It seemed that way in the 70s too, but in the end the choice was "neither", and the world sort of puttered along. More and more, I'm betting that that's basically what'll happen this time too.
Which is not to say that I'm not afraid of a dark fascist nightmare (I am!) or that I wouldn't like a transformative and new society (I would!). But I increasingly doubt that American society has the cohesion or the capacity to produce either of those.
In any case, I also recommend you read The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin. But -- spoiler! -- it's about a society that putters along, pulled by its radical dreams but always restrained by its complex, unwieldy reality.
But having said all this, please do not listen to me. The only thing that can tamp down unrest is people believing that unrest has only just begun long after it has started to retreat. If you all keep freaking out for the rest of this decade, things will be OK for the kids. 😉
Anyway, I wrote this all up in a post, in which I also address the question of whether climate change will force us to accept a radical future:
When I was a kid, we had domestic terrorists killing hundreds of people and bombing the Olympics. We had 2200 murders in NYC in one year. We had 30,000 nukes pointed at us, on hair-trigger alert.
1/Just for fun, let's go through the part of @RichardHanania's post where he talks about the likelihood of an insurgency in Ukraine, should Russia invade and seize the Eastern half of the country.
2/The overall theme of the post is standard conservative stuff -- liberals are obsessed with Russia and with LGBT, etc. etc. Not super interesting.
But then he asserts that Ukrainians wouldn't fight an insurgency, and that this means Russia will prevail in this confrontation.
3/This argument -- Russia cares about Ukraine more than the U.S. does -- also applies to the USSR and Poland in the 80s. And yet Poland left Russia's orbit and joined the West.
What Poland wanted was more important than what the U.S. OR the USSR wanted.
The reason all sides seem so unreasonable in a Time of Unrest is that everyone is afraid of Passion For Change being monopolized by the opposing side, so they all try to summon unreasoning passion for one thing or another.
This is why unrest is a macro variable that modulates all the micro variables in politics and culture; when the music plays, everyone has to get up and dance.
This does not mean there is no good side and no bad side in a Time of Unrest; instead it means that when we look back at the period from a time of reasoned calm, even the side we eventually recognize as "good" will seem fairly wacko.
The critics of NATO expansion are overplaying their hand. We DID leave Russia a sphere of influence: Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Current and recent events are just the verification of that new sphere-of-influence equilibrium.
You can argue that we shouldn't have included the Baltics -- that all Soviet successor states should have been left within Russia's sphere of influence (though this would have sucked for the Baltics obviously).
But Poland? Romania? No, those were always going to join the West.
Russia invading Ukraine and Georgia and sending troops to Belarus and Kazakhstan is just the inevitable confirmation of the resolution of the Cold War -- that Europe gets to expand to include the old Warsaw Pact, but (mostly) not the old Soviet Union.
@LittleKeegs0@JosephPolitano@ckrlft@TristamPratori1 The story since the 70s has been:
* Wages ⬆️ a little
* Hourly comp ⬆️ more
* Working hours ⬇️, so individual annual earnings only ⬆️ a little
* Govt benefits & investment income⬆️ so individual income ⬆️
* # of workers/household went up so household income ⬆️ a lot