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.