>
Liberal capitalism.
I define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.
This ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.
The ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By "socialization" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale. >

we already have this >

Maybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.
We had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.
What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.
What we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. 
What we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.
What we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.
What we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.
That is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.
We have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.
I could go on. >


What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.

That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. 
Corporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.
Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation. >


That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. 

😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.

Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.

I would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.
You may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:
trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.
One more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking? >

I am a marxist, yes. >

Alright then.
You accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?
You believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?
I am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.
At least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative. >

Yep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.
To your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher
You and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.
It's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case. >

I understand why you see things the way that you do.
I am not focussed on the theater of tragedy. I see great improvements in the human condition, and I am humbled and grateful for my life here in the United States. I have traveled the world. I have seen some of its less fortunate societies.
I don't see the problems with capitalism as an anomaly. But I do see a path to correct some of those problems. I am not Jesus. I just think I have a reasonable basis for a better system, and if I have imagined it, then I am sure that people who are smarter or more capable than I am have seen it too. >

I believe that the next great ideology that will sweep America will be a violent one, blaming cultural and economic ennui on the usual list of scapegoats and calling for heads.  
We see this ideology's start through the significant rise of political terrorism in the US.  We also see it through the absolute lack of concern for the outcome of elections being affected by violent protest.  
The US is slipping into the mentality that anything is acceptable in terms of gaining or maintaining power.  And that comes with a societal acceptance of using violence as a tool, and not just viewing it as a stochastic accident. >

I disagree.
This is not the "next big ideology" but rather, the whimpering, whining, temper tantrum END of an ideology that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.
We will have to put some people in timeout. It may be thousands or it may be as many as 100k, but eventually, these violent crybabies will be either removed from society or they will stop being troublemakers.
They have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda. They are violent irrational people with spoiled rotten brat unreasonable demands.
What's more, the majority of them are over 60 years old and they are a shrinking minority. >


that has been discarded by the overwhelming majority, and by our institutions of law and civil discourse.

It has not been discarded.  The reaction to January 6 was not opposed, but overwhelmingly, massively, and undeniably in favor. 
Set aside the fact that Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a leader in the insurrection effort, literally presided over the House on Monday.  We need only turn to the law and outcomes.
According to the voting rights lab:

Over the past two legislative sessions, 28 state legislatures have passed legislation that interferes with the fair, nonpartisan administration of elections. Among these attacks are bills that shift the power to oversee elections to partisan actors; threaten election officials with felony charges; provide for partisan-motivated, standardless reviews of certified election results; escalate the investigation and prosecution of purported election crimes; and more.

That's an outright majority of the states that have gone beyond statements, to actually passing legislation through Houses and past the governor's veto, all to enable the next January 6.
And what of the Republicans that led the efforts?  The Republican members of Congress named by January 6 organizations remain in office.  They were just rewarded with the House majority, and greater committee positions.
On the other hand, Republicans that resisted this effort have mostly been removed from office.  8 out of 10 that voted for Trump's impeachment are permanently out of power, some only holding office for a single House term.  No Republican holding federal office has faced even the slightest legal penalty for January 6.  
Our institutions of law and civil discourse have not prevented the next January 6 attack, they've guaranteed it. 
And our 'majority' has only shown that demographic majorities are meaningless, worthless, and pointless compared to electoral majorities.  And Republicans hold a near supermajority of electoral power in the United States practically by default.  They hold something like 70% of all political seats in this country, the supermajority of the Supreme Court, and a near supermajority of state legislatures and governors.  
It doesn't matter that they have no coherent ideology or public policy agenda.  It only matters that they have power, and violence is one of the mechanisms of their power. >

I think you have summed up the fight pretty well.
I'm telling you that it is inevitable that the Republican Party will lose the power that you just described.
They are NOT the ideology of the future. They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power. Granted, it's slow, but they are not increasing in power, they are decreasing in power. >


They are looking at the past, and they are already a demographic minority, and that will translate into losing power.

Again, demographics don't matter whatsoever.  It is far easier to prevent people from voting than to raise a generation of voters.  Republicans can hold power indefinitely by changing electoral law and stacking the cards in their favor.  
It is far more likely that we will see a Republican one-party governance in the next decade than that we will see the Republican party moderate or dissolve in the next half-century.  We have been teetering around that tipping point for decade, and we have never crept away from the edge. >

I respectfully disagree. >

I believe that a developed nations government can only go for so long without people feeling patriotic about it. They can go pretty long doing things that cause the public to be disenfranchised with them and their management of us, a generation or two. 
I think the US is at both a critically divided point, and an absolute low for patriotism. Baby boomers at least remember their earlier lives, where they felt pride and patriotism for their nation, so they have held onto that for the last few decades. And Gen X grew up hearing their stories and were assured that eventually the government will get sorted out and they would be proud again. 
But millennials, and the coming generations never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic. We were born into the Information Age, which really lifted the red white and blue veil that was over previous generations eyes. 
Once millennials are the majority and in control, they will make sweeping changes to our country I believe. They will have to. If by that point no one feels patriotic anymore, the country either dies or changes. There will be no one to blame then but ourselves if we don’t. 
I’m hoping it’s because a new spirituality emerges, that champions science, and the beauty of nature and reality instead of simple fables we grew up being told to believe in. 
Imagine living in America and actually feeling patriotic about our country, and proud to be an American. A country can only survive for so long without its populace feeling that. >

“Never lived in a time when they could feel patriotic” isn’t true for all millennials. I think that’s largely true for the left. But even as a liberal, I remember the immediate post 9/11 where we had all sorts of patriotism, shit I remember hearing “the taliban song” by Toby Keith with my friends before the war went south.
Even after things got worse, there was still a lot of hope and patriotism in the early Obama years. It’s just there hasn’t been much patriotism since like, his second term.
Gen Z are really the ones growing up like you said there. >

I'm as liberal as you get and I love my country warts and all. And as a boomer I can tell you life wasn't so great back then. Beating your child and wife were acceptable. Schools could paddle kids. Sexual harassment was normal. What is called date rape now was just referred to as a bad date because cops barely responded to stranger rape. They'd laugh at you if you tried to report a man raped you aftee you let him into your home.
Now is better. Well except the never going outside to play. That was better then. >

? I’m sorry, which time period are you referring to? I don’t think millennials were getting paddled in general. 
I do agree now is better in the vast majority of ways. >

I said I was a boomer but paddling is back. In Texas I think. Or maybe Louisiana. I know I saw it somewhere.
You could put your wife in a mental hospital for having an affair back when I was a kid. Boomers who look back fondly on those days are idiots and I have friends who do it. And I remind them of the reality. >

Yikes. I didn't know about the 19 states. >

Socialism is gaining a massive foothold in Gen Z and Millennials. And it only seems to strengthen with age and political engagement, contrary to past assumptions. As our participation grows and the oldest generations die off, that is potentially going to be a massive political shift. >

Bruh just because Disney and Lockheed put a tweet about lgbt support doesn't mean you'll get free Healthcare.
The left has already been monetized by the corporate overlords. >

Lol, some bought and sold corporate Democrats who are willing to pretend universal healthcare would be nice a handful of times a decade aren’t “the left.”
Eventually, a large enough movement will make demands they can’t head off in that way. >

Yeah by and large the current crop of politicians aren't going to be too supportive of moving in a socialist direction, but unless there's a major realignment in the next 20 years, Gen Z is going to vote people in who will be openly socialist. 
This is a generation that has basically nothing going for them and is being shown outright contempt by every major American institution. As soon as they get their hands on the wheel, they are going to swerve hard >

And they'll have the backing of a considerable amount of millennials.
A good majority of the Millennial generation was fucked hard too.  Massive amounts of debt going to school, no home, barely making a living, etc. >

For sure, we're already seeing millennials maintaining liberal views longer than previous generations. The thing about millennials is that most of them came of age before the time of smartphones, social media and Trumpian politics. So many still think along conventional, status-quo lines (for good and for bad).
Gen Z has known nothing but chaos, division and dysfunction, and everyone in power is telling them that they're essentially corrupted because of it and don't know what's best for themselves. The resentment brewing there is very real, and so is the desire for change. >

I'm going to stay out of this one, because I don't believe the reddit audience actually understands the depth of the questions being asked. I'm waiting to hear people discussing the future of our species (other than endless war) and the discussion seems limited to present governmental forms.
Thank you for posting my position with a delicacy I don't possess. >

Not sure about a political philosophy, as I am not very well versed on them. Though, I see us adopting more components of the Nordic Model. >

Seeing a huge rise in “trad-life” and the attitude that we simply cannot rely on voting and politicians very much, hence trying to become more self-reliant and family/community focused. >

You are totally right >

Dataism. There will be algorithms that know you better than yourself. By the tone that you right, to the usage of your phone, it'll be able to calculate mental illnesses and the perfect lifepath for you for years to come.
Your data will tell you the perfect medicine, perfect non-intrusive diet, exercise regiment, to scanning the world wide web to finding the perfect partner for you with 100% comparability that you'd have never met otherwise in real life. 
It'll know your political values more than yourself. When a scandal breaks out, and you're considering changing your vote, your data will tell either A) "They've betrayed your trust enough, and this is too far in accordance to the history of your values" or B) "This is just a discrepancy, not a normalcy, you should still vote for the same party" And then it'll click the vote box for you. >

Neoconservative ideology should see a big jump thanks to the Ukraine war - no longer does being pro-war necessarily mean supporting the Iraq war. >

One would think so, but  many conservatives like Putin, so it would be a difficult position to hold. The sabre rattlers want to fight China. >

You will own nothing and be happy about it.
Renting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.
Basically marketing hard time features as something trending.  They will be more common regardless of popularity.
Scaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold. >


You will own nothing and be happy about it.

Nope. I would rather go try and live in the woods knowing i'd die in probably 2 weeks than live in that world.

Renting is better than owning as it gives you more flexibility.

Not at all. 

Basically marketing hard time features as something trending. They will be more common regardless of popularity.

hard times are already here, and they are only going to get worse at this rate unfortunate.

Scaling back on globalization seems like it will take hold.

It already has, after all the US no longer gains much from globalization, other than realizeing that our just in time supply from across the world falls apart during any times of strife, and while the pandemic was rough, it was not that rough in the scheme of things. >

A rejection of the duopoly in the US would be nice.  But, I don’t know if that will happen.
I can see technology being used by an organization not affiliated with a major party to attempt to prioritize wants vs. needs.  The US is on a path that is unsustainable.  At some point, we need actual priorities and a long range plan that goes beyond 24 month election cycles. >

Two parties are mathematically inevitable in a FPTP voting system. In parliamentary systems you have multiple parties that caucus together to reach 51% control. In FPTP systems you have two "big tent" parties that combine multiple factions within them (which are constantly evolving). The end result is the same, just a different way of thinking about it. That said, Democrats are pushing for and have already implemented ranked choice voting in many areas, which would make third parties viable.
What you envision as a third party that prioritizes the people is basically just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There's not enough people voting for them to reach majority on their own, so they team up with enough moderates until they can hit 51% together. The larger the Democratic majority, the more influence the progressive wing has in Congress. If Democrats win multiple elections in a row, Republicans are forced to pivot to pull in centrist Democrats, making progressives a larger share of the Democratic Party.
This is why FDR is looked at as a progressive hero. Democrats had nearly 80% control of Congress, which meant he could push an ultra-progressive bill, lose some moderate Democrats, and still have the 60% required to pass. Literally everything comes down to voting. >

I’m a libertarian.  So, for me, prioritizing means a reduction in spending and a re-focus and prioritization of spending.  
A compromise could look like this:  Reduce military spending by 30%.  Take half those savings to reduce the annual deficit.  Take the other half and invest in domestic priorities (which could be any flavor of progressive desires…I don’t care). >

We seem to be transitioning into a populism versus establishment 2 party system >

We'll need to define populism, because how it is defined on the right isn't actually populism. >

Don’t know but fascism has been going strong since 2016. I mean really what kind of question is this? >

A forward-looking one. >

Depends on how things go, given the technological context that has been evolving.
We're going into an era where privacy has to die, information control is required, and democracy as we know it is dismantled and replaced with something more fitting to the new context... >

I think the confluence and multitude of crises from war, energy, environment, scarcity, inflation and the like will steal the wind out of the sails of this anti-establishment right-wing populism that has defined Western politics in the latter half of the 10s.
Whether these establishment figures are right-wing or left-wing is uncertain and will differ per country. It's, however, unlikely that another self-destructive force like Trump or Brexit will happen anytime soon. >

Next global ideology gonna be Islam with its caliphate system, not like the isis ragtag militants.
But a state with full institutions.
remind me in 2 years >

Anti-wokism and the (re-) rise of (a new) white supremacy.  This will parallel a dramatic decline in the power of evangelical Christianity in particular, and organized religion in general. 
I don't think the anti-wokists will call themselves such, rather, they will use a term like "traditionalists".  The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory which is already reshaping Republican politics is going to have a huge impact on society as disaffected white voters flock back to the Republican Party, especially once Trump is out of the scene.  We are in the deep breath before the plunge so to speak, because Donald Trump is thankfully the most inept politician who has ever controlled a party, but his dynasty is almost ended.
The left is (unfortunately for the left) winning the current culture wars.  It presents an illusion of progress in the form of cancel culture - the endless punishment/banishment of anyone who can be called out as racist or homophobic for a particular statement made at any point in the present or the past.  The problem with cancel culture is that it's power diminishes each time it is used.  Mark my words: there will come a day when a woman makes a racist comment on camera while walking her dog and it is no longer on the front page of the NYT for a week.  That won't be commented upon when it happens, because shoulder shrugs are never commented upon.
There are going to be plenty more victories for the left before the moment that it all comes crashing down.  Unfortunately for the left, victories embolden further actions: one day the left is strongarming Princeton University into denouncing Woodrow Wilson and casting his name into the memory hole with Hitler and Stalin to never be mentioned again.  The next day, the left is calling for the Lincoln Memorial to be torn down because Lincoln was a racist.  There will be no stopping to reflect and consider whether the Great Emancipator is someone worth saving from the memory hole because wokism is the ultimate black/white ideology: you're either a horrible racist/homophobe/sexist, or you are an upstanding person.  If only humans were so simple.
Wokism and cancel culture are powerful weapons, but they can eat their own as easily as they can be used as weapons against the opposition.  By way of example, Kristen Gillibrand and others used wokism/me too-ism to bring down Al Franken so that they would not have to face him in a presidential primary.  That works on the left, where we are left with Gillibrand instead of Franken, but has no power at all on the right.  As a consequence, the left will struggle to recruit effective leadership, and this is already under way (see the millions of articles about who could replace Biden - the answer is nobody because we purge our bench of anyone who made an off-color joke 20 years ago and are left with only the supercilious SJWs like Gillibrand, who will never be president).  Anyone with leadership potential will be drawn to the right - why hold yourself out as a Democrat if any statement, no matter how decontextualized, is a nuclear weapon to bring you down in shame and ignominy?  No thinking person would subject themselves to that, and it is already under way in the Democratic Party; our bench is bare.
I think there will be elites in the Democratic Party that do not understand how DeSantis is able to win a Reagan-style landslide given how successful the Biden administration has been, and the answer is - the left was too successful and wokism pushed it's white voters over to the GOP.  
As to the fall of evangelical Christianity, it should be appreciated that the influence of organized religion waxes and wanes in American politics, and that this feature pre-dates the founding of the U.S.  The full moon has been reached and it shone too bright on Donald Trump, someone who exemplifies every trait of the anti-Christ in exquisite, undeniable fashion.  The decision by evangelical leaders to back Trump made the religion into a joke of a hypocrisy, and the seeds of destruction are laid just waiting to come to fruition.  Sometimes little old ladies can't smell the BS, but anyone under 40 sitting in the pews while the preacher bolsters Donald Trump had to be catching a wiff of it in the air.  Hypocrisy is the great weakness to organized religion in general and it is a powerful weakness. >

First, if you're going to post, it'd probably make sense you explain the material basis as to why these ideologies would arise. 
I think a few people have mentioned "dataism", which will be a broader and more reformed version of liberal capitalism and historically adjacent to fascism. It'll be tech-focused, geared on generating tech solutions that "simplify" everyday life, while providing corporations with exceptional amounts of information. Corporations will share information with governments to  maintain a better control over their population. It'll be associated with the revival of traditional gender roles and "trad" aesthetics. All the while, capitalism will ravage on, stealing time, energy, and resources — so this aesthetic will be especially aspirational and not lived (quality of living will continue to decrease).
I expect there to be a response to this, but it's hard to say what — I think a type of reformed communism will come about, but I'm not sure how, what it's core tenents would be, and how it would operate. It would serve in reaction to this corporate / dataism. Since the 70s, the world has been in under a liberal capitalist global ideology (liberal human rights reform + amplification of exploitation of the global south). That'll shift soon, I think. >

One of the biggest flaws of communism was that they couldn’t efficiently plan their economies. With AI that may no longer be a problem. >

The most likely outcome I see is a split in the right wing. The younger generations are more liberal and diverse and over the next 20 years the GOP will either have to move to the left or face loss of power. They're currently trying to mitigate that shift with things like gerrymandering and making red states as unappealing to liberals as possible to keep their control of the house and Senate, but that same strategy will bite them in the ass come the 2030 census. They may be able to hold the Senate but their own efforts would make the house and presidency unattainable for them, thus leaving obstructionism through the Senate their only real avenue of stopping the country from achieving left wing changes.
I think the more likely outcome will be less extreme republicans and more right leaning Democrats rallying around the GOP. Overall the result will be a slightly more center republican party. This will lose them many of the extreme voters they've been courting the past 10 years, but will gain them more independent voters and allow them to remain politically relevant.
The more extreme voters they lose might rally around a new far right party that could possibly be more politically relevant than libertarians, but still only make up maybe 5-10%, or less, of seats in the house and a couple senators. >

My hope is that people around the world will rise up against their corporate overloads and those that serve them. >

Solarpunk. We need a new common sense that appropriates all criticisms of the modern day for the liberation of humans and nature and for the creation of a global human community, a commune of communes. >

Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy: 
I think that there is cause for positivity as we may be able to find new unifying concepts and structures as the old ones seem under ever greater strain. As the world's population has grown, the success of representative democracy is coming under strain as the trust and communication that underpin liberal democracy have dwindled. This has motivated ideas such as Augmented Assembly and Augmented Democracy that help to overcome the communication bottleneck and information overload that are causing the attrition to our current models. These ideas are discussed further in the (<5mins read) LessWrong blog post 'African Wild Dogs Vote By Sneezing - Can AI Help Us Do Better?' littered with sources to great papers such as 'Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy' where systems like this have already proved successful. >

On paper, communism is awesome.  It’s the people who always seem to mess it up.   Maybe an AI can manage the day to day tasking and logistics, and if we obeyed it things would be hunky dory.  
Problem: We’d kill each other over who gets to write the code >

Call me naive but I think the country is nearing a point where extremism on both sides kind of falls apart leaving room for moderate ideologies to flourish.  I'm not even talking less extreme versions of R and D, but rather people that might have slightly contrarian views of specific issues without being banished from conversations.  The classic "socially liberal economically conservative" type moderate view that used to have a place, but currently just gets drowned out.
The problem is, this change won't happen gradually.  It will be sudden and in response to existing political structures collapsing under the weight of ignorance that's required to keep them standing.  We're starting to see signs at the edges, like liberals who are kind of tired of the constant "woke" messaging or conservatives who are realizing social safety nets aren't actually bad, but it's probably going to take another 3 or 4 presidential and congressional cycles before it happens.
Another thing that might apply pressure on this is that as conservatives make heavy inroads in regards to power balance shifting away from Federal and towards state levels, the negative repercussions will further contribute to quality of life divisions between red and blue states until conservative voters are forced to change simply for the sake of attracting new employers. >

Populism- this sh*t is gonna get a lot worse before we as a general public elect a qualified individual with an actual plan. >

I think the next big political ideology will be related to technology. We have two very disruptive technologies on the horizon. One of the them is AI. The other is genetics.
Once AI reaches a certain point, it will alter everything about society. The big tipping point will be when AI is able to do most general intelligence tasks cheaper than most people, even if they reduce themselves to subsistence living. This will completely upend our current system of distributing resources that relies mostly on compensation for work. Those who are in power, which at this point will be the ones who own the automated factories, will have a lot of influence on how we proceed. One option would be a generous universal basic income, which means that we would all get to live great relaxed lives. This is what I think is ideal, but it's not guaranteed. Another would be pacification. People would still be paid subsistence wages to do work, even though the robots/AI could do it better, but the point would be to just keep people from attempting to overthrow the system. I think this is a pretty likely outcome, and in some ways the world is already one foot in this door. A third option would be isolation. The owners could find a way to retreat to their own enclaves and erect barriers to keep out those who do not own automated factories. If we're far enough along this could be enforced with automated police and military. You would essentially have "primitive humans" living on the outskirts. The last option is a purge, where those who own the automated factories decide to eliminate the others so that they don't have to pay them for nothing and they don't have to worry about them rebelling. I actually have more faith in humanity than this, so I personally don't think this one is very likely. Sure, people can be callous, but it's uncommon for them to be completely heartless. We have an innate conscience that goes against things like this, even some of the most powerful people.
The other big change coming is genetics. Genetics is likely going to blow away billions of years of evolution. I don't think we can stop people from experimenting. Those with enough means will find a way if they really want to. This means we can expect a lot of new mutations to enter the gene pool in the future. Will we all end up with strangely huge tits and big eyes? Time will tell. From my limited understanding this technology is fairly cheap compared to other things. This could be a serious threat for bioterrorism. Oh, I almost forgot about cloning. Expect to see some really rich guy with a huge ego replicate himself a bunch of times. Way in the future you might see the same douche bag all over the place.
Way way way further down the line, if we survive that long, we may get good enough that we can construct technology very much mirroring the complexity of life. At the end of the day all life is highly complex machines that are really good at a balance between replicating and persisting. We may be able to eventually create similarly complex molecular machinery. Maybe we'll be able to plant a seed and have it grow into a house. We'll likely be able to create all kinds of crazy materials and shapes. Right now we typically piggyback on existing life, like bacteria, to manufacture things biologically. Imagine if we could build it all from scratch? The sky is the limit here. Our biological technology doesn't have to be constrained by self reproduction and self maintenance like current biological things either. We could provide what's needed for sustenance and in most cases it's probably ideal if it doesn't self replicate. >

Lets do one similar to the 60s and the Space Program. A sort of nationalist-futurism focused this time on the new ideas, like the merging of man and machine, the slowing of age or increase of life expectancy, planet sustainability, and most importantly AI.
I say nationalist, because I believe the need for teams, ins and out groups, and competition is a biological limitation of ours. The best we can do is acknowledge, and focus that energy into what could be progressive International competition >

I like your script for the future.  I'm on board with that. The USA has incredible potential and it is in our cultural DNA to look for and realize that potential for everyone's benefit, rich, poor, Americans, non-americans alike. Hopefully there will be a youth- driven political swerve in our future such that America starts directing its technological and financial resources into developing human potential and better built environments. Right now would be an ideal time for that next generation to grab the wheel and point  us to a better destination. I don't see the interest of the oligarchs changing much and they will likely use the same methods or new ones to generate artificial conflict between citizens of the world to distract us from their wealth extraction. The citizenry, especially the youth, really need to converge on some strong policy objectives and some high voter turnout.  The objectives are pretty well cut out for us and if this generation does what it is capable of I think a healthy sense of national pride would be the natural result. >

A serious candidate will propose a guaranteed minimum income and it will excite the electorate. >

The new movement will presumably be spearheaded by what the UK calls 'JAM'S- Just About Managing. The left-behinds by tech and losers to immigration and sending jobs abroad/remote working. Leftist programs for what is currently recognised as disadvantaged groups actively deteriorate the JAM lifestyle, without recognising this effect. Or if they do, accusations of racism/sexism/misogyny will be directed at them (JAMs).
This group are not served well by right-wing policies, either, since attitudes towards union membership are not shared. Trump and Brexit has proved the strength of this group, when roused as, of course, they were until recently non- or rare voters. >

In a US context, I think we're on the cusp of seeing a big surge in libertarianism.
I use "libertarian" in the American context because it means something very different in the US political climate than it does...basically anywhere else.
To be more specific, I think we're going to see a big jump in interest in the type of libertarianism espoused by people like Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. It's an ideological bent that has space for more conservative political stances as well as more liberal ones and it avoid a lot of the same hang up issues that the predominant value systems have.
It has the "middle way" appeal that liberals and conservatives lack. 
We'll probably need a person to kickstart that, someone dynamic and charismatic. But once it gets rolling I think we'll see a lot more people gravitate towards the idea. >

Libertarianism hit its peak going into the 2008 election, with Ron Paul as the darling of the internet. I admit I saw the appeal back then. But I think people are better educated today and can see through its flaws now. Defending freedom for all people requires stepping in when conservatives try to restrict them, a concept libertarians ignore. >

It had appeal to me when I was younger too.
It offers simple solutions to basically any question. Minimum thinking is required.
However, if you look beyond the immediate gut reaction and effect of basically anything flowing from that ideology, you realize it either ignores and outright denies the existence of any other knock-on effects or consequences. Those effects are routinely larger or more destructive than the original problem.
Libertarianism is the most short-horizoned philosophy that exists in any significant amount in the US. >

It's similar to MAGA conservatism which is just bumper sticker politics. Immigration? Build a wall. Crime? Be Strong! Healthcare? Repeal and Replace. Climate change? Hoax.