By Langdon Morris
We naturally think of an election as a milestone in the civic culture of a democracy. By expressing their choices, voters choose to whom they will grant the power to govern. As futurists looking for deeper patterns, elections also give us penetrating insights into both the mass psychology of a society, and its collective views on its own future.
As psychology, the overt and coded expressions of candidates and campaigns, and the responses of the public, tell us a lot about the mood of a community or nation, about peoples’ hopes, fears, perceptions, and expectations also turn voters into participants in enduring acts of collective futurism, as they decide which goals and social models to the aspire to, and whose visions or promises about the future they prefer.
As you probably well know, 2024 marks the first time in history that voters in nations constituting more than half the world’s population had (or will have) a chance to vote in a national election. Some of these elections are shams, as in Russia, where the election was merely for show, but many are genuine opportunities for citizens to set the course for their future. Notably, voters in Poland, France, the United Kingdom, and India all made significant decisions about their futures this year, and now we’re only a few weeks away from the U.S. presidential election, which will allocate its tremendous national power, reveal the nation’s mood, and set a future direction for the coming years.
Hence, these elections are powerful and very focused learning opportunities for futurists that will help us to more clearly see where we’re headed.
RIGHT OR LEFT?
Something extraordinary occurred in France in June, when 200 candidates from center- and left-wing political parties withdrew from their races prior to the polling day in order to reduce competition and make it possible to concentrate the vote in order to keep the right from gaining power.
What does this mean? It signaled another step in the ascendence of the right, which is occurring not just in France, but throughout much of Europe (including the recent gains of AfD in Germany). At the same time, it showed the willingness of center and left parties to choose their common interest in stopping the rise of the right. These 200 opted for uncharacteristic acts of genuine futurism, not often a strength of political leaders.
Imagine that you’re one of these 200 candidates, and you’re told by the head of your party that you must abandon your campaign in support of the greater national good. And imagine yourself as a proud and independent French man or woman who nevertheless agrees to do so. Now image that same conversation happening 200 times and imagine that it worked. And it did work, certainly an act of collective leadership in defense of a certain set of values.
Something also notable occurred in India in May, as the world’s largest (by population) democracy confounded the pundits and did not throw overwhelming support behind its sitting prime minister, Narendra Modi. Quite in contrast to expectations, candidates in Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) did not win a majority in the Indian congress. This means that despite the vast spending power and staunch Hindu nationalist policies of the BJP, voters in India had a different idea about their country, thus engaging in an act of futurism by collective citizenry. We do not prefer that Modi’s policies and personality completely dominates society, they seemed to be saying.
Both of these examples suggest that it’s been a pretty good year for democracy, as voters have demonstrated the power of elections to both reflect their popular will, and to shape a pathway toward the future. Will something notable also occur in the US in November?
ELECTION IN THE U.S.
The two American parties seem to be facing in opposite directions. MAGA (the Trump-led version of the Republican Party) is explicitly nostalgic — in a sense you could say that it is anti-futurist. By specifically referencing the past as an organizing slogan, it defines the intent to return America to the way things “used to be.” As a political slogan it is rich with nuance, and it also has the virtue of being pliable, meaning nearly anything that anyone wants it to mean. The way it “used to be” can mean, for example, before the New Deal, or before Civil Rights, or life during the Reagan 80s. The MAGA slogan thus evokes any preferred past, real or imagined. It can imply a thoroughly racist or a pro-civil rights attitude, it can be pro-corporate or pro-union as you may prefer, it can pro-free trade or pro-big tariff. It’s malleable, flexible, but in all cases essentially backward looking. It says the past was better, so let’s go back there.
Whether this leap backwards is even possible isn’t discussed, and as futurists we know that in fact it’s not possible. Whatever past you may aspire to return to is permanently gone and cannot be recreated. It’s also debatable that the imagined past ever actually existed as we may remember it. Psychologists refer to this as “rosy retrospection bias,” our tendency to remember and yearn for the good parts of the past, and to forget the rest.
The success of MAGA and the intense anger that many MAGA followers seem to feel also reminds us of Alvin Toffler and his notion of “Future Shock” — the increasing fear and anger that arises because change is happening so fast, too fast. The future is threatening, thereby reinforcing the yearning feelings of nostalgia.
Consequently, the MAGA meme has captured the support of tens of millions of Americans. But it’s not attractive to everyone, enabling many Democratic candidates to position themselves simply as, “We’re not that, and we’re not him.”
And like MAGA, progressive politics can mean different things to different people. These preferences are often tied to specific policies, and so the challenge facing the Democratic Party (now led by Vice President Kamala Harris) is to unify a disparate coalition, much as the French center and left had to reluctantly align to block the ascendence of the right.
The outcome of the American election will tell us which side was more effective at forging a coherent voting coalition, and at selling its vision, one of the past-as-future, and the other of future-as-future. Which version of America will prevail?
AMERICANS COPE WITH FUTURE SHOCK
There are many reasons that Americans are coping with future shock, as many aspects of society are indeed changing rapidly. Very prominent among them is the ethnic profile of the entire nation. One graph, now quite well known, depicts the underlying cause of much distress. It eloquently describes the transition from a society dominated in 1950 by white males, to a much more diverse nation that is coming into existence a century later.
It is notably significant that no nation in the history of the world has ever undergone a demographic shift of this magnitude or character, ensuring that the unfolding of this story over the coming decades will be enormously consequential and highly significant. Will immigration continue, or will MAGA adherents reverse it? Can America continue to become more ethnically diverse and still sustain its essential “American-ness”?
But the ethnic-demographic shift is just one of the major changes that’s happening in our era. In my most recent book, Hello, Future! The World in 2035, I consider eight major shifts, all of which are happening right now, and all of which have tremendous significance as driving forces shaping the patterns of change. Consider these driving forces of change:
Geopolitics: The post-World War II era of relative stability has given way, finally, to superpower confrontation. Russia seeks to recreate its empire, China seeks global recognition or more, and numerous regional wars are raging. The post-Cold War pattern is broken, but the new pattern is not yet clear. It is a time of transition, but to what we do not know. Will we have war or peace?
Politics: The world has a lot of democracies now, but there are also plenty of autocracies. And even in many democracies numerous would-be autocrats are vying for power. Autocrats and would-be autocrats exploit populist themes and often evoke the fear of the future to gain power, and in these times of rapid change their messages find many receptive ears. Will the nations opt for autocracy or democracy?
Climate: The climate crisis, a child of industrialism and its abundant fossil fuels, is worsening. By all measures volatility is increasing, and with it so are the costs. Poor nations struggle with drought and poor harvests, floods, and hurricanes, all causing suffering and social unrest. Rich nations, too, are feeling the effects. And most likely it will all worsen. How bad will it get, and what social and financial costs will result?
Energy: As fossil fuels are a major source of climate change, the urgency to replace them has become a priority shared by all. Hence the Energy Transition, a global project of unprecedented scale, scope, and cost, with many unknown consequences. How will it all unfold?
Technology: Computer chip technologies, robotics, AI, machine learning, big data, advanced biotech, and synthetic biology all continue to deliver major breakthroughs, and each of them also brings further disruption. Will the net effect shift from “mere” disruption to outright economic destruction? Will robots and AI eliminate millions of jobs, or improve them? Will quantum computers, with their exceptional code-breaking capabilities, wreak havoc all across the financial industry? No one knows, but many are feeling increasing fear.
Demographics: The globalized capitalist economy is organized around the imperative of growth, and economic growth is intimately linked with population growth. From 1750 to 2020 the world’s population exploded from about one to eight billion. But population growth is slowing now, and many nations are already experiencing declines. Some economists believe that Japan’s lost decades are partially a consequence of its declining population. What will happen as population decline becomes a worldwide phenomenon?
Economy: As the entire world shifts from population growth to net decline, the economic consequences will be decisive. Fewer workers will have to support more elderly retirees (and their vast health care needs), throwing national accounts into disarray. How will we cope with these new economic structures?
Throughout the 2020s, all of these factors are in the midst of fundamental shifts, and the net result is a culture under extreme stress. Each of these shifts alone is significant, but the convergence of all of them, all occurring at the same time, results in a pervasive, transformative change in the world’s entire state of affairs. We have reached, that is, a fundamental turning point in society.
But very little of this is part of the political discussion. Bits and pieces are mentioned here and there, but most politicians carefully avoid this topic. And the reasons are obvious: it’s too nerdy, too scary, and too uncertain. They lose the veneer of being the all-knowing leaders when they admit that change is moving faster than anyone can fully grasp.
Hence, as futurists we see the entire process of campaigning and electioneering taking place in a sort of fraudulent fantasy world, where many of the most consequential issues and decisions are studiously ignored. Instead, the candidates offer meaningless oversimplifications and formulaic pitches designed to appeal to various groups of one-issue voting blocks.
So, while our culture, the net expression of everything that’s happening, is wracked by fundamental changes, and all of which are enormously significant, the talk is mostly trite and superficial. “She is an extremist,” he proclaims; “He is a danger,” she asserts. “We’ll cut taxes and raise tariffs,” or “we’ll raise taxes and cut tariffs,” they alternately claim.
GOVERNING THROUGH UNCERTAINTY
This brings us to the vital distinction between a political campaign and the next act, governing. Someone will win the election, and then they’ll have to cope with all that change. In this brutal confrontation with reality, the slogans will go out the window and the pressing business of dealing with a dangerous and rapidly changing world will thrust itself to the fore.
Whichever side wins will have to deal with Putin and Ukraine, with Israel and the Palestinians, and the now-inflamed Middle East region, with China and its threats regarding Taiwan, and also with nuclear proliferation and escalation. And then there’s climate change, new technologies, continuing demographic change, and fundamental economic change, which will more than fill their hours with crises piled upon crises. These urgent and important matters will barely, hardly reflect the rhetoric of the campaigns. So, we can predict with 100% certainty that they’re going to be 100% occupied dealing with the major issues that they’re so studiously navigating, avoiding and in some cases, ignoring on the campaign trail.
STARTING A CONVERSATION
As futurists, we understand the inexorability of change, and we recognize the futility of nostalgia. We know that a global economic transformation is occurring, that fundamental demographic change is occurring, too, and that technology is driving us toward an entirely new state of affairs. Given all that, does the weight of so much uncertainty squeeze the hope out of us?
In a recent interview in support of his new film Megalopolis, film director Francis Ford Coppola was asked, “How do we bring a sense of hope into our everyday lives?”
He replied: “I honestly believe that what will save us is the fact that we’ve got to talk about the future. We want to be able to ask any questions we have to ask in order to really look at why this country is divided right now, and that’s going to provide an energy that will defeat those people who want to destroy our republic. I made this film to contribute to that. And all I want is for this movie to start a conversation. You can’t have a utopia without a conversation.”
Indeed, the quality of the conversation is a critical element of every democracy. And in times of change such as ours, this is even more urgent. While the politicians won’t talk about it so much, people know, and these factors will come into play when they choose who to vote for (if they choose to vote at all).
Americans will decide the general direction they prefer, thereby giving us a clearer view of their civic culture, their collective mood (at least on election day), and the vision of the future they find most worthy of support. Is America prepared to face an uncertain future, or does it prefer to try to recreate the imagined past?
Langdon Morris is a futurist, author, and consultant with a thriving practice as a keynote speaker and advisor to senior leaders in business and government. His most recent book is Hello, Future: The World in 2035. He is also senior partner of InnovationLabs, globally recognized as one of the world’s leading firms in innovation and strategy. You can learn more at www.langdonmorris.com.
Comments