I'd like to ask another round of questions—the first being how much power will likely be vested in the executive branch. I recall you stating that in the aggregate, the Principate will have minimal interest in governing every last aspect of private life, being mostly occupied with pontificating about "traditional Christian values" and fielding a first-rate military. Especially after it finishes rebuilding the lands that it claims as its own, after which they'd be better positioned to downsize their armed presence (though whether the bureaucracy will steadily grow in other ways to offset that rollback, I don't know).
That said, I also think it'd be instructive to draw a distinction between the size of government and how much it intervenes in the everyday lives of its citizens, and to what degree executive power is vested in the head-of-state and/or some oligarchic force at the top. As I understand it, the Roman emperors' general approach trended towards the autocratic and absolute. While some may have had more respect for the Senate and other governing bodies—Trajan, I believe, kept his word after promising not to execute a single senator—they ultimately had the final say over policy. Which, in the case of sadistic nutcases like Caligula, might not have been the best thing. One might argue that what I'm concerned about is already happening during America's republican phase—with the POTUS having amassed more and more executive power over the years—but that still doesn't refute my point here. As such, I fear that any future "Caligula", "Nero", or "Caracalla" who becomes Emperor of the West will have free reign to tyrannize with few checks and balances to stop them. While, at the same time, not giving two shits about regulating your gambling habits or the details of how your chair is designed (as is true in today's democracies, as well as its dictatorships).
Regarding this point, I can note that every Universal Empire in history has -- in its initial period -- been very unobtrusive for the populace. Yes, the Emperor can usually do whatever he likes. What he likes is typically harmless. In any event, barely anyone ever sees him anyway. Occasionally, there are problems of a serious nature (uprisings, court conspiracies) that result in bloodshed. This has always been the case, and an uprising somewhere in the Empire will not affect your daily life more than the Iraq War does. Probably less. Meanwhile, issues at court are handled at court. (For instance, who in China even
heard about it when the Son of Heaven had a bunch of overly ambitious court eunuchs strangled?)
It might be observed that the 'Principate' is so well-functioning that it continues operating smoothly even when the Emperor is insane. And, yes, that happens on occasion. Of course, Nero wasn't the monster he was later painted to be (more of an embarassing loon, really). Some goes for Heliogabalus. Caracalla, Caligula and Commodus really
were unpleasant. But did this affect the Empire? Not all that much.
More broadly, I wonder if it’s possible that today’s reigning ideologies would basically be remembered as disparate offshoots of a shared premise—that is, a belief in a utopian “end stage” of history that can be reached via this or that ideology? Yes, I remember you referencing Mohism and how future generations might be similarly baffled when told that people actually took the movements of Modernity seriously. I also imagine that it’s possible that communism, fascism, and liberal democracy are more or less dismissed as products of delusional Whiggish aspirations towards some final ideal that didn’t pan out as planned—despite centuries of promises to the contrary. At that point, perhaps only scholars and dedicated students would give a damn about the distinctions between them, with everyone else blinking in confusion before moving on with their day. They’d also be baffled at how even the less ideological cohorts of Modernity still clung to a notion of continuous progress, with an implicit expectation that the world of 2265 would resemble Star Trek more than Dune. Re-watching archived footage of the former would be a perpetual source of bemusement for denizens of the twenty-second century, I’d think. Whereas studying the latter, while it's still fictional, might convince them that Frank Herbert was on the right track after all.
Yes, I consider this a very realistic view. "Modern" thinking takes many forms, but they do share common premises.
Another thing I haven’t seen discussed as much is the role that climate change could play in determining which side wins. Should the consequences prove dire, then perhaps the Populist Left shouts “We told you so!” from the rooftops as its power and popularity surge to record heights. On the other hand, I can also potentially see more radical members hijacking the movement prematurely and quickly overstaying their welcome. Which, per action and reaction, would catapult the Populist Right into power as they hastily undo their predecessors’ reforms and rampage for a while before burning themselves out. Afterwards, it’s the Neo-Traditionalists’ turn to rule.
I hesitate to speculate upon this topic. One thing to note -- which is often forgotten -- is that change can be good for some, even if it's bad for others. Some places become shittier when the climate changes. But others become more pleasant.
Nonetheless, I’m still worried about whether there’ll be much of a world for them to govern at that point. Even if Modernity’s collapse doesn’t end in “1983 Soviet false-alarm incident gone hot”, there’s still radiation poisoning and the environmental effects of chemical and biological weapons being deployed en masse. Never mind the sheer numbers of people who’d die, though far be it from me to try and pinpoint just how many. To that end, maybe the first few decades of imperial rule will feature state-sponsored “fertility measures” that award people for having lots of children in a long-term effort to repopulate the world. These would probably become less and less important as population numbers recover, though the cultural expectation of large families will remain, should the macrohistorical forecast prove correct.
I'm not all the sure about all that mass destruction. As I've said before, I'd expect a global civil war, more than a "World War" as we've known it. Fought between contenders for power, not between whole peoples.
The mass death that I predict will mostly be due to the collapse of existing economic and political structures. Lots of starvation, especially in urban regions. And then there's the political purges, which will no doubt stand out, but which will hardly be all that relevant next to, ah... "death by natural causes". Lots of people depend on a complex network of supply chains right now. I expect that whole network to collapse for a bit. People without a patch of farming land will starve. People with such a patch of land but without the means to defend it will be killed by other people.
Meanwhile, I hardly think pro-natal policies will be needed. Once lots of people die, there's plenty to go around for the survivors. When there's plenty to be had, and no government to dole out welfare, people start having lots of kids. They do this all by themselves. No motivating actions needed.
Concerning the chaotic back-and-forth that’ll take place throughout this time frame, do you have any maps you could share with us? I know we can only be so precise in our prognostications, but a visual that at least depicts the gist of what the American and Chinese Empires can expect to control would be nice. Ditto for the constantly fluctuating borders that’ll mark the “Great Slaughter” in the antecedent years (and perhaps America’s “Mithridatic Wars” too, if you feel so inclined).
I have a map, yes. It's unfinished.
It's supposed to depict the world c. 2200, when the Empire is firmly established. This is of course completely fictional, and includes many flights of fancy. For instance, see the evidence of massive geo-engineering projects, which I've included as a fictional analogue to the construction of (for instance) China's Great Wall.
Naturally, the Electoral Circles I've coloured in here are also fully hypothetical, as are all borders, really. This is very impressionist. A setting for a future that
could be, and very much
not the exact future that I believe
will be.
Anyway, this is the kind of thing you might expect. With lots of imaginary details, ranging from autonomous regions to militarised frontiers.
Lastly, do you have any thoughts on the syncretist scenario I outlined previously? Aside from whether it seems broadly plausible, there are a few points I feel a need to clarify or expand upon here. Namely, my interpretation that an America that implements the needed reforms early will mean that Neo-Caesar rises in Europe—which still has yet to fully undergo the nasty shit-fight between its “Optimates” and “Populares”. Not to mention reports of loose nukes and horrific violence abroad making the American public more receptive to re-militarization (thereby weakening the Congressionalists’ grip on power when challenged by the rising “Imperialist” faction, or at least pressuring them to invest in national defense more). Which, if things go according to plan, means that America becomes an empire anyway—possibly with “Augustus” entering office through a peaceful transition rather than one last bout of civil wars, before implementing “third way” policies that pair off laissez-faire economics and hands-off government at home with colonialism and a vast military abroad. To be sure, many particulars of this scenario will differ from your mainline one, but the idea is that overall results remain broadly the same.
I have replied to this in a private conversation, so I'll refrain from going into it here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the past year, the word I would use is "Unchecked". At least for the governors. So far the executive branches of the states have been ignoring the courts and the legislatures with no consequences.
It is hard to tell with the federal executive, because so far the bureaucracy has acted as a partisan check on the power of the federal executive. But the bureaucracy is also part of the executive. Once the Eunuchs have their puppet on the thrown, we have no signs that there is anything stopping the executive from doing anything at all.
Yes, this is important to note. The coming period will inform the period thereafter. People worry about the power of an Emperor, but forget that one of the Emperor's core tasks is to have scheming courtiers executed at irregular intervals.
This tends to be a healthy process for the state.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When will the bubble burst?
After a longer period of time than many would like! The predictions that you often get about the big collapse coming in few years are... well, always wrong. (Funnily enough, when we really get close, people stop making such predictions. They're too busy with far more pressing issues at that time.)
My own estimate is that things really break down in the second half of this century, and a Caesarian tyrant seizes power at the century's close. That 'schedule' fits both with historical patterns, and with trends we're currently observing (e.g. economic, demographic, political...)