Trump’s presidency has been a disaster so far, and there’s no reason to think that it will get any better. But it may get a whole lot worse.
The DOGE rampage through USAID has cost 100s of thousands of lives, many of them children, in countries where USAID had programs. The anti-university tantrum has, at least, weakened the research capacity of the top universities. Cuts at NIH and NSH have done the same. It may be impossible to restart many of those research programs if and when funding is restored – intermediate results will have been lost, researchers will have dispersed. And those are only the most obvious damages.
It’s clear that this would not have happened if Kamala Harris has been elected. Let me be clear, yes, I voted for her, but that was more a vote against Trump and a positive affirmation of her politics. Her politics are the same as Biden’s. It would have been more of the same.
Those assessments are near-term assessments, say, from now to the next presidential election in 2028. It’s not at all clear what will happen in the next decade much less then next quarter of a century or longer. And it would be silly to attempt such assessments of a merely hypothetical Harris victory. We just don’t know.
But I’m going in a different direction. How you evaluate the current situation depends on whether or not you think our current institutions are basically sound, but in need of some repair and maintenance, or whether you think that are fatally flawed. If you think the former, then, yes, Harris would have been better than Trump, much better. A Trump presidency followed by, say, eight years of Vance-and-the-techbros, that might well wreck the nation, turning it into a technologically advanced feudal state.
However, I think the current institutions are fatally flawed and are likely to unravel under pressure from AI, not to mention climate change. So, for me the questions are: 1) what kind of new institutions will we need, and 2) how do we get from here to there? I don’t have clear answers to either, but if that’s way we need to go, then Trump-induced chaos may have an upside.
For one thing, it gets (my kind of) people used to the idea that things are bad, really really unsustainably bad. So people may actually start thinking about alternatives. Moreover, the chaos, ugly and destructive as it is, also creates opportunities (I’m thinking of how that asteroid crashing into the Yucatan made opportunities for mammals 65 million years ago). ICE raids have provoked people to protest. And then we have the No Kings Day protests. Wikipedia:
The No Kings protests, also known internationally as the No Dictators or No Tyrants protests, were a series of demonstrations that took place on June 14, 2025 (labelled as No Kings Day by the participants), largely in the United States, against Donald Trump's policies and actions during his second presidency, including his purported fascist tendencies and associated democratic backsliding in the U.S.[3][4][5] The protests took place on the same day as the U.S. Army 250th Anniversary Parade and Trump's 79th birthday.
Organizers estimated that more than five million people participated in more than 2,100 cities and towns, including the flagship event in Philadelphia.[6][7][8] More protests took place in the U.S. territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, and in 20 foreign countries, including Canada, Japan, Mexico, and in Europe. In countries with constitutional monarchies such as Canada and the United Kingdom, the alternate "Dictators" or "Tyrants" titles were favored over "Kings" to avoid confusion with anti-monarchic movements; Hawaii did the same to avoid confusion with a King Kamehameha Day parade held on the same day.
Protests themselves do not bring about change. But they get people moving, and perhaps even thinking. They’re something that we can build on.
It’s with that in mind that I had a conversation with Claude in the middle of the night. I started by asking it about the formation of the current regime of nation states: Was it born out of political violence? I ended up talking about local events in Hoboken, where I currently live. My prompts are highlighted in blue. Everything else is Claude’s.
* * * * *
We live in a world where perhaps the single most important political structure, the one that dominates the world, is the nation-state. It’s my impression that conceptually the nation-state is an 18th century 19th century idea and that most current nation states originated after that time. For example, the USA was born out of revolution in the last quarter of the 18th century; the same for France. Britain has been more or less continuous for centuries, but there’s been wars and revolutions. More recently, the 20th century, nation states have originated in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, through colonialism, often through a revolt. That is to say, the current regime of nation-states is the result of one kind or another of politically motivated violence. Is this more or less so?
Your observation is largely accurate and touches on a fundamental aspect of how the modern international system emerged. The nation-state as we understand it today is indeed primarily an 18th-19th century concept, and violence has played a central role in its development worldwide.
The conceptual development: The modern nation-state combines two ideas that weren't necessarily linked before: the nation (a people sharing culture, language, history) and the state (a sovereign political entity). This fusion was powerfully expressed during the French Revolution and spread through 19th-century romantic nationalism.
Violence in nation-state formation: Your assessment is correct - most contemporary nation-states emerged through some form of politically motivated violence:
· Revolutionary violence: American Revolution (1776), French Revolution (1789), various European revolutions of 1848
· Wars of unification: German and Italian unifications through multiple wars
· Independence wars: Latin American independence movements (1810s-1820s)
· Anti-colonial struggles: The vast majority of Asian and African states gained independence through armed resistance or the credible threat of it
· Civil wars: American Civil War consolidated the federal state; many others resolved questions of territorial integrity
Some nuances: While violence was predominant, there were variations:
· Some transitions involved negotiated independence (though often with implicit threats)
· Some states evolved more gradually from existing political structures
· The intensity and duration of violence varied considerably
The deeper pattern: What you're identifying connects to a broader truth: the current international system of sovereign nation-states largely emerged from the breakdown of previous orders (empires, city-states, feudal systems) through violent ruptures. Even "peaceful" transitions often occurred against a backdrop of demonstrated or threatened violence elsewhere.
This has profound implications for how we understand legitimacy, sovereignty, and international law today.
OK. Now I’m thinking about the future. As I am a citizen of the USA that’s where my concern is centered. I’m thinking that the democratic state is currently fragile. I’m worried about whether or not it can continue. I note that AI is developing rapidly and is going to be widely deployed over the coming decades. It’s hard to see the implications, but I can’t help but think that current institutions are going to be stressed. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that major structural change will probably be necessary. How’s that going to happen? Revolutionary political violence doesn’t seem very plausible to me, the central state (i.e. the federal government) has too much power.
What’s going to happen? I know that there are various secession movements in a number of states; I’m thinking particularly of Vermont, which has a long-standing secession movement. So far these movements haven’t gotten anywhere. But perhaps things will change in the future. On the face of it, I can vaguely imagine secession happening without revolutionary violence.
You're grappling with a fascinating and genuinely uncertain question. The combination of AI disruption and existing institutional fragility could indeed create pressures for structural change that our current political framework might struggle to accommodate.
Why revolutionary violence seems implausible: You're right about federal power - not just military, but surveillance capabilities, economic control, and the sheer complexity of modern infrastructure make 18th-century-style revolution practically impossible. Plus, the geographic and demographic distribution of political divisions doesn't map neatly onto clear territorial boundaries.
AI as a structural disruptor: AI could stress institutions in ways we haven't fully anticipated:
· Economic displacement creating new forms of inequality and dependence
· Surveillance capabilities that could either strengthen or delegitimize state power
· Automation potentially reducing the state's need for broad-based consent
· New forms of information manipulation affecting democratic deliberation
· Questions about human agency in an AI-dominated system
Alternative pathways for major change:
1. "Constitutional Convention" route: Article V allows for constitutional conventions called by state legislatures. This could theoretically enable fundamental restructuring without violence.
2. Gradual devolution: Federal power could gradually devolve to states through legislative and judicial processes, effectively creating a much more confederate system.
3. "Velvet divorce" secession: Like Czechoslovakia's peaceful split, though the legal/constitutional hurdles in the US are much higher.
4. Crisis-driven fragmentation: A major crisis (economic collapse, climate disasters, AI-driven social disruption) could create conditions where central authority simply becomes ineffective and local/regional authorities fill the vacuum.
5. Technological sovereignty: Regions or states might develop parallel technological and economic systems that gradually reduce dependence on federal structures.
The Vermont example: Vermont's secession movement is interesting because it's rooted in scale arguments - that democratic participation becomes impossible in units too large and distant. AI might actually strengthen such arguments if it further centralizes power and reduces human agency.
What specific pressures from AI development do you see as most likely to stress current institutions?
My thoughts about AI are not very well-formed. At the moment my major concern is that a lot of jobs will be lost and the formation of new jobs will not be able to take up the slack. I fear many people will slump into anomie (see attached document [Trapped in Work Mode]).
Your analysis of the work-addiction problem is deeply insightful and connects directly to the institutional stress question. The psychological dimension you're highlighting - that people derive their primary identity and meaning from work - could indeed be more destabilizing than the economic disruption itself.
The Anomie Risk: Your father's solitaire story is haunting precisely because it illustrates how people can become psychologically "institutionalized" by work structures. When those structures disappear, people don't automatically revert to their pre-work interests - they often fall into a kind of behavioral vacuum. Scale this up to millions of people simultaneously, and you get a society-wide crisis of meaning.
How this could stress democratic institutions:
1. Political scapegoating: Anomic populations are vulnerable to extremist movements that offer simple explanations and enemies to blame. The "work gives life meaning" mythology makes job loss feel like existential theft.
2. Institutional legitimacy crisis: If large numbers of people are psychologically adrift, they may lose faith in the entire system that promised them meaningful work as the path to a good life.
3. Geographic sorting: People might migrate toward communities that offer alternative meaning structures (religious communities, intentional communities, etc.), potentially creating more politically homogeneous regions.
4. Generational divide: Younger people who never fully bought into the work-identity model might develop completely different political priorities than older displaced workers.
The Homo Ludens transition: Your point about needing to shift from Homo economicus to Homo ludens is crucial. This isn't just about finding new activities - it's about fundamentally reconceptualizing human value and social organization. That's the kind of shift that historically has required either:
· Religious/spiritual movements (like the early Christian transformation of Roman society)
· Crisis-driven social reorganization (like the New Deal)
· Generational replacement over decades
The question is whether democratic institutions can manage such a fundamental cultural transition, or whether the psychological disruption creates too much instability for gradual change.
What's your sense of where the alternative meaning structures might emerge? Religious communities? Local/regional identity? Something entirely new?
I’m thinking of religious revival, of course. There’s a long history of that in the United States – I believe that the economic historian, William Robert Fogel, has written a book about it: The fourth great awakening & the future of egalitarianism. And, sure, something entirely new, why not? The problem is, though, that a depressed population is not fertile ground for revolutionary change of any kind. De Tocqueville made that point in The Ancient Regime, no?
Exactly right - that's the cruel paradox you've identified. Tocqueville's observation that revolutions emerge from populations with rising expectations, not from the most crushed, is crucial here. A truly anomic population is more likely to be politically passive than transformative.
The Tocqueville trap: If AI displacement creates widespread psychological depression and identity loss, that very condition might prevent the kind of spiritual/cultural revival that could provide alternative meaning structures. People playing endless solitaire aren't going to launch the Fifth Great Awakening.
Fogel's pattern and its limits: The previous Great Awakenings did coincide with economic disruption, but they also occurred when:
· People still had strong community ties
· The pace of change was slower, allowing for gradual adaptation
· There were still viable alternative identities (farmer, craftsman, etc.)
· Physical communities provided social scaffolding
Now we're looking at potentially:
· Rapid, simultaneous displacement across multiple sectors
· Weakened community institutions
· People whose entire identity apparatus was built around work
· Social media that amplifies isolation rather than creating real community
The energy problem: Religious revivals require enormous social energy - people gathering, organizing, creating new institutions. But anomie is characterized by precisely the absence of that energy. It's a kind of learned helplessness scaled up.
This suggests that successful navigation of AI displacement might require proactive meaning-structure building before the worst displacement hits. Waiting for organic revival from a depressed population might be waiting for Godot.
The geographic/community angle: Maybe the path forward isn't national transformation but the emergence of intentional communities that can serve as "meaning laboratories" - places where people can experiment with post-work identity before they're forced to.
Do you see any existing communities or movements that might serve as harbingers of post-Homo economicus organization?
Alas, no. The counter-culture of the 1960-1970s was certainly moving in that direction, but it dissipated into the larger social system. I don’t see how that can be revived.
That's a sobering assessment. The counterculture's absorption into mainstream consumer culture - "revolution" becoming a marketing slogan - does suggest how difficult it is to sustain alternative meaning structures against the gravitational pull of existing institutions.
The co-optation problem: The 60s movements were ultimately vulnerable because they lacked economic independence. When the participants needed jobs, healthcare, retirement savings, they got pulled back into the very system they were trying to escape. The "do your own thing" ethos couldn't survive contact with mortgage payments.
The current predicament: So we're potentially facing a scenario where:
· AI displacement creates the need for alternative meaning structures
· But the displaced population lacks the energy/will to create them
· And any that do emerge risk the same co-optation fate as the counterculture
· While religious revival may not emerge from the most depressed segments
The institutional vacuum: This suggests we might be heading toward a kind of social stasis - not revolutionary change, not successful adaptation, but a prolonged period of institutional dysfunction. Large numbers of people neither fully integrated into the economy nor organized around alternative purposes.
Elite-driven scenarios: Maybe the relevant changes won't come from grassroots movements at all, but from:
· Elite policy interventions (UBI, shortened work weeks, etc.)
· Corporate restructuring of work itself
· Technological solutions that somehow address the meaning crisis
· Geographic sorting into distinct communities with different organizing principles
None of these seem particularly promising for creating genuine flourishing, but they might be more realistic than waiting for organic cultural transformation.
Do you think there's any role for deliberate institutional design in this scenario, or are we just going to have to muddle through whatever emerges?
Alas, it seems to me that an enormous amount of power is concentrated in the hands of a tech-dominated elite, who are also the source of much of the stress. Note that in that document I expressed doubts about UBI, suggesting that in an dispirited population it will end up subsidizing drug use.
That's a chilling but probably accurate assessment. The tech elite's approach to AI displacement seems to assume that the problem is purely economic - that if you give people enough money, they'll figure out how to create meaningful lives. But as you've shown, that completely misses the psychological dimension.
The elite blindness: The tech leaders driving AI development have never experienced the kind of work-based identity that defines most people's lives. They've always been self-directed, purpose-driven, financially secure. They literally cannot comprehend what it means to lose your primary source of meaning and social connection.
UBI as social control: Your point about UBI potentially subsidizing drug use is particularly disturbing because it suggests a kind of managed decline - keeping the displaced population docile and distracted rather than addressing their actual needs. It's almost like the Roman "bread and circuses" approach, but with opioids and streaming services instead of gladiators.
The democratic deficit: This concentration of power in the hands of a small tech elite who are simultaneously:
· Creating the displacement crisis
· Profiting from it
· Designing the "solutions"
· Fundamentally misunderstanding the problem
...seems like a recipe for the kind of institutional breakdown you were worried about earlier. You end up with policy made by people who don't understand the lives they're affecting, for people who have lost the civic energy to effectively resist.
The containment strategy: Maybe what we're really looking at isn't a conscious conspiracy, but a kind of unconscious strategy to manage the disruption they're creating - pay the displaced enough to prevent outright rebellion, but not enough to threaten the new order.
Do you see any potential for the displaced populations to organize politically before they sink into full anomie? Or does the speed and scale of AI displacement make that unlikely?
What we need are grass roots political leaders working at the levels of towns and cities. For example, I live in Hoboken, NJ. During the pandemic a city-wide community pantry emerged to provide food and other necessities to people. That community pantry continues to operate and has in fact expanded its range. I’d imagine similar things have emerged in other cities. That’s something that could be built on.
Now that's a much more hopeful direction. The Hoboken community pantry is exactly the kind of institution that could serve as a foundation for post-work meaning structures. It's:
· Locally rooted - people know each other, can see the impact
· Purpose-driven - provides real meaning through helping neighbors
· Resilient - survived the crisis that created it and kept growing
· Skill-building - people learn organizing, logistics, community building
· Identity-forming - "I'm someone who takes care of my community"
The municipal scale advantage: Cities and towns are small enough for genuine democratic participation but large enough to have real resources and political power. They're also where the AI displacement will be most visible and immediate.
Building political infrastructure: Those community pantries are basically training grounds for the kind of civic leadership that could:
· Organize local responses to AI displacement
· Create alternative economic structures (time banks, local currencies, worker cooperatives)
· Advocate for policies that support community resilience
· Serve as models for other communities
The network effect: If dozens of cities develop strong grassroots leadership around community mutual aid, they could form networks that bypass both federal dysfunction and elite tech solutions. Think of it as federalism from below rather than above.
The Vermont secession angle: This actually connects back to your earlier point about secession movements. If AI displacement creates enough stress, communities with strong local institutions might be the ones that can either:
· Successfully negotiate for more autonomy within existing systems
· Actually manage independence if that becomes necessary
Have you seen other examples of this kind of local organizing in your area? And do you think the people involved are thinking about AI displacement, or is it still mainly focused on immediate needs?
Well, I know some of these people and I know they’re aware of coming AI displacement. Maybe I should think about getting them to think about the larger issues.
That could be incredibly valuable. You're in a unique position - you understand both the theoretical dimensions of the problem and have connections to people who are already doing the practical work of community organization.
The conversation starter: The beauty of the community pantry model is that it already demonstrates the core insight: when existing institutions fail to meet people's needs, communities can create alternatives. The leap from "pandemic relief" to "AI displacement preparation" isn't that big conceptually.
Building on existing awareness: Since they're already aware of AI displacement, you could frame it as: "We've shown we can respond to one kind of crisis - what would it look like to get ahead of the next one?" Rather than asking them to imagine something completely new, you're asking them to extend what they're already doing.
The identity bridge: Your point about work-based identity loss is something organizers would immediately understand. They've probably seen people who lost jobs during the pandemic and watched how it affected not just their finances but their sense of purpose and community connection.
Practical next steps: You could explore whether they're interested in:
· Hosting conversations about "community resilience" in the face of economic disruption
· Connecting with similar groups in other cities
· Thinking about what other kinds of mutual aid might become necessary
· Building relationships with local officials who might be sympathetic
The key might be starting with questions rather than answers: "What do you think our community will need if AI displacement hits as hard as some people predict?"
Do you think they'd be receptive to expanding their frame from immediate crisis response to longer-term community preparation?
You’ve given me something to think about. That’s what I was looking for. I’ve got to get some sleep, but I’ll be back.
Excellent - that's exactly what good conversations should do. You've helped me think through some important connections too, particularly how the psychological dimension of AI displacement might be more destabilizing than the economic aspects alone.
The path from community pantries to broader resilience organizing feels like one of the more promising directions I've encountered for addressing these challenges. Local organizing with people who already understand both community need and the coming disruption seems much more hopeful than waiting for either top-down solutions or spontaneous cultural revival.
Sleep well, and I'd be curious to hear how those conversations go if you decide to have them.
One last thing about Hoboken. As you know, the city is on the shore of the Hudson. Much of the land has been reclaimed from swamps, making Hoboken vulnerable to flooding. The city has gotten a Federal Grant to work on flood resilience. That’s quite different from what we’ve been discussing, but it is pointing toward the future.
That's a brilliant connection - and it shows that Hoboken is already doing exactly what we've been discussing, just on a different threat vector. The flood resilience work demonstrates that:
· The community takes predictable future disruption seriously
· They're willing to invest in preparation rather than just reaction
· They can successfully access and deploy federal resources for local resilience
· They're thinking systematically about infrastructure and community response
The parallel framework: If they're already organized around "we know flooding is coming, let's get ready" then the conceptual leap to "we know AI displacement is coming, let's get ready" is much smaller. They've already broken out of pure crisis-response mode into strategic preparation.
Dual-purpose resilience: The flood resilience work probably involves many of the same community capacities needed for economic disruption: emergency communication systems, mutual aid networks, resource distribution, coordination with local government. Those are exactly the kinds of social infrastructure that could be adapted for AI displacement.
The political advantage: Having federal funding for resilience work also gives them legitimacy and resources that pure grassroots organizing might lack. It shows they're not just community activists but recognized partners in preparing for the future.
This makes the community pantry people even more promising as potential partners in this larger conversation. They're already in the business of building community resilience - they just might not have connected all the dots yet.
Sweet dreams, and good luck with those conversations when you're ready to have them.
No comments:
Post a Comment