Two hot wars where our support is needed to sustain our friends, an out-of-control border, rising crime, the continuing crisis in education, and declining disposable income for many Americans are some of the continuing problems we enter 2024. Add an election appearing to feature two Presidential candidates few want or have much faith in to solve our problems. Last year, at least, had some reasons for optimism. ’24 has the elements to be terrible.

What would it take for the new year to exceed expectations? 1980 was dismal but ended on an upbeat note. Then, as now, we knew we were heading in the wrong direction. With the election of Ronald Reagan, the nation not only had a solid leader with excellent communication skills, but it began philosophical changes. Lydon Jphnson’s “Great Society” was founded on the conceit that the Government could cure all society’s problems. The “Best and the Brightest” had the answers. Economic theories such as Phillip’s Curve postulated inflation resulted in more employment, so high government spending is good.

The “Misery Index,” the sum of the current jobless and the inflation rates in 1980, hit a fantastic 21.98. Reagan scored by saying, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help. ” The nation made a 180-degree Philosophical turn. Even when the Democrats returned to the White House after the Twelve Reagan and Bush years, Bill Clinton declared, The Eras of Big Government is over.” From 1980 to the end of the 20th century, it was “Morning in America.”

Could we be on the cusp of such profound change in ’24? There are leaders in three places at the forefront of the progressive movement, which, if they change direction, would indicate significant correction. The New York Times is the table setter for the rest of the “Mainstream media.” Themes and positions pushed by the Times echoed across media. Harvard is the pace-setter for Academia. California has long been the source of significant trends. All three are in the progressive vanguard. Revision in these would indicate change.

James Oakes, writing in the Jacobin, notes the Times wasn’t always this far out. On the 150th Civil War anniversary, the Paper ran a series of scholarly articles representing differing points of view, giving readers a well-rounded look at the era. He found it ” the ideal collaboration of journalism and scholarship.” 

Only a few years later, in 2019, the Paper published the error-filled “1619 Project.” Instead of a broad analysis of our nation’s founding, it presented a narrow, targeted look based on little or no factual research. Even in the face of devasting scholarly criticism, the Times continues to push this trash.

James Bennet was fired as an editor for publishing a legitimate op-ed in 2020 and recently wrote an article detailing how the Times “lost its way.” Rather than reflecting on the direction of the Paper, Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger blasted Bennett. Just as he stonewalled on the “1619 Project, Sulzberger refuses any criticism.

If Sultberger were to suddenly retire at the bidding of the Paper’s board of directors, it might signal a return to real journalism. Confronting the numerous errors in the “1619 Project ” would be another welcome signal. Naming James Bennet as the publisher would send a message.

The retention of Claudine Gay as Harvard’s President in the face of documented plagiarism and an anti-semitic turn in front of a Congressional committee shows how committed the Harvard Corporation, the School’s governing body, is to progressive dogma. Brown dumped its president, and reforms instituted for the same congressional testimony. 

Race might play a part in the different outcomes. Gay is Black, while the former Brown president is white. Harvard appears to favor and protect some favored minorities while doing the opposite for others. Say anything deemed mean to a black or transgender, and you’re in big trouble. Say the same to a Jew, and we have to look at the “context.” If you’re Black or Hispanic, Harvard will look beyond qualifications for admittance; Asians face quotas. Even after the Supreme Court ruled against this bigotry, Harvard seeks ways to circumvent justice. 

Removal of Gay and reconstituting the Harvard Corporation would indicate the School is returning to a place where people and ideas are welcome to be discussed and judged on their merits.

California sets the pace for implementing progressive ideas. Steeply progressive income taxes, the strictest climate and environmental rules, and an educational system run by the Teachers’ unions are some of the directions the one-party state seeks to lead the nation. A declining population has resulted in a shrinking tax base, which makes no difference in the state’s actions—ignoring a ballooning deficit and poor educational outcomes in adherence to dogma.

Governor Gavin Newsome is the face of the present California state of mind. Even though his state lags behind Florida in every area of good governance, Newsome debated Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, showing how delusional the state has become.

If, as I predict, the Democrats retire Biden in favor of a younger, more electable candidate but reject Newsome based on the state of his state. This rejection might lead Californians to wake up to California’s condition. 

Some may even vote Republican, or some officeholders are challenged based on their progressive positions in the upcoming elections. California is in a downward spiral, and it might be an excellent time for voters to act before disaster.

Signs of change in these three foreshadow philosophical changes akin to those in the 1980s, possibly on the horizon. Returning to a leaner, more responsive government based on solid principles rather than bias is welcome and needed.

So far, I see no evidence of change but hope springs eternal. However, in a nation, the Phillips Curve is still used in forming policy at the Fed and the administration; I have no illusions. However, as an optimist, I’ll look for sprouts at the Times, Harvard, and California for signs of spring.