What I find so intriguing is how well Rorty describes the outcomes he projects from what he knew so far: the Neoliberal policies that the Clinton Administration had baked into the cake of American life. Rorty wrote it the year that the Clintons were winding down. By 1999, they had set the stage for the asset stripping of the middle class domestically, and aggressive globalism abroad.

Rorty simply ran the scenario out to 2016. He did not know of the Neocons upcoming program of US terrorism against the world, which was poised to strike after 9/11 — and shoot for the moon — US Empire rule over the entire planet. But, as we see, the asset stripping of the American middle class and the US Wars for Empire moved together in perfect harmony. The American people lived through it in denial and distraction, and belated belligerence.

I found this part interesting:

After my imagined strongman takes charge, he will quickly make his peace with the international superrich.

Perhaps Rorty did not imagine that the "strongman" would already be a member of the international superrich. As I recall, that was the foundation of Trump's argument for running: He could not be compromised by their bribes. At the first debate, he told America: "I was on the other side of the table, where I could buy the policies I needed. I still get calls all the time. I know how that works."

While I agree, a full and free education is a key part of turning out citizens equipped to live a hopeful life the 21st century, the essential foundation for the actualization of all citizens is a basic national income for everyone. In this way, all Americans can experience and use this thing called "liberty," and they will be equipped with all the human rights the rest of the developed and emerging world enjoy every single day, including freedom from hunger and affordable housing.

The national income is more than affordable. Indeed, it is far less expensive than the inadequate social programs it would eliminate.

Evolve the species, please. Only there lies hope.

PS: I don't find the words "affirmative action" or "political correctness" to be fuzzy or mysterious. I think it is absolutely clear what they mean, both in theory and in practice. These concepts would emerge in any society that was denied the basic human rights, as established by the UN in 1948, and ratified unanimously. The people isolated in the US never received them because human rights supersede the constitution they were brainwashed to worship. Interestingly, the people who wrote that ancient constitution also refined the concept of the "basic national income." It was the only way they could deliver the "liberty" their vision was founded on.

He pretends to be both. There was a shakeup in the transition team today and the infotainment branch smells blood.

"misogynist" are bandied about by leftists as if they referred to a clearly identifiable set of beliefs and prejudices. In fact, Americans' actual personal attitudes regarding race relations and sexual relations are extremely diverse, complex, and often in a state of flux. There are many different forms, degrees, shadings, and moral positions that might be, and often are categorized under these pejorative and wholly condemnatory terms.

In trying to reform, correct, and channel public attitudes toward women and minorities "from above" as it were, I think progressives have been generally too forceful, too judgemental, and not flexible enough. Longstanding rural traditions and communal prejudices are often, perhaps even usually, resistant to radical alterations in "the way people think". The recalcitrance and backward-looking conservatism of many White voters in fly-over country does not necessarily make them all morally deficient or "deplorable". Tolerance is a virtue that can and should be encouraged, but it is not one that can be easily or forcefully imposed.