Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The_Doctor]

Ideologies cannot last forever. New developments arise: technological, economic, political. Wanting to not let go of an ideology that is part of what you think yourself as makes sense, but as conditions change, the issues change too. To play a meaningful role in politics, one must adapt to an ever-changing world. Those who can't adapt will be stuck voting for irrelevant 3rd parties every election.

Indeed, that is the heart of this timeline. Economic, technological, and political developments change and ideologies that don't adapt to the times collapse. This is exactly what's going awry with the GOP ideology and why we see Trump having a hard time executing GOP policy. It's moored in the realities of the 1960s and the 1970s. The economic crisis that this timeline details is intensified because the GOP turns hyperideological and worsens it.

I recognize this but I have a hard time adapting, basically. As a limited government conservative, I can point to solutions that would fit within that ideology and be effective (in my opinion). I may end up changing with the times.

Ideologies cannot last forever. New developments arise: technological, economic, political. Wanting to not let go of an ideology that is part of what you think yourself as makes sense, but as conditions change, the issues change too. To play a meaningful role in politics, one must adapt to an ever-changing world. Those who can't adapt will be stuck voting for irrelevant 3rd parties every election.

You say that, but in this TL, Roosevelt's ideology from the 1930s and 1940s made a comeabck with Cordray.

As Sherrod said, it makes a comeback but it's heavily modified. No ideology is the same era wise. The Jeffersonian-Jacksonian populist era made a comeback a full century later under the New Deal but was radically different. Likewise, the futuristic Cordray ideology is a total different ballgame. It's not like suddenly we'll get a New Deal on steroids...the times are different. President Cordray operates in a world where AI technology is increasingly a reality and he has to adapt under these circumstances. This isn't FDR's manufacturing economy or Jackson's agrarian economy.

You know, it's really impressive that you ended up writing a TL that had an ending that basically screwed your ideology over without much bias showing. (the only "bias" was one you admitted in PM about not mentioning issues of gun control and mass shootings) That in and of itself might be the most impressive thing about this TL.

You do gain a few things, though. With the Dems taking the national security mantle, a hawkish, neoconservative-ish foreign policy will probably continue to dominate. In addition, if you're correct about immigration laws remaining strict, that I think aligns with your view on the issue. (even though Cordray or Castro would have to sign at least the DREAM Act to keep the Sunbelt happy) As for concerns about the expansion of the state, that would probably be an issue that we'd grapple with in the later half of the era. It'll be the Dem that comes after the Northern Technocratic Republican that would be scariest on that issue. I share your concerns regarding invasion of privacy as a result of the expansive state, and I have absolutely no idea how it'll be addressed

Having said all of that... if you end up being right about everything and the 2024 D ticket really is Cordray/Castro, (or even just Cordray at the top) would you not vote for Cordray just out of pride at having gotten it so right?

To be honest, I wrote this timeline as a way to understand the reasons our reality is happening the way it is. I was shocked by Trump's victory but then I reread the original "Between Two Majorities" and it dawned on me I had explained succinctly why it happened (under President Walker). I explained white working class voters rebelled against Obama and signaled anger with the underlying economic fundamentals and vented their anger through cultural resentment. And the fact that neoliberal economics has failed the working class has led them to this state of affairs guided me to predict Walker's victory. So ... I wrote this timeline to understand the realigning politics.

As for Cordray ... if the 2024 ticket is Rich Cordray at the top, I'll be both impressed and horrified, because on some level, Rich Cordray is the personification of my nightmares - a liberal effective Democrat who recharges the welfare and administrative state. I'll be impressed at getting him right. As for voting for him, I don't know. I want to say I'll vote for Pence, but who knows?

(Sorry if this doesn't make sense. I have a mild fever).

[The_Doctor]

Your TL may be occurring ahead of schedule

We'll see. I honestly want to see how the House and the Senate deal with this bill. I was wrong in the sense I expected Trump to deal with politically popular positions first such as tax and infrastructure reform. I also expected Trump to be more successful in his first couple of months. I did not expect RyanCare to be rolled in with the ObamaCare repeal either.

I do expect Trump to have a, on balance, a good first year, after the AHCA fails. There is a broad appetite for tax and infrastructure reform and the GOP has historically done well with these two issues.

But yeah I've been wondering how to score this article. Among the things I got right: 1) There are major protests against the law 2) The White House is caught off guard 3) The law is extremely divisive over its Medicare provisions. 3) The GOP has tried an assault on entitlements despite a lack of mandate, and this bill is largely of Paul Ryan's creation and guided by his ideological vision, rather than Trump's 4) I pegged the unpopularity of the law roughly right (56-37% in recent polling) 5) Trump is actively campaigning for the law and is deeply internally divided What I've got wrong is 1) the order of events 2) The GOP actually tried a frontal assault on ObamaCare ALONG with the Medicaid expansion 3) the GOP may not wait until 2019 to cut a deal. Trump's ultimatum may be a sign the GOP will abandon trying to overturn the law and cut a deal down the road, I don't know. 4) the assault is on the expansion instead of Medicare vouchers.

What is really screwing me up in predicting the timeline is that I predicted, on balance, one of the best case scenarios for a Trump presidency in the first year. But his inexperience is causing so many unexpected problems that I think that I expected a Walker-level of experience and we're not seeing that.

We are definitely seeing major protests against this law, particularly over the Medicaid provisions. If Medicaid wasn't touched and we were talking about minor fixes to the law, this would pass. But because so many people are dependent on the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges, we are seeing huge pushback against the AHCA.

I expect the House to pass the law with 8 GOP defections tomorrow but I expect the GOP Senate to kill it, yes. I had Paul Ryan passing his bill in the House because it's heavily gerrymandered, the GOP is more entrenched in the House. There are a ton of Trump districts that are +20-30% Trump and their Congressmen are going to vote for the law in the end.

In the Senate, we're dealing with entire states and more moderate GOP Senators have to deal with states that are not entirely favorable to Trump. Ergo, the law dies there, because the target electorate is not your average Trump state but the country that voted by 2.1% for Hillary Clinton and has voted for Obama twice. Given that, expect defections from Cotton, Daines, and others who recognize that reality.

So I stand by the prediction that entitlement reform will fail in this Congress and the GOP will choose to cut a deal in 2019 on ObamaCare and leave Medicaid/Medicare alone. If you see my recent RyanCare article, the era is not conducive to entitlement reforms because of the deal Reagan cut with voters in 1980 to never touch SS and Medicare. This is even more amplified with the populist fervor we are currently experiencing.

I'm starting to think that TD can actually see the future and just modifies the dates and people in his timeline so that he doesn't blow his cover.

Haha. I would hold off on the accolades until October, at least, on Trump's first year.  The timeline makes several specific predictions and I'll list them so we can judge me

1. Tax reform is going to happen. TBD. McConnell has said tax reform will not happen until August.
2. Infrastructure reform will happen on a bipartisan basis. TBD.
3. Trump will be mired in quagmire and gridlock by July. TBD.
4. RyanCare and entitlement reforms will fail spectacularly. Likely to happen.
5. Trump will successfully replace Antonin Scalia with a conservative justice. Democrats will bitterly protest but in the end, Trump will win out. Likely to happen.
6. Filibuster reform will happen (for the record, this prediction was made in the old timeline). Potentially possible.
7. Democrats win both NJ and VA as the GOP battles stagnant ratings. Likely to happen, currently. Democrats are ahead in both VA and NJ, both Clinton states.
8. Trump is underwater by July but his early victories help him stay afloat. This by the way is objectively wrong. He went underwater by February.

[The_Doctor]

One major prediction of this timeline, regarding ObamaCare, but we will probably be unable to judge by 2019.

9. The Republican Party accepts the ACA law as legitimate and settled after symbolically trying to repeal it. If you notice in this timeline, I say the GOP repeals the law and tries to put off the time of reckoning. They eventually cut a deal with the Democrats that makes minor reforms but keeps the law largely intact. The outlook on this seems probable.

[The_Doctor]

It appears that RyanCare is dead and the ObamaCare law will now stand the test of time with minor modifications. I was wrong about how it would go down but it now looks like two stories are proven accurate in one go. medicare reform is now officially dead and the push to reform entitlement spending dead in the Reagan era.

The Trump Administration's internal debates here.

The stage is now set for far reaching consequences as Medicare takes up more of the deficits and increases the national debt and House conservatives prepare for war.

Make no mistake. This day will revertebrate into the future and has a role, likely, in the Great Crisis.

[The_Doctor]

I'm skeptical about realignment in 2020. I mean I would need to see the fabled crisis envelope the country and Trump's directly blamed for the crisis. While I think Trump will go down as a failed president, I think it will be Pence who is the true ideological Reaganite who sees the crisis on his watch and deepens it.

We see the House Freedom Caucus winning today, a dynamic that comes back into play several years from now. We see the powerful hard right fail to take on the true levers of spending - entitlements - and that's, again, a driver of the crisis to come. The anger that they demonstrated today will come back to the fore. It's not going away.

Trump has never been ever accused of being too conservative or reactionary. Incompetent yes. Reactionary no. He's never going down as Donald the Conservative. He's shaping up to be a man controlled by events and the times. Look at the popular vote loss, polarization, the loss today. These are the signs of a one term presidency but not necessarily fundamentally a rejection of Reaganism. Which is what people have to conclude for us to move into the Cordray era.

The Democrats don't seem ready yet to take on the mantle either. I get the sense they're moving into majority position but they're not quite ready to take true control yet. They're the majority in waiting but they need to overcome the last hurdle on the way home - aka being a party hospitable to working class whites and truly being a governing party for the entire nation.

I'm increasingly wondering if Trump will choose to cut bait and go quietly into the good night a one term president, hoping that Pence suceeds him. Like this would be like Franklin Pierce from 1853-1857, then James Buchanan in 1857-1861. The crisis rips apart the country leading to a Lincoln-esq figure.

Also as an aside? The most important clue Bush is a confirming president is 9/11 and the United States going to war for a generation. That event shaped the country for a generation. I never called it, but I overlooked it stupidly. Like McKinley's foreign involvement they defined a country for a generation.

Anyway that's my thoughts. Today is unquestionably a major day that confirms the road of this timeline (I think). Whatever Trump victories, whatever happens now, this was a road taken that will define the nation. It was a seminal moment that cannot be overstated. Sort of a “ships passing through the night,” and us taking a true measure of what is to yet to come.

[The_Doctor]

What exactly happens to the deficit/debt in the Cordray era? Both in terms of raw numbers/shares of GDP and as political issues

Hard to gauge but they need to grow the economy considerably and to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. Both for the country's and average Americans' bottom line. That's the key. Cordray will need to stimulate a major economic boom in the 2020s to erase the crisis.

[The_Doctor]

Actually would you mind leaving a link in this thread to that?

[The_Doctor]

TD, was your timeline at all influenced by Strauss and Howe's generational theory? I just got the book today and I'm skimming over their predictions on future political and social life and it's very reminiscent of your timeline.

Surprisingly, no. I started at the premise that we realign roughly every 50 years. Then I realized that we realign based on economic changes, and that's not necessarily 50 years. But in this case I estimated that we would realign around 2020-2028 since the economic conditions are about to change fundamentally. So it proved to me a flawed but useful starting point that largely held up.

Obama was to me the warning sign that we're about to experience significant change. So I also put realignment at the next Democratic presidency. Since Trump lost the popular vote I tagged it as 2024 because I assumed 2020 would be an incumbent favorable year.

To conclude I didn't read any books or such. I just worked off my reading of the news, general understanding of trends, and odds and ends here and there.

[The_Doctor]

What exactly happens to the deficit/debt in the Cordray era? Both in terms of raw numbers/shares of GDP and as political issues

Hard to gauge but they need to grow the economy considerably and to reduce the debt to GDP ratio. Both for the country's and average Americans' bottom line. That's the key. Cordray will need to stimulate a major economic boom in the 2020s to erase the crisis.

What if he fails.....just in time for 2032!

Eh. A two term highly successful President Cordray who wins 57% and 61% and pushes through a major agenda is probably going to be succeeded by a Democrat. The election of 2032 or 2036 will probably confirm once and for all we are in a new realignment.

[The_Doctor]

Also, in the realignment, how do the social issues and regional attitudes on them evolve? Do Southern states become more socially liberal or not, do major cities become more socially conservative etc. And which ones will fade into irrelevance or burst onto the scene?

I don't know exactly. I do know cities will be defined by the attitudes of millennial urban workers who dominate them in a pan - racial coalition. I anticipate a highly technocratic liberalism to rule the cities. Perhaps something like Technocratic Timmy.

I don't actually know the major upcoming social issues of the 2030s and 2040s, because technology and social changes will probably take us in a lot of directions we haven't anticipated today.

For example one reason South Carolina and Florida return Democratic in 2024 is global warming. The coastal areas and South Florida vote Democratic with an eye to dealing with global warming. So it's hard to guess how the regions act going forward.

I would probably know by the 12th year of the Democratic hegemony (and whether a Republican was elected in that 12th year or not). But as of now I don't know exactly.

[The_Doctor]

Read this article. Bringing down Trump will require his base to give up on him. It will not be a months long process but potentially years. His supporters among the working class are angry at the institutions undergirding society. They will continue to back Trump as long as they believe he is damaging these institutions. This is the type of people he won, too.

The day they believe Trump is part of the mess in Washington is the day they turn on him. That's the reason the Azerbaijan scandal is the one that comes first, as a sign of Trump self-benefiting. It also comes during the economic slowdown, which angers his base. This is why the 2018 midterms, in particular, will be Republican friendly on the federal level. I don't anticipate the scandal penetrating the bubble of Trump voters before 2018.

The dirty secret is that Donald Trump is the epitome of neoliberal conservative ideology and has loyally backed the federal Republican tickets dating to 1980. Trump was an early backer of Ronald Reagan and was on his Finance Committee. His apostasies never carried onto the presidential level. As president, Trump is demonstrating he is a fairly down the line Republican President. The AHCA and Trump backing it wasn't just Trump being ignorant. It's that Trump generally buys into the ideology enough to link arms with Paul Ryan, even if he doesn't understand half of what he believes and why.

In this timeline he's generally pretty standard Republican edition infused with nativist ideology. But most critically he does not reject the basics of the Reagan Revolution.

The dirtiest secret is that his base is not ready to cross over to Sanders liberalism. They're hurting but things haven't ruptured that badly that the bubble bursts. That's a reason Brown loses to Pence. They're ready to listen but it will require the Great Crisis to force a realignment and to mentally abandon the Republicans.

And of course the day the anti-neoliberal Democratic nominee becomes the nominee - Cordray -  and squares off against the epitome of neo-liberal politics, the Reaganite Pence, you know what happens.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did some research on Gubernatorial elections from 1980 to 1986. Interestingly the Republicans left the Reagan 1980s roughly the same as they entered it but with a very different composition. Texas, and a number of Southern and Plains States began electing Republican governors. The critical problem for the Republicans is that the Southern blue dogs complicated the voters' doing a clean realignment. Reagan headed a Republican - Blue Dog Democratic majority coalition in the 1980s and that represented a sort of sea change culminating in 1994. Since 1981 we've been ruled by a conservative coalition and since 1995/2001 a Republican one.

The election of 2024 is highly unlikely to see such a coalition that keeps the Republicans in power in the states for a number of reasons. (1) There are no northern Republicans and moderates to consistently win. The New England Republicans have been cleaned out as have been California statewide Republicans and other blue states. (2) the Republican coalition is vastly more conservative and partisan and thus if the Republicans fall into minority status under a liberal hegemony it's much harder for the Republicans to rebound.

The blue dogs kept the Democratic Party in play for most of the 1980s by coopting Reaganism and cooperating with the national Republicans. I don't see a corresponding Republican movement during the Cordray era.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The (southern) EHardings of the world screwed up in realigning and stayed Democrats through the 1980s, preventing a clean realignment until Clinton tried a old style liberal government in 1993-1994, thus finally pulling the move to realign in 1994. They were functionally Republican but stayed registration Democratic.

Had the Blue dogs not been around Reagan wouldve probably swept the House and then the southern state governments in 1982 or even 1986. (The Republicans picked up eight governorships that year).

The other possible reason is that the Republican Party didn't resonate on an economic level as much and voters chose to keep the Democrats as a check on the newly resurgent Republicans. You'll notice that the Republicans have never established New Deal type majorities in this country and that's because in part the Republican agenda hasn't had the kind of popular constituencies for it that would create such majorities.

We've existed in this tension since 1981 to a considerable deal. Were Republicans to break through this issue the second half of the Republican hegemony would probably be much longer and deeper. For the record had the Republicans established a clearer mandate in 2016 instead of the tortured win they underwent they could've done this but it sounds increasingly probable that 2000 kicked off the second half of the Republican majority.

[The_Doctor]

If they did wouldn't they be trying to avoid the final outcome of said timeline? I know Bannon read the Fourth Coming and thinks Trump can guide the new era.

I wrote up the North Korean article when I read a Hill piece where Trump said Obama told him NK was the most dangerous item on the agenda. I figured that ultimately Trump would push a military solution since I couldn't see them doing diplomacy and here we are....it's a “splendid little war.˝ I've read that China is increasingly tired of their North Korea problem, so I anticipate Beijing greenlighting the U.S. intervention.

I'm aiming for an update matching the timeline to reality in June.

[The_Doctor]

Does the undercut fade out of style in favor of the Cordray cut?

If this is about Trump's "hair style," I hope to God so. That hair is an international atrocity and a barbarous butchered dye.

[The_Doctor]

TD, this question is a little old for this thread, but hear me out?

If your scenario is correct and poor whites/minorities make up the base of the Democratic realignment, will this in turn make the Democratic party less socially liberal while making the GOP less socially conservative?

Don't worry about the question. I'm writing (or trying to write (paging this project's resident economic advisor, TT)) an article about the working class that has seen significant stagnation and economic losses since 2000. I'm thinking of doing Britain and the United States as case studies to demonstrate that their economic weakness has been around since the last confirming President (George W. Bush). But it's kind of a massive project and I don't have a foundation in economics. So it's taking a while.

Anyway: to answer your question - most likely not. Poorer whites will however be more markedly anti-immigrant, it is plausible. I note in my timeline that we have a markedly hawkish immigration line because of the tension between these whites and Latino Democrats; and how Cordray has to keep everyone happy. I could see gun control being sidelined in rural areas and Democrats moving to the center and limiting handguns around the cities but allowing gun rights to prevail in rural areas. There will have to be some compromises and some wheeling and dealing to satisfy all the Democratic constituencies on these issues (and there will be existential tensions).

Beyond that, as far as issues like abortion, gay marriage, I expect the prevailing liberal orthodoxy to rule since I don't think the Democratic coalition cares that much about these issues in terms of disagreement. Democrats have always had rougher times on social issues (slavery & abolitionism, civil rights, and 1970s bra burning stuff) rather than economic times.

I don't expect this great  harmony among Democrats in the coming era any much than it existed in prior Democratic ruling coalitions. So I'd say it's a 75 agreement, 25 disagreement deal.
 

[The_Doctor]

Politico feature on Cordray & the Ohio governor's race

And so, the story begins. The 32nd and 47th Presidents look a bit similar, don't they?



(I don't know how it will end up. But I'm rooting for him to run for Governor at the very least).

[The_Doctor]

Climate Change: The Great Global Warming Threat

Let's talk global warming.

The Facts

On April 21, 2017, the “Mauna Loa Observatory recorded its first-ever carbon dioxide reading in excess of 410 parts per million.” While this isn’t a big deal to some of you, it should be. Global warming, if left unchecked, will make the planet uninhabitable by the second half of the century, if not sooner. The military has been on record saying climate change presents a huge issue for our planet and is a national security concern. Additionally, coastal areas like Miami (Florida) and other areas have already begun to feel the impacts of global warming. While the United States has emissions levels at the rates of 1995 (which is great), the reality is that the rest of the world is rising. During the economic crisis of 2008-2013, global emissions stayed flat because of the weak economy but has slowly begun rising again.

Now, if you dispute all this and believe global warming to be a trumped up liberal scheme -- well, Mr President, I’m very glad you’re reading my timeline, but don’t you think you should be working to avert the worst of this timeline? (Ditto to you, Mr Vice President. You aren’t getting off so easy either).

Let’s start with the basics, and what it means for the United States. Climate change is a huge deal because it presents a huge threat to coastal areas, which is where a lot of civilization was built and remains on. In the United States alone, a series of major cities are built near coastal areas such as Houston, Boston, New York, Palm Beach Florida, San Francisco, Seattle and a few others. Climate change would present major existential challenges to these cities. Major other cities around the world, mentioning Liverpool, Edinburgh, and a ton of major world cities would also face existential challenges from sea levels rising. Likewise, with stormy weather, that can cause major challenges (the drought in California has been linked to climate change, for example).

Overseas, climate change has been linked to potential geopolitical issues such as access to water, access to resources, and farmland issues. That in turn can be linked to warfare and competition for resources in a world that is already under strain. Syria's civil war, it has been argued, has some roots in climate change.

An aside on Europe, by the way. Europe’s early embrace of climate change as a serious issue and the push to embrace renewable standards and energy was first pushed by more liberal coalitions, then ultimately, parties like the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom came in line with it.

The Likely Future

The United States has a very pragmatic internal and external set of policies: which is to maximise its survival chances. This entire timeline has been written with that guiding principle in mind. The United States seemingly undergoes political revolutions that seem random, based on human choices, and while that’s true to an extent; in fact, the United States executes a very rational set of economic and geopolitical actions that promotes her interests at home and globally.  

So: if the United States determines that climate change is going to put tens of millions of Americans at risk within its borders and that threat is an imminent one rather than distant one (which they perceived it as such in the 1980s to 2010s), it will swiftly adopt a set of policies to prevent it. More ever, if it believes that climate change presents a threat to maintaining global stability and makes its job of maintaining the international order harder, it will present the need to combat climate change as a necessity. This is what underpins the Paris Accords. Like many things President Barack Obama did, it did not come from a place of liberal ideology but cold rational reality.

So, what might that mean for our future? You’ll notice the states of Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia all returned Democratic in 2024. You’ll notice that Democrats won every state near a coast. This was not by accident. Take Texas. You can reliably expect Houston and surrounding areas to vote heavily Democratic (as they did in 2016). In part, that will be driven by liberal politics but also climate politics. Likewise, expect heavy Democratic turnout in Miami, Florida, and South Florida, which has a Republican mayor talking about the very real risks of climate change. In addition, note that much of South Carolina’s population is on the oceanfront, which will likely raise the stakes of climate change politics and present them with a reason to vote Democratic.

Now, you say “Hold on, what about the oil and coal industry?” And here’s what I think will happen in the coming decades. As solar energy drops in price, as well as natural gas, the political power of these industries will wane. Eventually, these industries will be replaced. Coal is already hemorrhaging jobs - just look at West Virginia. West Virginia has been steadily losing coal jobs and that’s not coming back, no matter what. Coal in Pennsylvania and Ohio will be replaced by natural gas (at best; there are fracking issues with natural gas), you should expect the United States, under Democratic leadership, to force a new revolution in energy production that emphasizes low or no carbon emissions.

President Richard Cordray’s Initiatives

President Cordray will be acutely aware of all this. He will also be aware that he has no choice and must push through a set of climate change reforms that reorient the United States’ energy path towards renewables. Natural gas will be part of the plan for a while but fracking presents ecological issues (it’s causing earthquakes in Oklahoma, for instance) and will be inherently phased out in favor of renewable energy standards and new technologies.

One major challenge for the United States at this juncture will be to produce, rapidly, new technologies to bring us near zero sum emissions and to make sure these technologies are adopted globally and on a rapid scale. The scientists will be telling President Cordray and the U.S. military, as well as the U.S. diplomatic corps, that if measures are not quickly taken to address climate change, the United States could be facing a dystopian future that would be a threat to its existence and the U.S. - led international order.

In response, President Cordray will make climate change a major centerpiece of his first term. The President will use his considerable mandate to ram through the most sweeping set of carbon emissions regulations in American history. On the international front, in a strong reversal from the Trump-Pence Administrations, the Cordray Administration will push for the adoption of clean energy technology and the world to create an even stronger Paris Accords to deal with climate change issues. It is possible a revenue neutral carbon tax will be also implemented.

On multiple fronts, this will intersect neatly with the Democratic agenda. For one, it will put nations like Russia (a major resources producer) on the defense. This will work well for the Democrats, who will be aggressive towards Russia in the mid 2020s. It will also play into their mandate to promote universal college education, in order to boost the country’s technological edge. On the international front, it will require considerable cooperation and more multilateral work to bring the various nations together.

Over the duration of the Cordray - Castro Administrations, a new energy framework will be put together that builds upon the Obama framework and goes further. Republicans will initially fight it, but as their economic base changes, they will slowly adapt and get onboard.

By the election of the next Republican White House, Republicans will pledge to continue Cordray’s work on climate change. It will be seen, at this point, a bipartisan initiative to deal with climate change. The GOP President might talk a good game about pleasing the oil and natural gas industry, but a sea change will have taken place in climate change policy. No longer will it be the source of contentious partisan battles, but considered part and parcel of the United States’ national security interests.

Why doesn’t the GOP embrace climate change?

Some of you might ask, why don’t the GOP embrace the kind of changes President Cordray will initiate and head him off?

For one, the GOP’s economic and voter base are in states that are currently dependent on production of natural resources. States like West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are all major oil and coal producing states. The Trump and Pence White House don’t have a part of the GOP coalition pushing against the interests of these states. If California, or other major states that are decidedly liberal on climate change was in the Republican coalition, President Trump or President Pence would have a political coalition capable of pushing climate change as a serious issue. But, they don’t. Secondly, oil, natural gas, and coal are major Republican donors. Again, with renewables heavily Democratic, and considered a Democratic priority, the GOP is not in a position to resist internally, even if the science is pointing heavily towards taking action.

This is a major reason President Trump has taken the side of coal and gas against the environmental lobby. The situation has not reached critical mass that the United States must change its policies overnight (well, it might have reached critical mass; but let’s put it this way, the economic situation has not yet occurred and made it an urgent crisis). Since Presidents Trump and Pence will never win (or even come close) to winning California, New York, Oregon, Washington, or New Jersey, it is highly likely that they will be reliant on the electoral votes of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, and Louisiana to power their victories. Neither are their parties dominant in these states; they are reliably blue on the state level as well, thus denying climate change Republicans a voice in the seats of power. Given this, Presidents Trump and Pence will conclude that they need to focus on placating the states that they won in 2016 and 2020 (as well as 2018 and 2022, such as they are).

Part II Below

[The_Doctor]

Even if there is slippage in these states by 2020, the coalition needed to power changes will come from the Democratic Party, which has a natural base in California, New York, Florida, and other coastal areas to power its climate change energy agenda. The lion’s share will come from the liberal coalition, who will be needed to sustain the 47 - 48th Presidents’ energy agenda. It is only after considerable change has been enacted in the Gulf States and major coal and natural gas producers have been sidelined in favor of renewables and other zero carbon emissions industries that the Republicans will be able to respond positively to climate change initiatives to limit carbon emissions. (The Republican President of 2036 - 2040, or whenever, will see Washington and Oregon going Republican for the first time since 1988).

The best we can expect is that President Trump will remain in the Paris Accords because to do otherwise would alienate our allies. However, given the United States’ low emissions, and the belief that other nations will step up to the plate, it is likely the Trump Administration will decide to opt out and hope for the best. It will not be a positive legacy for President Trump, President Pence, or the 2016-2024 Republican Party. History will judge their political choice as borne out of political necessity but lacking the true courage to move the needle on climate change and a lost opportunity to strike a grand bargain. The truth will be honestly, limited by the political circumstances and coalitions, the Trump and Pence Administrations will be allowed to do very little.

Conclusion

Climate change will be another reason, if little discussed, why the realignment occurs. It will be fortuitously timed with the economic crisis, but the reality is that climate change, on its own, could power a Democratic hegemony on its own, potentially, given the economic and geopolitical ramifications.

Democrats, starting in 2024, will initiate a huge and sweeping set of change in climate change policies designed to promote renewable energy and shift economic and political power away from the natural gas, oil, and coal industries, in order to deal with climate change. Republicans will accept the vast majority of these changes and accept them down the line.

[The_Doctor]

Love that you mention climate change in your latest discussion. However, besides domestic impacts, you also mention foreign impacts, like drought driving the Syrian Civil War. Since resource conflicts like that, as well as severe natural disasters, will only increase infrequency, it'll likely drive migration patterns. Wouldn't that serve to increase populist nationalism and social conservatism in the developed world, thus helping the GOP (even if Pence abandons that aspect)?

Well, first of all, that's a limited answer and doesn't address that with the interconnectedness of our world, if there is significant turmoil, that affects the economy.  For one, access to resources. If we're dependent on oil, climate change can pose a threat to that. If the oil fields are inaccessible for whatever reason as we transition to renewable energy that creates a compound economic effect. (And oil wouldn't be the only resource impacted)

The impact of climate change is that ultimately it will require a global response to survive it. We can turn away refugees (and this is in fact what's happening) but ultimately the crises will become much worse. It will require an overcoming of any natural social conservatism in favor of a global and unified response.

What you're forgetting is that we need the cooperation of these people as much as we need to do more to keep emissions under a certain level. This creates a somewhat level playing field in international terms. Everyone has equal say and skin in the game, which is the survival of our planet.

America and Europe die if India and China don't play ball. Everyone suffers if nobody plays ball. By definition that means that we help the suffering regions to limit the damage and increase international cooperation to head off much worse. We can't put up a high enough wall for the oceans to not overwhelm our cities and states. We can't save just our ecosystems that keep us nourished with the things we want (see honey, deaths of bees, etc). At a level of greenhouse gases being severe enough our planet literally becomes Venus.

Yes there will be initial resistance but political leaders around the globe will understand that only a unified response will be able to salvage the planet. And there will be concerted effort to educate and pull along our populations.

This is a bit off tangent but I want to say it anyway.

Climate change and the effects will force the creation of super national entities that deal with climate issues. Of course terrorism, nuclear weapons, and other similar issues will do the same thing but you get the idea. By the time we get to become near a Type I civilization in 2100 AD, we have to play ball with the idea that we're more than just nation states with individual interests (if we survive).

Survival is what brings us to a cold understanding that we need an international framework to govern our society and we are no longer individual societies that can ignore whats going on halfway around the world. It is literally death for the human race without a sharp increase in international cooperation on a wide range of issues.

[The_Doctor]

Anyone good with international elections and populist versus neoliberal candidates and parties in the world? Hit me up; I'd like to run a future article by you for your thoughts.

Thank you for your help in advance.

[The_Doctor]

So a short snippet of my forthcoming article on how well this timeline has aged:

The answer is that Trump has been far less effective than in this timeline and the political institutions are now at serious risk of damage, as they are usually before a realignment. We are in pretty much the 1850s, 1929-1932, and the 1970s era as the Reagan Republican majority grapples with new challenges and new crises with aging political norms and a loss of public confidence. All we're waiting for is the economic crisis to finally bring everything down (or a major constitutional crisis but I'll explain in a bit why economic, not political). (Sidebar: I do expect tax reform and maybe an infrastructure package as they are fairly easy to pass).

The Comey firing underscores one thing. It seems that on their way to a 1980 the Republican Party is revisiting the ghosts of Richard Nixon, a fundamental distrust of the media, and a faith in strongmen ideology. But it won't save them.  Their loss of standing among half the country (52% disapprove of Donald Trump and certainly that number will go up during the coming recession) has crippled their ability to govern effectively and decisively. Having half the country continually oppose you no matter what makes it hard to govern.

Make no mistake the Nixon impeachment, the Southern strategy, and resistance of a preconcieved liberal establishment guides the Party's id. They view the era between 1950 and 1980 as a huge cultural loss and this has hardened their determination to fly into the storm come what may. Even with a captain many of them personally do not like.

Trump sped up my timeline's realignment and is proving why too. His constant controversy and constant scandal has constantly put the GOP on the defensive. The widening gyre between Republican officials and their president - and their constant efforts to defend him - is slowly taking a toll on the Party and its grassroots base. Trump is also politically a neophyte that has caused himself a ton of damage and guaranteed a highly divisive presidency. Read about that here some more.

If you read RRH you'll see a very muted resignation and not much discussion. They're honor bound to defend him but partisanship also makes it harder for them to talk about this. The links between the leadership and the base has been eroding since 2010 and they're only eroding faster. I read one prominent GOP election commentator on Twitter where he acknowledged he hadn't kept up with the Russian story -- and thats one sign they know that this is increasingly difficult to do.

Trump appears strong with the Party's base and congressional leadership but in fact he is now in the weakest position. Remember humans never like being on the defensive for long periods of time, especially when they view incompetence. They're defending him more out of a fear of the Left than a belief he's right. If you look at #fakenews, it taps into their cultural resentment against the famed “eastern establishment.” Their fears of a liberal dominance has been in the conservative imagination since the 50s even as it is more legend than reality now.

Trump's political opposition, lack of experience, and very weak political party standing (especially with the weakened ties between party and base) stand in the way of a dictatorship. They may for a time (and I did warn you, they will) succeed in styming an investigation and for a time they will look successful but they are inadvertently empowering the political movement against them. Each battle costs them the war and each pointless battle even more. I've written about that here. 

Meanwhile the Democratic opposition has never been more energized and galvanized. Trump and Congressional Republicans eagerly play the role of villains for them each and everyday. For them there is no downside in playing the part of King Arthur's loyal troops until the Rightful King (or Queen!) restores the land. They step into the role of rebels and fight to restore Camelot. The Carter era and fights of the 1960s are behind them; they are freer than they ever have been. And Trump is the wind in their sails. He, like no other president, has fulfilled their stereotype of a Republican. And they have 50% or more of the country with them.

The looming battle will be economic for one major reason. The base will finally collapse because a significant portion of Trump's base is economically weak. The party's war on the ACA and the safety net is a significant reason that the Trump middle and lower classes revolt, because they're dependent on them. Note that Trump isn't shoring up the protections on the middle and lower classes - and remember Obama never solved that underlying problem.  This group is one economic crash away from significant debt overwhelming them if they already haven't been. Debt underlay a lot of the response to 2008 (including the ACA) but since we're in the Reagan era the response was limited.

So the base will hold out but when push comes to shove they'll choose their economic interests over the GOP's. Their political alignment will continue as long their families aren't at economic risk. The moment that happens the GOP will face a 1980. The first economic downturn most likely won't be major but will play a role in Trump's downfall. The second as you all know brings down Pence.

Remember I mentioned King Arthur? Well, that legend is hugely popular for a reason. The cycle of a land in turmoil, governed by malignant forces that threaten the land and then a young King pulls out Excalibur and restores the land, driving out the malovent forces.  As he says, “The old order changeth, yielding place to new.“ Which sounds awfully like a realignment.

[The_Doctor]

Perhaps Trump is Nixon +Carter and 2020 is the year of the realignment IRL?

I doubt it because the economic crisis won't come by 2020. Obama left a very strong economy that will carry the weakest parts for a while. Also the last presidency of the era embodies the worst ideological excesses. Trump would probably fulfill #2 but not #1. Pence probably is a perfect era ending presidency.

Also, Pence may not be the 2024 nominee because to be eligible for 2024 he needs to take power after January 20, 2019. The constitution only allows you to run twice if you fulfill less than half of your predecessor's term [22nd amendment]. It depends on when Trump implodes.

[The_Doctor]

Would the late 2010s ITTL be considered similar to the late 1970s aka a period of "malaise"?

Sort of. We're in a period of stagnation and political gridlock dating to around 2005. Over time since the Iraq war our system and economy has become less productive for the vast majority of people. The actual malaise in question is an invinsible one in a sense - middle class stagnant wages date to 2000.

Think of your memories dating to 2000 of our economic and political history and you'll notice there has been no major economic booms, just getting by in general as our political system became more scelerotic. They feed on each other and things progressively worsen as people get angrier. Even the recovery from the Great Recession hasn't been complete wage wise or job quality wise.

To answer you the entire period between 2000 and the realignment will probably be a generational silent malaise. (It interestingly happened in Japan - hey! TT! - Isn't it called secular stagnation?)

I plan to cover some of this in my economic article but that's one of the things going on I think…

[The_Doctor]

It won't be Al Franken.

He doesn't have the skills to put together a majority coalition like FDR, Jefferson, Reagan, and Lincoln-McKinley. All of these men were deeply invested in ideological politics before their presidencies. Franken is a liberal with a strong record of advocacy but not putting together a coalition. Also he's never lost an election, which is a testament to him running only twice ever for any office.

The losing (at least twice) seems important somehow to the making of great coalition maker presidents. I don't know why but Lincoln's losses (3x or 4x right? I forgot), Reagan's (2x), Roosevelt's (2x) and Jefferson's (1x) all shapes their very successful presidencies.  To wit: Jefferson [1796], Lincoln [1858 Senate],  Roosevelt [1920], Reagan [1968, 1976 GOP primaries].

@ Virginia: all I thought was “That's not the first time you're going to meet with House Democrats, sire.” Extrapolate as you wish from that.

But yeah I think our 47th President is finally on the road to the White House. He'll run for Governor. He definitely wants the job ..and the one beyond that one. Cordray feels like the man who has concealed this great ambition to be president (if I'm right) but his long star studded career suggests he would like very much to be President. But we'll see.

[The_Doctor]

I've been thinking about this timeline and I thought, what states and regions are most often strong for the minority coalitions?

I'm thinking that the plains are a bit above average in terms of this, not existing until 1892, and then aligning 1896 for the WJB-Wilson democrats, then gradually slipping to the republicans in FDR and Truman's term and then being solid republican most of the time.
So their loyalty would have been:
Nonexistent:(1789-1892)
Populist dems(1886-1948)
Eisenhower Republicans(1952-1980)
Reagan Republicans(1980-Present)

I don't get this post?