Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I found this interesting article connecting today's events involving the Paris Agreement with the broader battle between cosmopolitanism and tribalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In this timeline, you alluded to this conflict between tribalism and cosmopolitanism, concluding with a hard-fought victory for the latter. What's more interesting is how the battles will play out in the nearer term. The great and future Democratic realignment is seen by most as a vindication of the cosmopolitan vision, but as your timeline demonstrated (e.g. regarding immigration) it doesn't have to be.

But I'm with the consensus that the Democrats will be the party of cosmopolitanism, at least in the near term, as their base is expanding to encompass the college-educated intelligentsia and heavily-immigrant minority groups. In your timeline, you moderate their influence by realigning the white working class, but I (as I explained before in previous conversations with you) am skeptical because of how the dynamics between the two worldviews play out.

For example, in your timeline the WWC realigns because they become disillusioned with Republicans during the Crisis. But that is only one scenario; it's likely (and I think it's more likely) that the Republicans will double down on nationalism and racism (the "third stool," in your terms). Why? Because to nationalist Trump supporters, the rise of minorities and the "New America" is a twin threat with that of economic devastation. And fear of the latter may very well exacerbate fear of the former. It's easy to hate minorities; it's not so easy to hate the ruling class (even Marx knew the difficulties in teaching the proletariat "class consciousness"). And with the one stool remaining, the GOP may as well double down on that.

That won't preclude a realignment; I still agree with you on that, since minorities and liberal whites will continue to outnumber the tribalists. And I actually hope that you're right and I'm wrong; nothing is worse than one of America's two great parties become one of racism and tribalism.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I also want to point out (I don't know if others previously did) that I fundamentally disagree with your predictions on international events. Or rather, I disagree with Friedman's predictions on international events. It's okay if you don't know this (especially since you have said that international relations is not your forte), but Friedman's work is generally dismissed as fantasy in the IR community. In fact, any prediction that far out in the future will be treated with a lot of skepticism, simply because of the inherent impossibility of making such predictions.

But I'll have my own take on the future regardless. My most important disagreement with you (and with some others on this board) is that I think China will not collapse. Quite the opposite; despite their problems, I think they are on track to be a second superpower that can rival the US.

1. I think that any notion of Chinese collapse is quite sensationalist and unfounded. First, the Chinese people are very nationalistic and want a singular China, even if they don't like the government at any given moment. Second, I would imagine that most provincial leaders (even if they wern't completely loyal members of the CCP - which they are) would know that a divided China would mean less influence and power in a globalized world.

2. Even without a collapse, China can (and will) face problems. One potential problem is that China could face the "Middle Income Trap," where their GDP per capita stagnates like Brazil's and Thailand's did. I think this is unlikely, mostly because China has a pretty good education system relative to most developing nations. (The rural areas do have a lot to be desired, but so does every developing country; in the urban areas, the education is pretty good by global standards.)

3. Others say that China will face the consequences of an aging population, just like Japan and South Korea, but at a lower level of development. I think that this can be mitigated via the proliferation of AI (China is one of the most forward-thinking countries in terms of AI) and possibly by increasing immigration. Overall I think that this problem will unfold slowly enough for the CCP to handle.

That doesn't mean that China will not face any problems. The current asset bubbles are a big one right now, and there's no certainty that China will avoid the Middle Income Trap or a demographic crisis. But I have confidence that China's relatively forward-thinking leadership will surmount these problems, just like America surmounted the Great Depression and went on to defeat Nazism. So it's likely that America will have the share the naming rights to the 21st century with the Middle Kingdom.

But hey, what do I know? Predicting the future is hard.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

But I'm with the consensus that the Democrats will be the party of cosmopolitanism, at least in the near term, as their base is expanding to encompass the college-educated intelligentsia and heavily-immigrant minority groups. In your timeline, you moderate their influence by realigning the white working class, but I (as I explained before in previous conversations with you) am skeptical because of how the dynamics between the two worldviews play out.

I am incredibly skeptical of this assertion. Millennials are the most college educated generation in American history yet the economic data that's been collected on them shows that their economic standing is worse than that of Gen X and baby boomers at the same age. The WWC trend in TD's timeline likely stems mostly from the younger white Gen Xers and white millennials who will continue making up an increasing amount of what's been designated as the "WWC" in the United States.

I've never really understood this mentality. There's this pervasive view that the WWC is primarily blue collar and former factory worker baby boomers. In reality, this view of the WWC is shortsighted since it excludes the younger Xers and millennials; the majority of whom are white, college educated, and yet are struggling with student loan debt and in a worse economic standing than prior generations. I suspect that this is the group that causes the WWC Dem trend in TD's timeline. And since many within this generation are college educated, live in cosmopolitan areas, and are far more likely to have grown up with a peer group that was racially and ethnically diverse, I strongly doubt that they'll be enticed with a xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant, and nationalistic GOP. Hillary Clinton for example did quite well with this group even though she was the worst possible Democratic candidate to court them.

I appreciate your clarification. Yes, by "white working class" I did have in mind "blue collar white baby boomers." In fact, I was particularly focusing on whites who harbor racial resentments (among other cultural anxieties). Obviously, not all "blue collar white baby boomers," let alone all "working class whites," have this mentality and will likely form an important part in a Cordary-esque coalition, but we do have to remember the actual tribalists (for lack of a better term). They won't be attracted to any economic populism when there's competing right-wing populism, and they will remain an important part of an increasingly nationalistic and embattled GOP.

And I should clarify that the tribalists will also include white college-educated folks who may or may not have fallen on hard times.

[The_Doctor]

Great write up Nostradamus!

Do you think North Korea will be settled before the midterms? I think this will be crucial (along with the timing of the business cycle recession) as to whether or not the GOP retain the House.

No idea, but it won't affect the midterms. Trump's approval rating and the economy will be the big determinants.

[The_Doctor]

I also want to point out (I don't know if others previously did) that I fundamentally disagree with your predictions on international events. Or rather, I disagree with Friedman's predictions on international events. It's okay if you don't know this (especially since you have said that international relations is not your forte), but Friedman's work is generally dismissed as fantasy in the IR community. In fact, any prediction that far out in the future will be treated with a lot of skepticism, simply because of the inherent impossibility of making such predictions.

But I'll have my own take on the future regardless. My most important disagreement with you (and with some others on this board) is that I think China will not collapse. Quite the opposite; despite their problems, I think they are on track to be a second superpower that can rival the US.

1. I think that any notion of Chinese collapse is quite sensationalist and unfounded. First, the Chinese people are very nationalistic and want a singular China, even if they don't like the government at any given moment. Second, I would imagine that most provincial leaders (even if they wern't completely loyal members of the CCP - which they are) would know that a divided China would mean less influence and power in a globalized world.

2. Even without a collapse, China can (and will) face problems. One potential problem is that China could face the "Middle Income Trap," where their GDP per capita stagnates like Brazil's and Thailand's did. I think this is unlikely, mostly because China has a pretty good education system relative to most developing nations. (The rural areas do have a lot to be desired, but so does every developing country; in the urban areas, the education is pretty good by global standards.)

3. Others say that China will face the consequences of an aging population, just like Japan and South Korea, but at a lower level of development. I think that this can be mitigated via the proliferation of AI (China is one of the most forward-thinking countries in terms of AI) and possibly by increasing immigration. Overall I think that this problem will unfold slowly enough for the CCP to handle.

That doesn't mean that China will not face any problems. The current asset bubbles are a big one right now, and there's no certainty that China will avoid the Middle Income Trap or a demographic crisis. But I have confidence that China's relatively forward-thinking leadership will surmount these problems, just like America surmounted the Great Depression and went on to defeat Nazism. So it's likely that America will have the share the naming rights to the 21st century with the Middle Kingdom.

But hey, what do I know? Predicting the future is hard.

Well, I based my prediction based on a couple of articles I read about China's economic slowdown in 2015 and 2016, plus concerns about the state capitalism being overloaded with debt. I theorized this could lead to a global showdown but I could be just as wrong. They could run into the Middle Income Trap or other issues. But no, international relations is not my forte, which is why this timeline doesn't dwell too much on it beyond very general platitudes. My forte is American political life as it intersects with economic and cultural facets plus American history and that's my schtick. Beyond that, "there be dragons." (Or in other words, I'm not really qualified to speak on it).

I'll be honest, you could be right. I'm simply not qualified to respond to your points. I realized too late international events are not my forte so ... I'll let it be. 

Fortunately (?), the debt crisis I'm talking about in the United States can manifest in a variety of different ways and it's not reliant on China. In this timeline a general slowdown in the economy in 2021 can in fact spark the Illinois debt crisis. I just made China a catalyst but it's not necessary.

Predicting the future is pretty hard, I agree. That's why I stopped at 2024. Guessing anything beyond 2024 in terms of concrete details is a very tough gig.

[The_Doctor]

More my area:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe there will be a natural demographic realignment. The problem with the coalition you sketch out is that it's highly vulnerable and not a steady and strong one. For example, if you leave out the white working class out of this coalition, minorities and upscale whites do not reach 55-60% of the vote.

I'm not sold on the belief there is a inherent tension between the worldview of populist Democrats and working class whites. One reason that I don't view this is that racial and sectarian tensions may ease significantly in the next decade. Historically, sectarian and ethnic tensions have eased as the United States transformed. I've pointed to the Irish and Eastern Europeans as two key examples of how they integrated successfully. I would point out that Irish and Eastern Europeans are now constituted among the highest levels of American political and economic power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I strongly disagree and the simple reason is math. The Republicans are not able to have any sort of majority in the next decade and past that without significant buy in from minorities. Racism is not a winning strategy in a country that will see minorities 40-45% of the electorate by the year 2036. Even by 2024, minorities will make a powerful 33% of the vote.

Republicans cannot afford to continue playing with that formula. That's a formula for electoral disaster, and the continual scramble to win more and more whites isn't really viable, as I think whites are also maxed out (or near maxed out) for the GOP.

One huge reason for realignment is that the GOP cultural conservatives implode because they don't simply have the power to carry the party post-crisis. But even barring that, the country is rapidly changing to the point that I don't think the GOP can just be a "whites only" party. That's not mathematically possible. At the very best, it creates a chaotic 51% GOP majority and 49% Democratic opposition. The last 3 elections on the Presidential level demonstrate this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We agree and one thing I do believe is that American politics will reorder to try to be more stable. At least, that's the hope.

[GlobeSoc]

What happens in rural Texas 2024?

Here's my take:
First, North Texas:
From what I know of it, the region has one of the lowest turnouts of the country, is fairly poor, and has a fairly large hispanic population. While the picture we get in the present era is that the local hispanics are conservative, this may be because of a very low turnout by the demographic.

Based on these characteristics, I would conclude that it would have one of the biggest D trends in the country in your 2024 scenario, even if neighboring Oklahoma has a decently sized R trend. In particular, one thing that could boost the trend would be a 2022 pickup of TX-GOV, as it could pave the way for a loosening of Texas's highly restrictive laws on voter registration and such that may be reducing the turnout 'artificially'

Rio Grande Valley:
This is another region with very low voter turnout, but it already votes democratic by a large margin, and that margin doesn't seem to have much room for improvement. However,the low turnout means that a likely R trend in 2024 will not have as much meaning, as higher voter turnouts will make the margins that Cordray gets in these counties matter more.

Central Texas:
With a decent turnout(Don't quote me on that), a relatively small latino population, and last voting Dem in 76(they kept it fairly close as recently as 96 tho), this is one that somewhat eludes me. I think it will trend R and behave like the plains states because it has voted pub for a long time, certainly longer than East Texas, but it may have a southern streak that at least keeps it's trend neutral, being carried along with the rest of the southern wwc.

Between Houston and the RG valley:
See North Texas

East Texas:
Seems like the most 'Southern' of these regions, and looking at the county maps it appears Bill might have actually won it in 96. Seems like it will have a moderate-to-large D trend and be somewhat close, in spite of the low latino population.

Really, I just want someone with more information than me to evaluate this take.

[The Govanah Jake]

Great Timeline you have here!

[jojoju1998]

TD, could you please go into the contrasts and comparisons between Nixon and Reagan and who they relate to Obama and Cordray?

Nixon is often referred to as "the last liberal President". He seemed to have had a pronounced distain for the movement conservatives. He only valued the hard right for their consistent party-line voting, branding them kooks and ignoring them aside from election season. He even said he thought that Reagan was a very weird guy and didn't get along with him.

Nixon called himself a Keynesian, founded the EPA, instituted wage and price controls in response to inflation, pushed Title IX and continued the Great Society initiatives of LBJ. He engaged in detente with Russia and China.  At heart he was a political animal driven by ambition.

Reagan's rise as leader of the Conservative Movement came as a repudiation of the policies of the Rockefeller Republicans, but also the Nixonians in large part. He was an unabashed believer in supply-side economics. Instead of price controls, he supported Volcker's scorched-earth method of stamping out inflation even as it triggered a nasty recession. He cut many of the regulations and social programs under his purview, and castigated the ones he couldn't dismantle.

In sharp contrast with Nixon, Reagan called Russia the Evil Empire. He hounded Gorbachev both with his arms buildup / proxy wars and his incendiary rhetoric. He was a true believer in Conservatism, steadfast in his convictions that he was the good guy fighting against nefarious forces.

How did Nixon foreshadow Reagan? And how would this relate to Obama foreshadowing Cordray? Sorry if I'm overlooking something obvious, I'm just trying to see the connection here. I can definitely see the connection between Woodrow Wilson and FDR though.

I think..... that Nixon's rhetoric was really about " Law and Order " appealing to those Southern Conservative Democrats... but he operated in a Liberal Fashion..... because back in the 70s.... The Democrats were still for the most part Social Conservative. It was not until Reagan that the thing shifted.

[The_Doctor]

A good question. Nixon’s and Reagan’s presidencies have been the ones I’ve focused the most in my research. I feel like writing a story so here goes. Someone needs to write a book “Nixon and Reagan,” but I digress. This is going to be one of my favorite articles to write.

The story begins in 1938, when Southern Democrats and Republicans united to stop the New Deal advancing. The coalition, in effect, remained a loose alliance that squared off against the Democratic majority. The South often picked and chose their battles and sometimes won, sometimes lost.

Richard Nixon comes into the picture in 1948, with his strident anti-Communism, in which he takes down Alger Hiss. He’s transformed from a little no name Congressman to U.S. Senator in 1950 and a darling of the conservative wing. In 1952, Eisenhower taps him for vice president to shore up the conservative base after he dispatches right wing Senator Robert Taft for the GOP nomination. During the Vice Presidency, Nixon plays the conservative agitator to Eisenhower’s nonpartisan statesman. As the NYT’s review of the “President and the Apprentice” puts it, “At home, Eisenhower used Nixon to rally the Republicans’ restive right-wing base, occasionally wincing when Nixon verged on charging Democrats with treason but never ordering him to curtail his Reds! Reds! Reds! Roadshow.” To put it this way, during the 1950s and 1960s, Nixon is the preeminent voice of interventionist anti-communism in the Republican Party.

You have to understand, Eisenhower won by being essentially non-ideological and promising not to do anything major. The Eisenhower Republican coalition was basically the American coalition, because to be anti-Eisenhower was to be almost anti-American. There was no ideological conservatism under Eisenhower’s Republican Party. This changed radically in 1964 to 1968. Goldwater is not part of the story in a direct way so I’m going to skip over Goldwater (he figures more prominently in 1980).

In 1968, after his devastating loss to John F. Kennedy, Nixon decides to come back and try again for the Presidency. Unlike 1960, where Nion had run as Eisenhower’s non-ideological heir, Nixon tries a different tack. Nixon campaigns for the votes of culturally conservative America, which up to this time had either leaned Democratic or split their votes. Nixon is the first one to call for strict constructionists to sit in the federal judiciary. When he nominates a replacement to Earl Warren, Richard Nixon says, echoing his campaign, “I happen to believe that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted.” It’s to be noted that Nixon attempted to nominate Georgian G. Harrold Carswell and South Carolinian Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court unsuccessfully in a bid to appeal to the Wallace votes. Nixon appoints, among others, the young William Hubbs Rehnquist to the Court, in a bid to win cultural conservatives over.

Nixon, here, is the first one to successfully bring cultural conservatives into the Republican Party and win a Presidential election. The Republican Party’s platform in 1968 says, “we must re-establish the principle that men are accountable for what they do, that criminals are responsible for their crimes, that while the youth's environment may help to explain the man's crime, it does not excuse that crime.”  As mentioned, he is the first GOP winning candidate for President who advocates strict constructionism, a code word for social conservatism. Nixon also opposed school busing, a hot button issue in 1968. In 1971, he says, “I expressed views with regard to my opposition to busing for the purpose of achieving racial balance, and in support of the neighborhood school in my statement of March of last year.” (While the rest of the article kind of spins it, Nixon is clear in who he’s appealing to). Law and order, constructionist judges, and opposition to school busing all presage the cultural conservatives becoming a core component of the GOP, unlike Eisenhower’s time.

The South, during this time, switches from voting Democratic to Republican for President and begins its march towards the GOP and becoming an instrumental political wing in the Republican Party. The West is already there, but now the South joins them.

Having established that Nixon brought the first leg of the GOP’s three legged stool, let’s talk about the neoconservatives. The history is there, but more murky. Nixon did not set out to lose the war in Vietnam. He continues Lyndon Johnson’s war (and ironically, Jack Kennedy’s war). As this points out, Nixon sought to win the war in Vietnam. It should be pointed out that Nixon very much disliked and openly agitated against the peaceniks taking over the Democratic Party. By virtue of both the peaceniks and Nixon’s behavior, the neoconservatives began shifting to the GOP. Ford was the one who withdrew from Vietnam, not Nixon. Between Nixon’s fairly hawkish actions (bombing Cambodia and Laos, the Christmas bombings of 1972) and the Democratic Party’s peacenik revolution, Nixon becomes the refuge of the hawks during his Presidency. Just before the 1972 election, Irving Kristol (father of noted anti-Trumpist Bill Kristol) and other neoconservatives sign an endorsement of Richard Nixon’s re-election against Democratic nominee George S. McGovern. While the neoconservatives are not Republicans (they are still with Henry “Scoop” Jackson, at this point) they are switching from the Democratic to Republican Party.

Postscript: Nixon goes to China to split the Communist bloc and to isolate the Soviet Union. He certainly promotes detente as a coexistence between us and the Soviet Union, but this is not necessarily as liberal as the peaceniks and figures the United States is better off with this strategy. Nixon was no liberal (and I mean that in the 1970s sense) on the use of military power and confronting America’s enemies. Nixon isn’t necessarily endorsing the Soviet Union as much as endorsing coexistence. Additionally, the isolationist GOP loses out under Nixon as Nixon follows up on his long held belief in fighting Communism aggressively. Oh, yeah, and we overthrew the Chilean government for being Communist in 1973.

Lastly, Nixon was no peacenik and was the mortal foe of the anti-war left during this era. No Republican President would be so reviled as Richard Nixon. He believes the United States cannot afford to lose the war and wants to win “peace with honor.” Your own Orange County white Republicans loved this. The national security key slips away from the Democratic and switches to the Republican Party during this time. The Democrats become the party of the anti-war left while the Republicans reinforce their newfound hawkishness during Nixon’s reign. Remember the movie Forrest Gump? These pro-war folks are Nixon’s Silent Majority.

Nixon lacked the last leg of the Republican majority, though. Nixon agreed to let the Democrats continue their “big government” philosophy in return for a conservative Supreme Court and an unchecked foreign policy. This meant he would sign the EPA (Democratic in origins), and try to uphold the Great Society (since he didn’t have the political coalition to toss it, not after Barry Goldwater’s 1964 loss), and the price controls was in response to the crisis of 1971. Nixon was no fan of Keynesian spending. If memory serves, he fought the idea of Medicaid and Medicare. The economic liberalism was to support a minority coalition.

The economic third leg - the great neoliberal addition of 1980 - is what transformed the rump Republican coalition from that 1938 anti-FDR coalition to the grand GOP - Southern majority coalition of 1980. Reagan would take a much more conservative line on economics and domestic spending than Nixon did,
 
So, Nixon has two out of the three legs of the emerging GOP majority. (Actual book in 1969, written by Nixon advisor, Kevin Phillips: “The Emerging Republican Majority,” a very famous political book). Obama has built the cultural liberalism of the emerging Democratic Party plus the new hawks of the Democratic Party. What’s left - as was the case in 1968 - is for President Rich Cordray to build the economic rationale to create the new grand Democratic majority.

[jojoju1998]

I have a question. I noticed that most of the realignments usually involve the South in a Prominent Fashion.

The Abraham Lincoln 1860 Realignment had the South Break away after Lincoln's Election thus starting the Civil War.

FDR's 1932 Coalition basically was the Southern Democrats but then was expanded to include the North in the New Deal.

Nixon and Reagan's emphasis on Law and Order that really attracted the South.


Maybe I am not making sense here but why is it always the South that starts the next realignment ? In my View ?

[The_Doctor]

I have a question. I noticed that most of the realignments usually involve the South in a Prominent Fashion.

The Abraham Lincoln 1860 Realignment had the South Break away after Lincoln's Election thus starting the Civil War.

FDR's 1932 Coalition basically was the Southern Democrats but then was expanded to include the North in the New Deal.

Nixon and Reagan's emphasis on Law and Order that really attracted the South.


Maybe I am not making sense here but why is it always the South that starts the next realignment ? In my View ?

Good question. The South plays a prominent role in the last two realignments because traditionally the Democratic Party has usually won support from the populist South (with its attendant ugly racism). For the GOP in 1860-1932 it was Northeastern - Midwestern. The Republican South and Interior Western alliance had a lot to do with race too. So the only time the South wasn't part of the majority coalition was 1860-1932 and maybe the upcoming one.

For a lot of weird reasons Dixie has been our national problem child. I don't have a good answer there.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What happened to Trump post Presidency? I can't imagine he goes quietly. How would he be remembered among the base?

[The_Doctor]

TD,

What do you think about the idea of North and South Dakota flipping before West Virginia and Kentucky in 2024? I ask this because surprisingly Obama came within 8-9 points of flipping both Dakotas in 2008 while he was behind in WV by 13 points and KY by 16 points respectively.

Plus the Dakotas have trended twice Dem and twice Rep since 2000 while WV and KY have both trended Rep 4 times in a row now. The Dakotas also seem just as fitting for a Cordray candidacy since they are technically Midwestern states. Even though you described Appalachia and the Deep South as being populist regions while the Interior Plains were much more technocratic, you did concede that you we're surprised at how well Trump did in the interior plains even though he ran a much more populist campaign than Hillary Clinton did.

I put the Dakotas Republican in 2024 because of their reliance on oil and gas to power their economy. North Dakota, a few years ago, had the lowest unemployment because of the booming energy sector in the Bakken Formation. They're also with a longer record of being Republican than the South.

All that said, you're right, I was surprised at Trump's strength in the Interior region. I will also add Dukakis had strength in the Dakotas in the late 1980s over the farm belt not doing well (this also is why he won Iowa and Wisconsin).

I guess, I can see the Dakotas flipping before WV/KY, flipping with WV/KY, or ND, SD, WV, KY, all going GOP. (This only puts Cordray at closer to 450 electoral votes, rather than his 480 or whatever he got).

[The_Doctor]

What happened to Trump post Presidency? I can't imagine he goes quietly. How would he be remembered among the base?

An excellent question, actually. You'll see why shortly.

I said on page 9 (February 8, 2017):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought about it today. I suppose, I stand by this. I had a couple of thoughts of how Trump goes and I've concluded a few things, which I will try to be very concise to state. I'd like to expand on the subject.

1. Trump is not going to be impeached over collusion with Russia. While I may believe personally x or y, the problem is this. Pence can't pardon him in this scenario, the Republican Party would be implicated in basically a treasonous act, and the political system would be mortally threatened. The consequences could be a permanent crippling of conservative politics, and this would be an "unnatural" crippling; not a traditional realignment (possibly akin to the lingering aftermath of the Civil War that has plagued our politics). It would be basically a felling of one of the two major coalitions in the United States.

So, I increasingly think Trump will be taken down for other reasons because the political stability in the United States will be a paramount concern for all concerned. The FBI and intelligence agencies, as well as Congress, will probably try to remove him for other reasons other than direct collusion.  

Have we faced this option before? Yes. Richard Nixon conspired to stop the Vietnam talks in October 1968, with Anna Channault acting as the conduit. President Lyndon Johnson and the intelligence services took that secret to the grave with them. He could have revealed it and Nixon would have been taken down possibly long before he even took the oath. But the damage to the GOP could have been so extensive that we never get the normal realignment towards Reagan and the natural end of the New Deal Democratic Party.

We learned about this recently for a fact, this year, long after the death of Richard Nixon and all involved. (It had been rumored, but never proven). We can process it today and deal with it. It might have been far different in 1969, to hear a President committed treason to get to the White House.

Lincoln faced this quandary in 1865 when he basically beat the Democratic Party, which had been engaged in treasonous action against the United States. The pre-1860 Democratic majority had been largely rooted in the South and was pro-slavery. Lincoln had no choice but his post-1865 plans included national unity and moving past the Civil War and avoiding Reconstruction's heavy handed approach. He was assassinated and replaced by the radical Republicans after 1866, who inflicted a heavy political price on the South, which, all said and done, may have led to the bitter wounds remaining open - and they have stayed open - for nearly two centuries. (I believe fully the South committed treason; I'm just assessing the political consequences of a momentous act like this).

The counterargument is that if we had taken Nixon down in 1969 instead of 1974, the rift over Watergate might have never happened. Also, had we maintained Reconstruction for a generation, the South's legacy might not have been so bitter for our national politics. So I'm not fully 100 percent behind my thinking; it's 60-40 for it.

a. Ford pardoned Nixon to move past Watergate. The specter of a President of the United States on trial would have probably shaken the system to its roots. We have never had a President go to trial for crimes -- possibly for good reason. The public spectacle might have basically wrecked the confidence in our government or the ability of a president to lead us. Again, the counterargument holds, but still.

2. Trump will probably stand by Pence until Pence begins to fail. After his fall from grace Trump will try to move on with his life. In his past failed ventures he has swiftly left the field and gone onto other ventures. I don't know how he manages with the Presidency (I doubt very much he will even be a successful President, even if he avoids impeachment). I really do believe he will tweet time to time but I suspect his focus will be rehabilitating his image, his family's image, and trying to salvage the damage. One thing to remember is this. Pence's success is critical to Trump's rehabilitation, in this scenario. Trump can be terribly self-destructive, but in a case like this, I think a 75 year old man will realize that he has little choice but to be supportive of Pence and be far more cautious.

a. The Republican base will, IF my thinking prevails among the intelligence agencies, the FBI, Congress, and Mueller, probably be allowed to respect Trump but I think at this point, they will shift their energies to actively supporting Pence. I have some experience in this. My first political hero was Richard M. Nixon. I thought he had been given a bum rap by the Democrats over Watergate and been unfairly harmed. Only much later did I learn about the Anna Chennault incident and only this year was that verified. But it's not such a huge deal, in a political relative sense, because Nixon's enemies removed him from the scene for lesser crimes. So Nixon remains that "hidden admired GOP" figure, that victim of Democratic villainy. Trump might occupy a role like that, but to a much lesser extent.

IF the prosecutors DO bring Trump down on collusion, the GOP base will rapidly most likely abandon Trump completely but we'd be in uncharted territory as to whether there'd be a Republican base afterwards.

That's my thinking anyway. Grain of salt, etc.

[jojoju1998]

Though I agree with this timeline...... There is one thing that still bugs me.... alot. Social Issues. I feel like you are asserting that with the New Coalition, Social Issues will die out.  You also point out that Technology and Science will explode under this Coalition. You see...... as we continue to learn more about the Human Body..... our Opinion Changes.

This article by Slate shows what I am talking about..... and this was from 2012. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/consciousness_science_and_ethics_abortion_animal_rights_and_vegetative_state_debates_.html

Some Random Scientist in 2035, could discover something that will totally change our perspective on Abortion, Gay Marriage, and so on and so forth.

Politics Wise : Since this New Coalition is so focused on Economic Issues...... I think we might have a period in time similar to the late 60s where the Culture breaks and we have dramatic resolutions to complicated social issues. Civil Rights for the 60s. Abortion for the 2050s. I would think that this would help the Republicans. And then a new social issue takes place like Artificial Intel.

Am I making sense ?

[Doimper]

Lastly, I'm not a believer in free will, so I believe a lot of events are predetermined by our environment, our collective actions, and the generally predictable behavior of humans to do certain things. So that helps remove doubt for me for a set of actions.

I have yet to read this book series, but have you read Isaac Asimov's Foundation?

What you have described here sounds a lot like the fictional idea of psychohistory from these books. Given that your timeline has been generally accurate so far I thought this idea would be interesting to bring up.

Oh, thank god I wasn't the only one thinking of the Foundation series while reading this. Definitely give it a read, TD, judging from your posts in this thread I guarantee you'll love it.

[The_Doctor]

It's on the To Do List, as I'm working through Rick Perlstein's trilogy of the conservative movement between 1964 and 1980. (Thanks to Ted Bessell). Foundation is next.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's on the To Do List, as I'm working through Rick Perlstein's trilogy of the conservative movement between 1964 and 1980. (Thanks to Ted Bessell). Foundation is next.

Wait, wait, wait, you haven't read the Invisible Bridge and Nixonland and still know all of this?!?

[The_Doctor]

It's on the To Do List, as I'm working through Rick Perlstein's trilogy of the conservative movement between 1964 and 1980. (Thanks to Ted Bessell). Foundation is next.

Wait, wait, wait, you haven't read the Invisible Bridge and Nixonland and still know all of this?!?

More or less.

[The_Doctor]

Maybe I missed it, but what's Cordray's campaign slogan(s) in 2024 and 2028?

"Cordray Cares"

"The Real Deal."

Appalachia and working class whites need to appreciate a non-SJW Democratic slogan that focuses on economic rebalancing. This also emphasizes the need to create economic equilibrium. It also builds on the most successful Democratic slogan in American history: "The New Deal" (with supporting "Fair Deal") and the best populist GOP slogan "the Square Deal."

[The_Doctor]

Everyone take a look at 2008. Don't answer if I PM'd you the answer. But if Obama was a foreshadowing President what should've happened in 2008 but didn't happen? Trust me it's a traditional major factor in the run up to a realignment.

I'll throw up two articles on this issue but I think what I've concluded will be interesting. You'll want to read it.

[GlobeSoc]

When will they be released?

[GlobeSoc]

Everyone take a look at 2008. Don't answer if I PM'd you the answer. But if Obama was a foreshadowing President what should've happened in 2008 but didn't happen? Trust me it's a traditional major factor in the run up to a realignment.

I'll throw up two articles on this issue but I think what I've concluded will be interesting. You'll want to read it.

A serious 3rd party bid?

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Everyone take a look at 2008. Don't answer if I PM'd you the answer. But if Obama was a foreshadowing President what should've happened in 2008 but didn't happen? Trust me it's a traditional major factor in the run up to a realignment.

I'll throw up two articles on this issue but I think what I've concluded will be interesting. You'll want to read it.

A serious 3rd party bid?

I'm thinking it's this - considering 1912 and 1968.