Yesterday, I spoke to the issue of the cycles of American history. I abandoned one cyclical theory and reverted to another one, the long-cycle theory that focuses on constitutional changes.
If that theory holds up, and if I'm applying it properly, then this year should see a party re-alignment which will make the Democratic Party dominant for sometime to come, and will make the US a social democracy on the European pattern.
I find that result unsatisfying, so naturally I will look for other live options. I also find it unsatisfying, by the way, to resign myself to merely passive observer status. what I want is a way forward that has some real contact with what is going on and that, if it manifests, might lead to a result I'd recognize as an improvement over the status quo.
That could happen, if the polarizing tendency of both primary competitions intensifies from here, and if Michael Bloomberg turns out to have political talent transferrable outside of the bounds of New York City.
If Sanders wins, then the Democratic Party could nominate someone whose politics resemble those of George McGovern, who was on the hurting end of a memorable landslide in 1972.
That, combined with similar self-destruction on the Republican side, where for example they have turned their anti-Obama "birtherism" against each other, might well mean there will be plenty of room for a candidate to run in the political center.
That in turn is what could create room for Michael Bloomberg, if he chooses to accept it.
For those who think that it would be a pity to lose the opportunity for a historic first offered us by Hillary's candidacy, ask yourself: wouldn't the first Jewish-American president qualify?