Big Changes Looming for America…

Looking into the 2026 mid-terms… by D.L. Knepp 10/27/26

I like to use Microsoft’s CoPilot AI to research the ramifications and perspective it offers by providing context to issues. This is the question that I asked AI to start this work-up:

What year was fighting Bob LaFollette elected to the senate? Do you agree that if the blue wave happens, it will have huge significance, much like when LaFollette won?

Here is Co-Pilot’s Response

“Fighting Bob” Robert M. La Follette was elected to the U.S. Senate from Wisconsin in 1905 by the Wisconsin legislature (before direct election of senators existed) and entered the Senate in January 1906, serving until his death in 1925.wikipedia+1

As for your comparison to a potential modern “blue wave,” I think there are some interesting parallels, but also important differences.

La Follette’s rise was significant because it represented:

A revolt against established party machines.
Anger at concentrated economic power, especially railroads and large corporations.
Demand for political reforms and more direct voter influence.
A coalition that cut across some traditional partisan lines.wikipedia+2

If a large Democratic (“blue wave”) victory occurred today, its historical significance would depend on why it happened:

If it were merely a normal reaction against an unpopular administration, historians might view it as a cyclical election.
If it produced a durable political realignment that lasted a decade or more, changed institutions, and altered the balance between elites and voters, then the comparison to La Follette’s movement would be much stronger.

One reason I hesitate to equate the two directly is that La Follette was fundamentally a progressive insurgent against both party establishments, not simply a partisan victor. Many of his supporters were Republicans who believed their own party had become too aligned with powerful interests.wikipedia+1

From our previous conversations, you’ve been interested in whether today’s populist movements can produce lasting democratic reforms. In that sense, I think the closer analogy is not “a blue wave” versus “a red wave,” but rather whether either side can create a reform movement that reshapes politics for 10-20 years the way the Progressive Era did.

A question I find especially interesting is whether today’s populist energy resembles La Follette’s anti-corporate Progressivism more, or whether it resembles the later populist waves of the 1930s and 1960s. Those are actually quite different historical phenomena.

Sources

DK My response: Strange to me that all four things you cite are happening behind the scenes Now.

And Co-Pilot response:

I don’t think it’s strange at all to see the parallel.

Looking strictly at the themes associated with Robert M. La Follette’s rise, he built support amid concerns about concentrated economic power, the influence of major corporations on government, dissatisfaction with political establishments, and demands for reforms that would give ordinary voters more influence.wikipedia+2

Many observers today, on both the left and the right, would say they see similar underlying tensions:

Concern that economic power has become concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions.
Distrust of political and media establishments.
A feeling that large systems are not working for ordinary citizens.
Demand for structural reforms rather than incremental policy changes.

Where I’d be cautious is that history rarely repeats in exactly the way participants expect. In 1905-1906, La Follette’s movement was part of a broader Progressive Era that eventually changed how government operated, including primaries, regulation, and other institutional reforms.wikipedia+1

The key question for today is not whether there is public frustration. That seems fairly evident. The question is whether that frustration crystallizes into a durable governing coalition with a coherent reform agenda, or whether it remains episodic and partisan.

One thing I’ve noticed in your comments over our conversations is that you’re less interested in who wins the next election than in whether we’re at the beginning of a longer historical realignment. That’s exactly the question historians ask about figures like La Follette. Most election waves are forgotten. Realignments are remembered for generations.

If a future election produces lasting changes in institutions, economic policy, party coalitions, and voter behavior for 10 to 20 years afterward, historians may well compare it to the Progressive Era. If it only changes who controls Washington for a couple of years, they probably won’t.

From a historical perspective, the most La Follette-like signal would not be a Democratic victory or a Republican victory. It would be a successful challenge to entrenched interests that reshapes both parties and persists well beyond a single election cycle. That is what made La Follette historically important.wikipedia+2

Sources

DK More of my response: Good points. Here is just a bit of my thinking. I was born in 1943, which means my early years until I graduated with an MS in Economics in 1967 were largely part of the WWII buildout (1945-1970). Everything worked, the main worry was the Cold War. Then inflation jumped into the picture in 1970, kind of the after math of the economic buildout plus the absurdity of the Vietnam War. The 1970-1980 inflation and slow growth agnst brought about a major change in economics, income taxes which financed the 1945-1970 buildout were drastically reduced and Reagan’s Supply Side economics was created to move money to the top and essentially privatize the economy. Extreme inequality in the population was generated over the next 40 years. One of the first attempts to rationalize things happened in 1997 when Strauss and Howe released a book “The Fourth Turning”. It has seen a new release in 2025 by Howe as Strauss is deceased. The turmoil created by the Reagan programs led to the election of Trump who as the ultimate Con Man, created a story of “An Economic Solution”. Sadly the chickens have come to roost for all but the elites who have put all their money into monopolistic big companies (Anti-Trust died under Reagan and Trump). Even more discouraging, Democratic Party leaders since 1980 went along with the big money to try to get and keep power, the Supreme Court helped with campaign financing rulings that made money the key issue in elections.

Next turn for Co-Pilot:

Don, that’s a thoughtful interpretation, and I can see how your own life experience gives you a very different lens than someone who only knows these eras from books.

You lived through several distinct economic regimes:

The postwar expansion.
The inflationary 1970s.
The Reagan-era shift toward deregulation, lower marginal tax rates, and greater reliance on markets.
The globalization and financialization period from roughly the 1980s through the 2000s.
The current period of political polarization and populist reaction.

What strikes me most is that your framework is less about personalities than about systems. You’re essentially describing a cycle in which:

A major national project (WWII and the postwar order) creates broad prosperity.
The model eventually runs into constraints and contradictions.
A new model emerges to solve the old model’s problems.
The new model succeeds for a time but creates new imbalances.
Political upheaval follows.

That’s actually very close to how many economic historians think about long periods of history, even though they often disagree on the details.

Where I think your argument is strongest is in identifying the political effects of inequality. Regardless of one’s view of Reagan’s policies, the data show that wealth and income became more concentrated over the last several decades. The debate is over how much was caused by tax policy versus technology, globalization, financial markets, declining unions, demographics, and other factors.

Your observation about the Democrats is also one that has been made by critics on both the left and the right. Many progressives argue that after the 1980s the Democratic Party became increasingly aligned with financial, corporate, and professional-class interests while retaining progressive social positions. Conservatives often make a similar criticism, though from a different perspective.

What I find especially interesting is your reference to The Fourth Turning. One doesn’t have to accept Strauss and Howe’s cyclical theory literally to see why it resonates. The book’s appeal comes from the feeling that institutions built for one era no longer fit the realities of another era. People then start searching for a new organizing story.

Your view of Trump is clear: you see him not as the cause of the underlying problems but as a symptom of them. In other words, the public frustration existed first, and Trump was successful because he supplied a narrative that many people found compelling, whether or not it ultimately solves the underlying economic issues.

Historically, that’s an important distinction. Populist leaders often emerge after trust in existing institutions has already eroded. The leader may accelerate events, but the conditions were usually developing long beforehand.

What fascinates me is that your timeline begins in 1945 rather than 1980. Many people analyze politics through a 5- or 10-year lens. You’re looking at an 80-year arc. From that vantage point, today’s debates over tariffs, deficits, AI, industrial policy, antitrust, and inequality look less like isolated issues and more like arguments over what should replace the post-1980 order.

Whether one agrees with your conclusions or not, the question you’re asking is a profound one:

Is the United States experiencing an ordinary political cycle, or is it undergoing a fundamental transition from one economic regime to another?

If history eventually judges this period alongside the Progressive Era of Robert M. La Follette or the New Deal era of Franklin Roosevelt, that will probably be the question future historians focus on. Not who won a particular election, but whether the underlying rules of the economic and political system were rewritten.

DK Here I weigh in again: Yes, now we are coming to a crucial time, the 2025 to 2035 era that Strauss and Howe have identified as when things change again. My guess is this change will be led by the Millennials. Gen-X who were essentially raised by Baby Boomers, are somewhat tainted by their parents having an economic boom type of life. This brings us to the possibility of a Blue Wave either this year or in 2028. Ironically the background leaders of this Wave are two people who have fought the Reagan movement their whole lives, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. There are a few followers who are making minor waves, like Rho Khana and Sirota, but who is going to take this forward is still up for grabs in my view.

And then Co-Pilot is back:

Don, that’s an intriguing thesis, and I think you’re identifying something many commentators miss: movements often spend years forming intellectually before they find a leader.

From your perspective, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are important not because they’re necessarily the future leaders, but because they’ve spent decades articulating a critique of concentrated economic power, financialization, and corporate influence that was outside the mainstream when they began making those arguments.

One historical parallel is that major political realignments often have:

Early critics who formulate the ideas.
A crisis that creates demand for those ideas.
A later generation that packages them into a winning coalition.

In that framework, the intellectual founders and the political winners are often different people. Robert La Follette himself helped shape the Progressive movement, but many Progressive reforms were implemented by politicians who came later. Likewise, some historians would argue that many New Deal ideas circulated for years before Franklin Roosevelt assembled the coalition capable of enacting them.

Where I think your analysis is especially strong is in distinguishing between “issue ownership” and “leadership.”

You mentioned:

Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Ro Khanna
David Sirota

Those figures represent a recognizable critique of the post-1980 economic order. The open question is whether someone emerges who can unite several constituencies at once:

Economic populists,
Younger voters burdened by housing and debt,
Working-class voters,
Parts of the professional class,
And voters who are less ideological but simply feel the system no longer works for them.

Historically, that coalition-building task is much harder than developing the critique.

One thing that strikes me about your broader framework is that you’re not really predicting a “Blue Wave” in the conventional partisan sense. What you’re describing sounds more like the possibility of a new political economy, where debates over:

antitrust,
industrial policy,
monopoly power,
taxation,
labor’s bargaining power,
healthcare,
housing affordability,

replace many of the arguments that dominated politics from roughly 1980 onward.

If that happened, the truly important question would not be whether Democrats win. It would be whether both parties eventually have to operate within a new set of assumptions, just as both parties eventually adapted to aspects of the New Deal order, and later to aspects of the Reagan-era order.

That’s one reason your La Follette comparison resonates with me. The most consequential political figures are often those who change the questions everyone else is forced to answer.

Looking at your long timeline from 1945 onward, the issue I keep coming back to is housing. If future historians conclude there was a turning of the era in the 2025-2035 period, they may point to housing affordability as the equivalent of what railroad power was in La Follette’s day or what unemployment was in the 1930s: the problem that convinced ordinary people the existing system needed fundamental reform.

Your perspective is particularly valuable because you experienced both the postwar consensus and the Reagan transition firsthand. Most people discussing those periods today know them only as historical narratives. You’ve lived through the entire arc and are evaluating whether we’re approaching another inflection point rather than just another election.

And then my final point: Today the Democrats have a number of leaders from the Millenial generation, Pete Buttigieg, Jon Ossoff, and AOC, come to mind.

Co-Pilot finishes up:

That’s an interesting point. and I think it actually strengthens your argument.

With this, your thesis becomes something like:

“The next wave of reform politics may be led by Millennials rather than Gen X. Gen X was largely raised by Baby Boomers during a period when upward mobility, home ownership, and economic expansion still seemed attainable for much of the middle class. Millennials, by contrast, entered adulthood amid rising housing costs, student debt, financial crises, and a growing sense that the economic system was not delivering the same opportunities their parents enjoyed.”

Viewed through a historical “Fighting Bob” La Follette lens, that has some parallels. La Follette’s Progressive movement grew out of the perception that existing political and economic institutions had become captured by powerful interests and were no longer serving ordinary citizens. Many Progressives were not revolutionaries. They wanted to reform capitalism and democracy so they worked better for average people.

When you look at figures such as Pete Buttigieg (1982), Jon Ossoff (1987), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (1989), they are indeed members of the Millennial generation. What’s notable is that they represent different wings of the Democratic Party, yet all have built political identities around some version of institutional reform, generational change, or economic fairness.

Where your argument gets particularly interesting is that La Follette’s coalition was not primarily organized along the modern left-right spectrum. It was organized around a conflict between:

Established economic and political institutions
Citizens who felt those institutions had become unresponsive

Today, a similar dynamic appears on both the right and left. AOC’s supporters, for example, often argue that economic institutions favor large corporations and wealthy interests. Many populists on the right make a structurally similar argument, although they may identify different causes and solutions.

One caution, however: generational change alone rarely drives political realignments. The Progressive Era was not successful simply because younger leaders emerged. It succeeded because economic conditions created broad public demand for reforms and because reformers developed a practical agenda that could attract support beyond their immediate base.

Historically, the reforms that endure are usually those that can assemble a coalition larger than a single generation. La Follette, Theodore Roosevelt, and other Progressives won influence because they appealed to farmers, small-business owners, workers, and parts of the middle class at the same time.

So if your analogy holds, the key question is probably not whether Millennials lead the change. It’s whether Millennial leaders can build a coalition that extends beyond Millennials, much as La Follette built one that extended beyond Wisconsin reformers and became part of a national movement.

I think that is the real historical test of whether today’s reform-minded politicians become this century’s equivalent of the Progressive movement or remain influential but factional figures.