In the 2020s, the United States is involved in the kind of great societal upheaval which happens about every 80-years. At those times we ask, “Who are we?” “Where are we headed?” and “How do we get there?” That is “Do we go to the right, the left or straight ahead?”

These transformational debates are linked to the cohort characteristics of generations, as well as evolving techno-economic realities. At such times, changes in “who we are” as well as advances in technology render the dominant social and political paradigm obsolete, meaning that society must find a way to replace it.

As highlighted in prior Trends issues, America’s highly effective Post-War Consensus which emerged from World War II is failing, and competing models are vying to replace it.

In past eras, such battles have sometimes led to bloodshed as in the American Revolution or the Civil War.

In other cases, they manifest themselves in a wrenching battle of ideas as seen in the New Deal Era. While that transition led to bloody confrontations in Europe and Asia, American violence was directed toward foreign adversaries, on foreign soil.

Given our 21st century immersion in an unprecedented flood of information, it’s not surprising that the current battle is being fought over data sets and media access. That means there is little if any way to keep facts hidden from the public and myriad ways to “spin” the message to suit one’s objectives.

Growing public skepticism, divided government and the evolving legal context highlighted in trend #2 this month is triggering an era of open and free-wheeling debate not seen since at least the 1960s. And that debate will pave the way for formulating a new American Consensus which will dominate the balance of the 21st century.

Unlike today, the conceptual battles of the 1930s and 1960s occurred during the Mass Production Techno-economic Revolution. High barriers to entry limited the number of media alternatives in print, radio and television. Meanwhile there were few substitutes.

The Internet changed all of that! While we still have legacy media in the form of broadcast television, radio, newspapers, magazines, newsletters and books, these make up a shrinking portion of today’s content consumption. A proliferation of talk radio, cable news alternatives and podcast channels offer access, anywhere & anytime, to every conceivable perspective via 4G, 5G and WIFI wireless connections.

Meanwhile, the dominant social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, offer an unprecedented array of peer-to-peer content. And when those platforms try to stifle access, new platforms like Gettr, FrankSpeech, Revolver and Rumble emerge to enhance the proliferation of ideas.

Furthermore, “think tanks” and specialized NGOs enabled by the Internet are digging for evidence that would have been unavailable in prior eras. Unconventional news agencies like Project Veritas go undercover to reveal hidden evidence that would never be brought to light by more conventional means.

Judicial Watch stands out as a particularly effective NGO specializing in Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) litigation; its efforts have provided especially valuable access to sequestered governmental records across a broad spectrum.

Importantly, “think tanks” on the right and left have become extraordinarily effective vehicles for interpreting data and formulating arguments. On the right, these range from legacy organizations like the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute to newer more focused entities like the Heartland Institute, the ACLJ, the Federalist Society and the Manhattan Institute.

On the left, the Rand Corporation, Brookings Institution, Center for American Progress, ACLU and Media Matters for America play similar roles.

This unprecedented democratization of data and media access has set the stage for a totally new era of political, social and economic debate which seems to be undercutting “the cult of the expert,” which has come to define the Post-War American Consensus.

One reason is that over-and-over-again, the so-called “expert class” has proven itself dead wrong about a wide range of life-and-death situations. And until recently, only a fraction of the population has recognized these failures.

But suddenly, the blinders are coming off as evidence is accumulating, restrictions are being lifted, and the governmental balance of power is shifting. The result is a new level of debate which will transform the playing field. And no one will be able to avoid the tsunami of evidence flooding their world. As the evidence emerges, the consequences will follow.

Given this trend, we offer the following forecasts for your consideration

At this point, Elon Musk’s prioritization of “free speech” on Twitter is the best example of this trend. However, assuming SCOTUS decides to overturn Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this transformation is only just beginning. The dominant platforms will transition to act like “common carriers.” 

At that point, platforms will be unable to pick and choose the content they feature, unless they want to open themselves up to the liability of being the “publisher.” 

This means that mass-market audiences on YouTube, Facebook, and other mega-platforms will have unconstrained access to all competing ideas. This will dramatically shift the competitive advantage in favor of those who best deliver well-supported facts and logic.

Think of it as Watergate-squared. For many years, the legacy news media has been accused of generating so-called “fake news” designed to manipulate rather than inform.

For the most part, the perpetrators have successfully claimed that the underlying evidence was ambiguous or that they were duped into believing it like everyone else.

However, it seems clear that mishandling of evidence on Hunter Biden’s laptop in the months leading up to the 2020 election represents deliberate fraud on the part of the Department of Justice, the FBI and the media, as well as an assortment of so-called “intelligence experts.”

Wide-ranging 2023 investigations by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and House Intelligence Committee will establish the authenticity of this evidence, while making the case for a coordinated conspiracy within and outside of government.

While the Senate is unlikely to remove the President, these revelations will undermine the credibility of the current administration, the media and the Federal bureaucracy much as Watergate weakened Nixon and Ford. More importantly, this will provide momentum and popular support for further investigation and litigation involving the administration’s priorities.

To date, no Congressional committee or Federal court has addressed these questions, objectively.

For instance, with the Capitol police now under the control of a Republican Speaker all video footage related to January 6 will be reexamined, along with other evidence ignored by the Democrat-based committee. By sometime in 2024, such investigations will lead to calls for a Congressional commission, much like the 1970s “Church Commission,” tasked with examining abuses of power by Federal law enforcement.

An important aspect of these investigations is likely a reexamination of 2020 election integrity; however, Congressional Republicans will only rehash this matter if they have the solid evidence needed to shift public perception and win litigation going into 2024. DOJ’s recent appointment of a special prosecutor related to former President Trump, simply plays into the hands of a Republican Congress.

Congressional investigators will focus on the mishandling of COVID19. Of all the looming investigations, these are the ones which most worry the administration because of their political implications.

These will address the roles of the CDC, NIH and FDA in the origin of and response to, COVID. It will also investigate and publicize the effectiveness of vaccines, masks, lockdowns, and other measures. To date, government agencies and much of the media have struggled to prevent an open discussion of these topics.

While it’s possible that government officials and private actors will be exonerated, the prima facie evidence says otherwise. - Other important targets include China’s culpability for spreading the disease, the damage to students from school’s shutdowns, and net damage done by the vaccine mandates.

Since we’re talking about decisions in areas ranging from health, safety, & regulation, to free speech, education, and foreign policy, virtually everyone and everything has been impacted.

Once the truth is out, voters and consumers will be free, for the first time, to assign credit and blame.

Government corruption and media complicity will intersect with consumer worries about inflation, shortages and geopolitical turmoil to create the environment needed for an objective assessment of energy and climate change policies.

Fortunately for critics of the Green New Deal, research has consistently shown that few people are willing to incur large economic costs today to resolve an uncertain climate problem, decades from now.

Therefore, these investigations will succeed in changing policy, if they focus on the costs the average voter and consumer can expect to incur. Obviously, little energy or environmental legislation will pass before the 2024 elections. However, states and private sector entities will benefit from these investigations as they pursue relief in the courts.

States along the U.S.-Mexico border are now being overrun by millions of illegal immigrants each year. This is helping address a labor shortage, but it’s also empowering criminal cartels, overwhelming local government resources and exacerbating drug trafficking.

In response, the governments of Texas and Arizona have turned unilaterally to using state resources and Federal courts to offset the policy changes made by the Biden administration.

The House has already prioritized a systematic investigation of border security for 2023. Importantly, these hearings will be held in border states, meaning that any perjury charges will be heard by Texas or Arizona juries, who are far less friendly to the Administration than those in Washington.

At a minimum, this event turned over nearly $80 billion worth of military equipment to would-be terrorists, left behind thousands of people who supported American efforts, and led to the deaths of U.S. citizens. From a financial, national security, humanitarian or diplomatic perspective, this action now appears poorly planned, poorly executed, and strategically incoherent.

Under Democrat control, Congress was reluctant to examine this decision, its execution and consequences. It is important to determine to what extent career personnel and political appointees within the intelligence community and the Departments of Defense and State, failed to assess and manage risks.

Assuming that a full investigation validates today’s publicly available sources, collateral damage to the “administrative state” will be enormous, because prevention of such crises implies more than replacing a few political appointees and elected officials. And,

For the investigators, it’s important to state the facts as clearly as possible. Whether we’re talking about Benghazi, Monica Lewinsky, Iran-Contra, or January 6, 2021, there’s a history of investigators “overpromising and underdelivering.”

Watergate mattered because the investigators convinced people that Nixon had lied to them about something which mattered . - Whether it’s

- covering up the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop,

- trying to frame Trump administration officials with manufactured evidence about Russian collusion,

- knowingly levying mask and vaccine mandates without solid scientific evidence,

- opening up the southern border to millions of illegal entrants and hiding the consequences,

- entrapping hundreds of people into entering the Capitol building unauthorized,

- malfeasance in execution of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, or

- knowingly disseminating false evidence related to climate change,

there is clearly enough smoke to trigger alarms. The challenge is to turn any or all of these into “obvious affronts to public decency” so that there is a widespread outcry demanding change and prosecution.