This is not a political blog.  But  the importance of the Clinton-Trump struggle  transcends politics. The Democratic Party has chosen someone who is actually electable, and well-schooled in the traditions of democracy and our government. Many  comparisons  have been made between the U.S. and Rome:

• Some have focused on the power that accrued to the appointed Roman dictators when the borders of the Empire came under attack.
• Others have pointed to the historical inability of all empires, most notably the British, to shed the military burden when the economic benefits of empire dwindled.
• Others have emphasized the dispossession of the plebeian farmers when Egypt became the granary of the Empire.

The spoken and documented sentiments of the electorate point to the third reason. But there has always been a rich, a middle, and a poor. Walter Lippmann’s theory of how democracies  choose wisely is based upon a pyramid of  interpretation,  so that the issues of the electorate become matters of trust, not facts.

In the case of the Republican nominee, Lippmann’s interpretive process broke down. Republican voters went straight for promises, bypassing the intellectual shield that perceives and interprets what the electorate cannot see directly. Why did it break down now?

The lesser cause is social stress, much of it of a “moral” nature, that has distracted the diligence of Republican electorate from protection of the Republic. The more direct reason is that the middle class is vanishing. Trickle-down economics did not work. And even if it did work, something remains undefined. Which is more important to political stability, the total wealth of the nation, or the way it is distributed? Polemics favor the extremes. The middle way is hard to hold, and hard to argue.

The exposure of “Trump University” may have saved American democracy for now. But the next challenge  may feature a demagogue whose  deception is more perfect. Since this blog is about prediction, let’s frame a question. How long will American democracy continue?

The stressors of democracy are three:

• Immediately, increasing income disparity.
• Climate change, and issues of a more general Malthusian nature.
• The coming technological singularity, discussed in Address to Davos.

The short of it is that the background of human existence, defined by technology, is about to tear away from human potential to follow, benefit, or adapt. This was explicitly recognized by the sponsors in Switzerland of a guaranteed income proposal, which was just rejected in referendum. We will hear more of this as the problem becomes more defined.

If the stressors acquire a unique identity in the public mind, so that they can be addressed as a public policy issue, there is a chance that remedies could prevail against special interests and conservative thinking, which, by definition, will be helpless against the Singularity. The Trump candidacy is an early warning of a kind of decay that proceeds over the time scale of a generation. One generation takes us to 2036, not far from the median prediction of the Singularity of 2040.

So, twenty years hence,  a coincidence of factors may topple American democracy. This is the kind of prediction I prefer to be wrong about.  Optimistically, the Clinton Administration may be the first to be aware of the challenge in its totality and with the intellect to politicize.

What of the face of the demagogue? Perhaps something Peronist. At least we can have a good musical.