Quite a lot of people argue that an authentic progressive candidate has no chance to become the president of the US because his or her policies are too radical. Two decades ago I would have agreed. But now the times are different. In the following, I will present theory-based arguments about the chance for a new progressive era.

The theory I base my arguments on is the Neo-Schumpeterian theory of technological revolutions, developed by Carlota Perez and Chris Freeman. It is not very well-known in the US, but it was used as a basis to create policies in several Northern European countries. Very simplified, the theory says that we can understand many technological, economical, social and political developments, if we analyze the life-cycle of technological revolutions (eg the automobile or the ICT revolution). Each revolution comprises three main periods:

(1) The Installation period,
(2) The Crisis period and
(3) The Deployment Period (see the figure below).

(1) During the Installation period, we see
-The rise of new technologies,
-The concentration of investment in new technologies and finance,
-But also institutional de-regulation, (The Clintons were main champions of this in the US)
-Dominance of neo-liberal policies
-Income polarization,
-Financial speculation and crashes.

(2) The installation period culminates in a financial, economic and social crisis. The crisis can be the ground for catastrophic developments such as the rise of fascism &WW2, as it happened 80 years ago during the Great Depression. But there is also the chance that the crisis is resolved and the deployment period begins.

(3) The deployment period is characterized by
-Sustainable use of new technologies
-Re-regulation
-The end of neo-liberal dominance and a stronger role of the state
-Spreading of social benefits
-A feeling of living in a “golden era”

Historically the last two golden-era/deployment periods were inaugurated by a progressive era with progressive presidents fighting for social justice and taking on big money interests
(1900s: T.Roosevelt, Taft; 1940s: F.D.Roosevelt, see quotes).

"

The difference between Mr. Wilson and myself is fundamental. The other day in a speech at Sioux Falls, Mr. Wilson stated his position when he said that the history of government, the history of liberty, was the history of the limitation of governmental power. This is true as an academic statement of history in the past. It is not true as a statement affecting the present....The liberty of which Mr. Wilson speaks today means merely the liberty of some great trust magnate to do that which he is not entitled to do. It means merely the liberty of some factory owner to work haggard women over-hours for under-pay and himself to pocket the profits. It means the liberty of the factory owner to close his operatives into some crazy deathtrap on a top floor, where if fire starts, the slaughter is immense....We propose, on the contrary, to extend governmental power in order to secure the liberty of the wage workers, of the men and women who toil in industry, to save the liberty of the oppressed from the oppressor. Mr. Wilson stands for the liberty of the oppressor to oppress. We stand for the limitation of his liberty not to oppress those who are weaker than himself. (Theodore Roosevelt, 1912)

Key factors which are the basis for the increased chance of a progressive era are:
(a) The extreme (income) inequalities make a majority of the society suffer which generates a widely-shared feeling of 'The system is rigged, It has to change profoundly'.
(b) The obvious inequalities and the simultaneous neglect of these inequalities by mainstream politicians and mainstream media generates a widely-shared mistrust regarding focus-group checked rhetorics of politicians and pundits. At the same time, the desire for credible politicians that are intrinsically motivated to fight for the interests of the working and middle class gets stronger.
(c) Often the new technologies open up new forms of political action that can help to challenge the (media) establishment. Obama has demonstrated that a digitally interconnected grassroots movement can beat the mainstream media establishment.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred. (...) Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936)

To conclude:
- The current context opens up unique chances for moving towards a new progressive era, electing authentic progressive presidents and realizing progressive policies.
- Old assumptions about electiblity are not longer true. The "Overton window" is shifting to the left - and can be shifted further by a progressive movement.
- Because of (a), (b), (c) and because of the involvement of progressive activists in social media, the significance of progressive movements has increased and their distributed power is difficult to control by the establishment.
- As a result, the progressive movements such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and the Bernie Sanders campaign in the US become not only electable but have real chances to win.
-Architects and champions of deregulation and neo-liberal policies such as the Clintons contributed to the current crises and can't be credible champions of the progressive era.

The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win. But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive. Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America. Let us wage a moral and political war against the gross wealth and income inequality in America, the worst in the industrialized world, which is tearing this country and our economy apart. Let us wage a moral and political war against a dysfunctional health care system and fight for a Medicare-for-all single-payer system. Let us wage a moral and political war against war itself, so that we can cut military spending and use that money for human needs. Finally, let understand that when we stand together, we will always win. When men and women stand together for justice, we win. When black, white and Hispanic people stand together for justice, we win. When straight and gay people stand together for justice, we win. When young and old stand together for justice, we win. When working families stand together, we win. (Bernie Sanders, 2012)

Of course, the empire strikes back. There are many attempts to ignore, demonize and divide the progressive movements: eg, to turn Black Live Matters activists against Bernie Sanders supporters and vice versa, or, DKOS' evolution to DHRC.

But if progressives understand these attempts, they can develop counter strategies (eg. Nina Turner & Shaun King supporting Bernie, the development of this website). If people stand together - they win.