(Roughly) Daily

Jack Goldstone and Peter Turchin have a theory, one that led them some years ago to predict political upheaval in America in the 2020s. Here, their explanation of why it’s here and what we can do to temper it…

Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.

Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,” forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.

Given the Black Lives Matter protests and cascading clashes between competing armed factions in cities across the United States, from Portland, Oregon to Kenosha, Wisconsin, we are already well on our way there. But worse likely lies ahead.

Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elitesseek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.

Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.

Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government. But their actions alone are not sufficient. Urbanization and greater education are needed to create concentrations of aware and organized groups in the populace who can mobilize and act for change.

Top leadership matters. Leaders who aim to be inclusive and solve national problems can manage conflicts and defer a crisis. However, leaders who seek to benefit from and fan political divisions bring the final crisis closer. Typically, tensions build between elites who back a leader seeking to preserve their privileges and reforming elites who seek to rally popular support for major changes to bring a more open and inclusive social order. Each side works to paint the other as a fatal threat to society, creating such deep polarization that little of value can be accomplished, and problems grow worse until a crisis comes along that explodes the fragile social order.

These were the conditions that prevailed in the lead-up to the great upheavals in political history, from the French Revolution in the eighteenth century, to the revolutions of 1848 and the U.S. Civil War in the nineteenth century, the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the twentieth century and the many “color revolutions” that opened the twenty-first century. So, it is eye-opening that the data show very similar conditions now building up in the United States…

They unpack their diagnosis, examine historical examples of successful– peaceful– resolution, and outline steps they recommend for a recovery from the hole we’ve dug for ourselves: “Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’,” from @noemamag.com.

For another “big cycle” take: “It All Has Happened Before for the Same Reasons” from Ray Dalio (@raydalioofficial.bsky.social).

On on the subject of what happens if efforts to stem a turn to autocracy that would (Goldstone and Turchin argue) lead ultimately to revolution and systemic failure, an optimistic (?) view from Luke Kemp, author of Goliath’s Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse argues that “Collapse has historically benefited the 99%.”

And for a suggestion that history does indeed rhyme, a headline from 1939: “Goebbels Ends Careers of Five ‘Aryan’ Actors Who Made Witticisms About the Nazi Regime” (gift article from The New York Times).

* Haruki Murakami, Kafka on the Shore

###

As we batten down, we might recall that it was on this date in 1977, in the 5th season premiere of the series Happy Days, that a water-skiing “Fonzie” (Henry Winkler) jumped the shark— which has become a descriptive phrase for a creative work– or entity– that has evolved past its prime, that has reached a stage in which it has exhausted its core intent and is introducing new ideas that are discordant with or an extreme exaggeration (a caricature) of its original theme or purpose.

An example relevent to the piece linked above (in this case, of new, discordant ideas masquerading as “old” and authentic): “How Originalism Killed the Constitution,” from Jill Lepore.

source