the world had better souls leading us. Being a boomer I inevitably compare current leaders and wonder how *they* would have navigated the Cuban missile crisis.
There is certainly a tendency to think current events have much more importance than they ultimately do, when placed in a broader context with the passage of time.
As a small grace note to your excellent post... on the day the Bastille was stormed King Louis wrote "rein" in his diary. But I can't help but think we are in a new era - tho' Trump is the effect not the cause. It is the era of horizontal information where individuals can broadcast and narrow receive.