>

This is a fact. It's sad that you need to be worried about getting flamed.
However, I think there is now an argument to be made that the U.S is beginning to move leftwards economically again with Biden. Maybe since Obama —who passed Obamacare, though it saw limited success. Obama also responded to the financial crisis by bailing out big corporations— or Trump, who was very protectionist, in direct opposition to the neoliberal "free trade" principles which had ruled since the 80s. On the other hand he passed the very status quo tax cuts and Jobs act.
Biden is attempting policy reforms —Student loan forgiveness, even the fact that the railroad debacle had a possibility of not swinging in the corporations favor should illustrate this— that would've never been attempted just ten years ago, even with Obama. 
However others may yet argue that these reforms aren't enough and/or won't succeed. Do you think this leftwards economic shift is taking place?
Overton windows are too simplistic of a model to be useful in the real world. >

I agree with this. In some ways, I think we have become bi-modal as a society and maybe having two windows is a more accurate representation. But I agree even those fail to capture the fully dynamics in play in current society and the forces that are contributing to it. >


In favor of reigning in large corporations such as Disney

DeSantis isn't in favor of reigning in large corporations. He is in favor of reigning in large corporations that he disagrees with the politics of. If you had a large media conglomerate that was every bit as bad as Disney but was more friendly to conservative culture war issues then DeSantis wouldn't say a word against it. >

Yes. It is moving both farther left and farther right. The gulf is widening >

Dems Inching left, but the right is in full sprint off the authoritarian cliff >

Child sex surgeries and drag queen story hour weren’t around 10 years ago. But it’s the right that’s extreme. >

Yes. Assaulting the capital to overthrow an election is extreme.
And drag queens have been around for a long time. You just realizing they existed doesn't mean it's new >

Jan 6 was just a rowdy protest... Youre making it sound like it was one of the worst days in all of US history... Dude calm down... 
Especially when you compare them to the BLM 500 riots that same year that you pretend never happened. 
We are talking about promoting drag queens for public schools. They are pushing a queer/transgender agenda on kids. But yea you can pretend that is not happening either. >

Again with the whataboutism when trying to downplay an insurrection.
Blm activists didnt try to overthrow the govt. for a sore loser who threw a hissy fit because he couldn't get re-elected. >

Sorry but your part had 500 riots all over the country and caused billions in damages and dozens of people were murdered. 
And Jan 6 was just a rowdy protest. But youre over here pretending it was worst then 9/11... Like seriously, do you even believe your own BS?
BLM riots burned down police stations, court houses, small businesses and took over blocks. Did you forget Chaz? (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) Or are you also pretending that never happened? >

You don't seem to understand the difference between people who were peacefully protesting police violence against the people until those police unironically assaulted those protestors, some of whom then decided to fight back... And your treasonous brainwashed morons who decided to storm the capital, in hours of killing members of Congress and the VP - which was only one piece of a larger scheme to get Republicans in Congress to reject the results and accept fake electors to seize power. >

Ah yes, the firey but mostly peaceful riots. >

Yes. When 98% of the protests we're not assaulted by police, they were peaceful. When police started attacking peaceful citizens. Some fought back. 
You blame the aggressors not those who reacted for the violence. This isn't a hard concept >

Both parties/voters are trending more toward their respective direction. 
Democrats (as a whole) are starting to act/be what they claim to be: a solid center left party with different factions having a tug of war in which direction they want to go. Biden made moves that appeased the progressive fractions of the party (student debt cancellation in particular) but his move in shutting down the rail strike proves that the neoliberal grip in the party is still strong (even though I understood why he did it, the American people probably wouldn’t care about standing with striking rail workers if the economy and their way of life absolutely collapsed around them, it sucks but that’s the basic truth). 
The GOP has gone HARD radical right though. The neoconservative portion of the party (which isn’t even Center right to begin with) is still strong in the establishment, but to the base, it’s a solid NO. >

I still don't understand how 4 sick days was the sticking point on that railroad strike.  They got 20% raises but 4 sick days is too expensive for the companies??  Give them the damn sick days! >

US railroad companies basically refuse to maintain enough track to actually function properly. For tax reasons they single track long stretches, so need to use truly massive trains to cross these while keeping things safe. They also employ a lot less people, having only a skeleton crew for whole train. If one too many workers calls in sick, you legally cannot move that train, and so 100's of cars are stuck. Because of the massive single track sections, even half an hour of delay could mean waiting for the next time the track direction changes and the track has capacity for an extra train, which is often multiple days.
Essentially, the train companies looked to make the system as lean as possible, but in doing so starved it so close to the brink of failure that one or two sick days a year can shut them down. >

There is an incredibly simple solution that would've appeased the workers though. My employer gives us 5 paid sick days per year, and if we don't use them then we get paid out at the end of the calendar year. So it's bonus money. A lot of my coworkers brag about never using their sick days and getting a fat cheque for it. It's a good way for the company to incentivize workers not to call in unless they were actually way too sick to work. >

The problem is that the rail companies just can't take the risk of extra sick days being taken, even with those incentives. One extra sick day a year could cause massive problems. It is, of course, entirely their own fault for being such miserly penny-pinching twats, but that is the corner they have backed themselves into. >

On net it's moving left.  Despite the right having coronaries about gender, acceptance of LGBTQ is more than I ever dreamed 20 years ago.  Just the fact that trans folks have the support they do is amazing.
Obamacare seems to be the new minimum standard for health care in this country.  GOP failed to kill it and seems gun-shy to try again. Again, better than I would have thought possible 20 years ago.
What would have been the left side of the stage represented by Dennis Kucinich (the laughing stock)  in the 2008 Democratic primaries is now mainstream Democratic under Biden.  That's something.
The GOP isn't moving right. They seem to have jetttisoned philosophical underpinnings of policy and policy ideas in general. They're just moving stupid.  I mean, can anyone tell me what Kari Lake's or Herschel Walker's policies were? >

I agree with you. But would this mean that MAGA and it's socially conservative tenets will dissipate from here? It doesn't sit right with me to think that this wave of social conservatism will just come and go like that. It seems that historically these trends tend to build over time and once they get moving they're hard to stop. >

Yeah, a lot of the comments here rely on this just passing by. There’s nothing saying that it absolutely will. After all, the GOP just won by like 3 points. Plus, most people are willfully ignorant of what goes on in politics at the local level, let alone the national level. 
I’d say my concern is that a lot of the social rights we currently have were secured underneath the Warren court. If this court plays a consistent role in overturning things, there’s nothing to stop us from gradually (or rapidly) sliding back. While it’s nice to think that people would fight back, most people wouldn’t. There are always more followers than leaders. >

Yes. However this occurrence, a "reversal" of social progress, would be historically unprecedented. This makes me hesitant to believe that MAGA's policies will have staying power. >

Would it?
After Rome came the dark ages.
The Weimar Republic was pretty socially liberal and that worked out well.
Hell, look at the Iranian Revolution.
The belief that progress is inevitable is what got progressives in this position in the first place. We need to stop acting like social progress can’t be reverted. >

Among academic circles, the belief that history inevitably trends towards a better and better future is known by the adjective "whig", as in "whiggish history".
In any case, I will point out -- the Weimar republic was indeed more liberal than its successor, but its successor was short-lived. In the long term, Germany is just as progressive as any other western nation.
I can't speak to the Iranian revolution, but it does bring forth an important point when speaking of these two examples: their backsliding was geographically confined. If the U.S moves rightward, it stands to reason that western Europe might as well, as we have seen similar nationalist currents appear there, and historically the two regions follow similar trajectories since at least the end of the second world war.
The U.S and Europe moving right on social issues would be a tectonic GLOBAL shift. They are by far the most left-wing blocs on earth. The next emerging power, China, is not known for its progressive streak, to say the least.
When the Weimar Republic and Iran regressed, they were rebelling against the example and trajectory set for them by the western nations.
In this scenario, those very national examples would be abandoning their own liberal tenets. This would change the trajectory of the ENTIRE world, not just the U.S and Europe, most certainly leaving a lasting change. Not like the rise of fascism in Germany.
The fall of the Roman empire is the most likely example of long-term "regression" in history. However it should be noted that the history profession has recently dedicated itself to extensive efforts in "rehabilitating" the image of the dark ages. I don't know enough about the topic to comment on it, but there may not have actually been any regression at all. It seems that the public has many misconceptions about how dark the dark ages really were. >

Yeah, the dark ages weren't really "dark."  But they were politically fractured.  The economies of Europe were smaller & more confined without the Roman Empire.  World leadership shifted to the middle east. >

"What do you think? Is the U.S moving rightwards? Leftwards? A mix of both along economic/social dimensions?"
A mix I would say. Culturally we have been moving steadily leftwards my entire life... at least as far a sexual tolerance and drug use is concerned. But we also are becoming more authoritarian in many other ways; whether that is a rightward shift or leftward one would depend on who you ask; "both sides" claim the other side is the authoritarian one.
Economically, corporations and banks are more powerful than they have ever been... and they seem to want to push us into some sort of modified Beijing model that would make them even more powerful, while stripping common people of the ability to accumulate wealth; "In the future you will own nothing and you will be happy". Although some might regard that as leftward shift, I don't see it as something to celebrate. >

With the 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, it’s gonna be pretty difficult for the country to inch any further left. >

In 10 years we when the younger generations have more voting power we will see a great calming influence in our government. The GOP will still be more conservative socially and fiscally but will examine proposals from the Dems with an objective lens and vote for new proposals which they determine will benefit their constituents and America as a whole. They will rid themselves of the loud far right zealots who refuse to even consider another party’s ideas. The Dems will become more flexible also and will compromise and tone down sweeping changes to the status quo and will objectively consider proposals from the GOP. I’m kidding of course, we’re fucked. >

People are stupid, afraid of change, and afraid of anyone who is “different,” so rightwing/fascist politics will always have a leather-gloved death grip on our nation. We’ll never go full progressive. >

"We'll never go full progressive" said the Tsar "Russia is far too orthodox and conservative" >

Did you think you were making a snarky point here, thinking that the Soviet union authoritarianism was somehow progressive? >

I believe too many people are too stupid for the internet. /u/Cardellini_updates somehow proves I’m being too optimistic. >

1) This is rude
2)

During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum. >

If I put myself in the shoes of the Republican leadership, my outlook suddenly seems pretty bleak.
The political coalition that has sustained this paleoconservative resurgence is going to be very tricky to maintain. Gun nuts, Christian dominionists, libertarian tea party types, outright racists, selfish fallen boomers, and whatever’s left of fiscal conservative wonks all should have very different philosophical underpinnings and goals.
The ties that bind these groups are fraying, as federal abortion protections have been eliminated and mass shootings continue to pile up corpses of American men, women, and children. Russia, a darling of the macho Christo-fascist types has proven itself a paper tiger.
Trump, particularly through the COVID era also proved that the universe is still a hostile place, and that truth/reason are better allies than enemies. 
Some say “Who cares? There is no truth. It’s all about who has the most convincing narratives now.” But I’ll bet on the “narrative” that proves itself second by second through millions of little emergent experiences a person has throughout their day. The truth is just too fearsome an enemy to be defeated by an unstructured, sloppy philosophy like MAGA. It won’t be able to withstand the weight of reality. It’s not even about morality — it’s about what works.
The only thing Republicans can still offer to this coalition is stupidity. It will remain to be seen whether humans as a whole are amoral and stupid, or something else. Based on the oceans of blood we’ve willingly sacrificed to install truth, law, and reason in the place where kings once sat — I feel confident that humans really are something else. >

Its always leaned left since WW2 Eisenhower is virtually a Liberal next to todays Republican wierdos. It just seems even because the right is more white and gets a megaphone from Fox and the Tech Nerds trying to run the world. >

Eisenhower was a liberal next to Republicans in 1952. He was part of the liberal wing of the party. >

Since the dawn of agriculture, which is what screwed up our world in my opinion, we've been slowly headed toward equality. What's odd, to me, is that equality is a "leftist" ideal, and conservatism clearly has been trying all along to stop society from getting there.
But if you look at history broadly, it's nothing but a slow march toward equality with conservatives trying to stop it and failing. Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term, equality has been the clear winner.
And I don't expect that to change in the future, either. DeSantis might win some sort of conservative battle, but conservatism has been losing the war from the beginning. Also, I don't think DeSantis has a shot in 2024. >

I wanted to signal out specifically what you said about DeSantis, and: I agree. I think he’s overrated as a presidential prospect. Why? Because as somebody who lives in the Midwest (aka, surrounded by states where republicans have to win to win the presidency) DeSantis whole thing is “fighting woke”. Nobody up here gives a flying fuck about “fighting woke”. They care about not having their jobs offshored to China, hence why trump performed so well here (even though he didn’t do a damn thing about it, he just made it a central part of his 2016 campaign, and it resonated well with the WWC) >


Nobody up here gives a flying fuck about “fighting woke”.

Er...I would like to agree with you, but if you look at recent elections in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and the midwest generally, there seem to be a hell of a lot of people interested in "fighting woke."
What else do you think conservatives care about? >

I live in Indiana (to be fair the rust belt part of NWI that’s a big area of steel/manufacturing) and we better represent how the area is. Each area is different  but I’d like to say “fighting woke” is NOT a big priority in MI, WI and PA(not Midwest). MI ran a governor candidate who was all about “fighting woke” and how’d she do? She lost by 11 points and her election moratorium said “fighting woke” wasn’t a winning issue >

It's absolutely moving further to the right. Democrats just sold out some of the last bastions of organized labor in the country with the railroad legislation. They aren't doing anything to address wealth inequality or climate change. There's no way we're hitting net zero carbon emissions by 2030 and even if we did, it probably wouldn't be enough. 
Socially, we're going backwards. When I was growing up in the 90s, pro-science,  environmental and socially conscious children's programming was everywhere (Captain Planet, Rugrats Hannukah special, Bill Nye the Science Guy) . As a parent  now, there's still plenty of solid children's content but there's also just as much Christian Nationalist children's books out there.  On top of that, we've got fascists showing up to school board meetings and library events all the time. That didn't happen when I was a kid. My kids at 4 and 2 already have to be educated about antisemitism and fascism because they see it regularly. 
My gay and trans friends are terrified to go outside now. 20 years ago folks at least pretended they didn't exist and left them alone. Now, they're being actively doxxed and attacked regularly. What the hell happened to live and let live? What happened to the progressive multicultural ideals of the 90s? >

You are citing a Rugrats tv special for the state of society in the 90s.  That's just pure nostalgia.  Newt Gingrich was the head of the House with a substantial Republican majority in the 90s and there was a ton of televangelists on the air.  
You don't know what kind of nuts were showing up at school board meetings when you were a child because you were a child.  There were plenty of nuts back then, fighting against teaching evolution and Senators demanding that people with AIDS get branded. >

Yep it's a lot of nostalgia. No doubt. But we also didn't have tons of school shootings and we had Too Won't Foo Thanks for Everything in 1995! 4 huge movie stars playing drag queens? That would have been boycotted today. >

I think if you start with the premise that every policy is either right or left it's a false premise.  Not only because that doesnt make sense for most mundane policies that affect our lives, like traffic laws for example, but because the supposed ideologies that represent left and right dont always make sense.


The left is more supportive of the War in Ukraine and Zelensky.  That's totally different then the "left" I knew as a child.


The right took a hard turn towards protectionism under Trump.  That was fucking weird and more aligned with Bernie then where I thought mainstream republicans were.


The right has taken a hard turn against vaccines and medical science.  I dont even know how to comprehend that one.  The right obviously has no problem telling people what to do with their bodies but somehow vaccines are now the devil.


The christian right supported a thrice married cheating scam artist who quotes fictional books in the bible.  Like what the fuck.


We could also talk about the meaningless talk of deficits and spending the party out of power constantly drives the home and then does nothing or makes worse in office.
It's become more about winning then any actual ideological lean.  The US isn't more or less right or left, it's just become more tribal in general. >


On the other, we're seeing a widespread backlash to neoliberal capitalism that has resulted in the Biden administration pursuing progressive economic goals.

When did the Democrats exactly stop pushing progressive economic goals? Obama's main accomplishments were certainly progressive

This might mean the next "phase" of U.S history will mirror the New Deal era after the Great Depression. FDR had to compromise with southern conservatives in order to pass his pro-labor economic reforms. This meant no significant headway was made into civil rights until the 60's, when the new deal coalition fell apart.

Ehh those Southern Democrats tended to be Conservative on economic as well as social issues. That's why they formed the Conservative Coalition with Republicans. FDR never really tried to push the overton window on race very much.
And the New Deal coalition fell apart on the Presidential level with Eisenhower and Nixon in the 50s.

Conversely, from the 1980s/1990s forward we've lived in a neoliberal economic framework where social liberalism along with deregulated free market Capitalism was the paradigm.

Not exactly sure if there was as much of a paradigm shift as your saying. Most of the New Deal (which survived the 1940s) and the Great Society survived the 1980/90s. Certain areas like finance and services were deregulated. Other areas like environmental policy or zoning were more regulated.

For some this may signal that the U.S will continue to move in a socially conservative direction.

Doubtful. Young people are socially liberal. People tend to have fixed world views as they get older.

What do you think? Is the U.S moving rightwards? Leftwards? A mix of both along economic/social dimensions?

Socially? I think the US is moving leftward
Economically? Neither. I think economic policy will evolve in both directions depending on the  particular issues that come up. That's generally how economic policy has worked. >

I don't know why you commented some of this

When did the Democrats exactly stop pushing progressive economic goals? Obama's main accomplishments were certainly progressive

His policies met extremely fierce resistance, and in the end many of his accomplishments were gutted/nearly gutted by conservatives. This demonstrates that the country was not at all on board with his policies at that time. Conversely, we now see even right wing figures such as Ron Desantis making calls to reign in Disney.

Ehh those Southern Democrats tended to be Conservative on economic as well as social issues. That's why they formed the Conservative Coalition with Republicans. FDR never really tried to push the overton window on race very much.

Uhmmm... okay? Not sure why this needs to be mentioned? The democrats' conservative economic views aren't anymore relevant than Bill and Hillary Clinton's plans for universal healthcare were when they took office in the early 90s. Those southern democrats didn't get to determine economic policy. They did however get new dealers to keep their hands off Jim crow, which was my point in saying that this compromise prevented significant headway into civil rights until the 60s, when LBJ— a southern democrat— broke this compromise by signing the Civil Rights Act (contributing to the messy party switch in the process). 
Also why tf do people keep bringing up the overton window? But yeah, FDR compromised with the southern democrats, which meant he couldn't touch Jim crow.

And the New Deal coalition fell apart on the Presidential level with Eisenhower and Nixon in the 50s.

-WTF??? This is straight up misinformation— JFK and LBJ were New Dealers well after them. LBJ was the PEAK of the New Deal with the great society initiative. This is the basis of the "liberal consensus" which characterised the post-war period.
Why would it even matter when the new deal "fell apart" presidentially? That's a meaningless technicality. If you mean that Nixon and Ike were both republicans then yeah I guess? By this logic, Reaganite economics ended when Bill Clinton took office, since he was democrat. New deal policies were a significant part of Eisenhower's accomplishments. The building of the interstate highway system exemplifies this. Eisenhower was instrumental in solidifying the new deals lasting "consensus" status—quite similarly to Bill Clinton in the 90's actually.

Not exactly sure if there was as much of a paradigm shift as your saying. Most of the New Deal (which survived the 1940s) and the Great Society survived the 1980/90s. Certain areas like finance and services were deregulated. Other areas like environmental policy or zoning were more regulated.

The Reagan revolution ABSOLUTELY brought about a paradigm shift in U.S politics. Remember that Finance and Services —which as you mentioned, did face significant deregulation— were by this point becoming the dominant sector of the U.S. economy, due to the painful process of de-industrialization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs overseas. This leads us to today where manufacturing jobs in the U.S are insignificant as a proportion of national GDP in comparison to the deregulated service sector. In addition, while Reagan did not deregulate the economy as much as DESIRED —Learning the hard way not to touch "the third rail of politics"— the ideological change led to the cessation of new regulatory measures. This meant that as technological advancements created new industries, especially during the digital revolution, private enterprise was left to its own devices, hence the rise of "big tech". Big tech dominates the U.S economy today and is the center of the debate around corporate regulation.

Doubtful. Young people are socially liberal. People tend to have fixed world views as they get older.

-Thats a fact. But with lifespans getting longer and longer.... 
I agree with you that the "likely" outcome for the U.S is a further shift to the left on social issues. However, another part of me finds it hard to believe that MAGA and its institutional victories will dissipate just like that. Historically, it seems that these new political movements/trends tend to build and build, and are hard to stop once they are set in motion. Do you personally think that nationwide Abortion rights will be reinstated as we move forward? >


His policies met extremely fierce resistance, and in the end many of his accomplishments were gutted/nearly gutted by conservatives.

They met fierce resistance at the time sure, but honestly history seems to be looking pretty favorably on Obama's legacy. Republicans have pretty much raised the white flag on Obamacare and Dodd-Frank except for some minor changes. Obama was the first President to push for gay rights and gay marriage just got codified.
Most of Obama's legacy (outside foreign policy) survived intact

Uhmmm... okay? Not sure why this needs to be mentioned?

I brought it up mainly because I feel like the narrativization you build in your post isn't particularly accurate

Those southern democrats didn't get to determine economic policy.

Yeah they did? They shut down the Third New Deal. And the Fair Deal. And the New Frontier. LBJ needed a super majority to implement the Great Society do to the economic conservatism of his Southern wing.

They did however get new dealers to keep their hands off Jim crow, which was my point in saying that this compromise prevented significant headway into civil rights until the 60s

My point was that the Northern New Dealers were never seriously considering a Civil Rights push until the late 1940s beyond perhaps anti-lynching laws.

-WTF??? This is straight up misinformation— JFK and LBJ were New Dealers well after them. LBJ was the PEAK of the New Deal with the great society initiative. This is the basis of the "liberal consensus" which characterised the post-war period.

My point is that from the 1950s onwards their was a significant gap between Democrat support in Congress (Democrats would almost continuously Congress for the next 40 yrs) while losing the Presidency more often than not. There was a clear inability within the party to unify their supporters at the Presidential level.

New deal policies were a significant part of Eisenhower's accomplishments. The building of the interstate highway system exemplifies this. Eisenhower was instrumental in solidifying the new deals lasting "consensus" status

Indeed, and that consensus mostly survived the Reagan era. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps.

The Reagan revolution ABSOLUTELY brought about a paradigm shift in U.S politics. Remember that Finance and Services —which as you mentioned, did face significant deregulation— were by this point becoming the dominant sector of the U.S. economy, due to the painful process of de-industrialization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs overseas. This leads us to today where manufacturing jobs in the U.S are insignificant as a proportion of national GDP in comparison to the deregulated service sector.

I don't think de-industrialization was really caused by financial deregulation. It was mostly just automation with a little bit of outsourcing. My overall point though is that its hard to really simplify the changes in the "neoliberal" economy to just deregulation, tax cuts, and social spending cuts. Overall taxes and social spending remained fairly stable. Certain parts of the economy faced more regulation other parts face less.
And regardless, Obama and Bush re-regulated finance.

In addition, while Reagan did not deregulate the economy as much as DESIRED —Learning the hard way not to touch "the third rail of politics"— the ideological change led to the cessation of new regulatory measures.

Again not sure if that's really true on net

This meant that as technological advancements created new industries, especially during the digital revolution, private enterprise was left to its own devices, hence the rise of "big tech". Big tech dominates the U.S economy today and is the center of the debate around corporate regulation.

There are tech regulations, and the reason we have large tech companies isn't due to a lack of regulation. I'm not sure if its really the center of debate around corporate regulation. I would agree that it takes up the largest space in our political discourse though.

However, another part of me finds it hard to believe that MAGA and its institutional victories will dissipate just like that.

Has MAGA really had any institutional victories? Like SCOTUS is conservative don't get me wrong but their like traditional Conservative. The Center of the court is Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and they're a lot closer to like Mitt Romney's politics than Trumps.
If anything the MAGA movement has contributed to more Republicans excised from most major institutions and institutional Republicans (David French types) leaving the party. 
Honestly, I think once Trump's power over the party breaks. Pretty much every ranking official (except for some of the Freedom Caucus) hates him. Once they know the fever has broke, they'll pounce. The MAGA populism will break within the GOP. I think some of their ideas will probably make it into the GOP mainstream although their most radical probably won't.

Historically, it seems that these new political movements/trends tend to build and build, and are hard to stop once they are set in motion.

I think that some of their concerns (cancel culture, identity politics) have already made it into the mainstream. George McGovern was crushed in 72. But many of his ideas were eventually adopted by more establishment figures. I expect something similar will happen with Trump.

Do you personally think that nationwide Abortion rights will be reinstated as we move forward?

Probably not immediately. Although I think GOP states will probably slowly liberalize their laws as they realize their unpopular. Eventually, a bipartisan bill will attract 60 votes like with Gay marriage. >


Although I think GOP states will probably slowly liberalize their laws as they realize their unpopular.

On what basis do you presume conservatives will turn away from their policies rather than turning away from democracy?
Look at Texas, Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota. Do they seem like they're having any realizations about their policies? Or are they just squeezing harder? >

They'll be unsuccessful at turning away from democracy if they were too seriously try.
I said they would change over time in the future. >

They've been seriously trying for decades.
Literacy tests. 
Poll taxes. 
Murdering people who were getting others registered to vote.
Armed "ballot integrity" squads, intimidating voters at the polls.
Arguing to the Supreme Court that the time for the Voting Rights Act has passed.
And putting those same damn armed "ballot security" squads out there intimidating voters as soon as the VRA was struck down.
Layered "voter ID" requirements to weed out minority voters - and lying that IDs weren't always required.
Arresting people for voting when they were told they were allowed to.
Claiming that any Democratic votes at all is prima facie evidence of fraud.
Proposing legislation to let states simply set aside elections and allocate their electoral votes to who they want.
They're all the same picture, all the same agenda. They've never stopped. >

The vast bulk of people have been moving steadily leftward during my lifetime while the institutions have been largely resisting that tendency or even moving to the right. 
So it's both, but it's not happening in an evenly distributed way. >

Neither the left wing and right wing haven't made any significant gains in proportion to the population, and the majority remains centrist or marginally left or right of center. >

If Ron DeSantis gets elected, I will have lost all faith in the US. He's Trump but worse because he's actually smart. I'd fear for the safety of some of our youth, especially those in the LGBTQ+ community. It's already bad now, it would be a lot worse with him as President. >

People on the right would say the same thing about Biden being the cause of their lack of faith and how bad he is as president.
I’d be happy to see DeSantis as president but only if he is strictly pro-Ukraine. Otherwise, pass. >

Seems like a shitty metric. Pro-Ukraine but fervently against anyone not a straight, white, conservative male....WCGW? >

Where did you get “fervently against anyone not a straight, white, conservative male” from my comment?
Would you prefer Trump…? I don’t think he’s exactly a better option if that’s what you’re concerned about. >

Desantis, not you. They're both a nightmare, but Desantis is smart and not encumbered by legal woes while Trump is a god damned idiot which might actually make Desantis a worse option. >

Since the mid-to-late-'60s/early-'70s, the U.S. has moved left on culture and right on economics, hence the tension.
As of late, however, damn near everyone -- right, left, center, and apolitical alike -- has apparently developed a more authoritarian streak. Not just tyranny in the public sphere, either, since this absolutism has also bled into the private sector. Worse yet, there's a dystopian self-sorting among friends, family, and community, which has led to increased alienation and isolation. Moreover, nobody's immune from it, while the onus is on us to fix shit. We're all at fault here. >

In the goals towards the social perfection of the equality of liberty and justice, for at this moment in time what is the correct direction? left for the equality of justice or right for the insurrection of hate and intolerance towards equality of liberty and justice based on a fraud proven to have no(evidence) truth to support and a proven lying grifter. >

Both. It's like left and right are a broken magnet. Both are trying to be as far away from each other as possible. >

It's like we shouldn't really be one country anymore. >

Unfortunately the only way for that to happen is civil war and I'll pass on that. >

Hah yeah for real. It's just a depressing state of affairs. >

This has been a center, VERY center left country for decades m. The only reason you don’t see that more regularly in representation at federal and state level is things like the electoral college (this is not an attack on that institution). It’s just the facts. We have more right lining states than left but the number of citizens in left winging states way out weighs the number in red.  Also, you have to consider the switching party standards. For example one of the most popular examples, the right loves to claim Lincoln as one of them. Fair enough he was and in the mid 1800s it was the southern democrats who were the racists wanting to hold on to slavery, can you really claim he would be part of that party today.  Maybe, maybe not… that’s just one of the most popular example.
I honestly think we’re in the middle of one of those reorganizations of the party platforms and we really won’t know for another few election cycles where exactly we sit as far as left v. Right.  I think this is far easier to see in countries where there are many more parties like in Europe. They have to form coalition governments (made up of multiple parties based on where they intersect) to successfully govern. Here it seems so much difficult to choose because our system basically says we have 2 choices if you want the chance of getting anything done. So I think a lot of voters are all or nothing. On both sides it becomes group think. If your in their party you MYST believe this! And let’s be honest and clear both sides do this! >

Its moving backwards try to bring back shit from the 50s and keep shit from the 30s >

I feel like an argument can be made that America as of recently is moving to the center >

So, you mean the right >

Fascinating argument, but no that's not what I am referring to >

Thanks for watching! Can you elaborate on what you mean? When I think of the center, I think of the ratchet effect and the movement of the center to the right.   
I can't think of an example of movement to the center meaning movement to the left. >

I am talking exclusively about people turning politics off. Regardless of party and possibly not voting >

Ohhhh yeah that's something different. In the US the vast majority doesn't vote anyway. Any two party system wouldn't actually represent most people. >

Left politics are apparently becoming more acceptable in the public. But that could just mean “centrists” working with conservatives more to defeat the left. >

If you want a SUPER overgeneralized awmser, it's pretty much been moving to the right since Nixon. Think about it. In the 50s and 60s the GOP supported New Deal policies. Now no party supports New Deal policies. Like I said, this is generalized so don't flame me in the comments pls.