But what about when a creature emerges from the swamp and tries to up end the apple cart. To do away with democracy and the rule of law. To become an authoritarian dictator a stride across the global stage hand in hand with the worst authoritarian leaders on the planet, disregarding the real concerns of true allies and his own people. Does that figure in your analysis, can that change the geopolitical drift? — Punshhh

I hardly factor it into my analysis because it is unlikely to have a significant impact, for three reasons:

The first is that presidents are temporary phenomena, and Trump is too. In all likelihood the next president will be some perfectly inoffensive, milquetoast figure whose job it will be to gather all the frightened sheep back into the fold in what is essentially a geopolitical game of 'good cop, bad cop'; the play practically writes itself, and the clownshow continues.

Second, the US is already a pseudo-democracy where the people have little to no influence on the things that actually matter. Never in the last hundred years or so, have I been able detect any meaningful influence of the American public on US long-term strategy.

Thirdly, even if the US were to turn from a "democracy" to a full-blown authoritarian dictatorship overnight, it is unlikely to meaningfully change US long-term strategy. Such strategies are not selected at leisure, but dictated by the rules and dynamics of power. If the US has any intention of vying for a spot at the top of the pyramid, its strategies, rivals and allies are all but set in stone for the foreseeable future.

Never in the last hundred years or so, have I been able detect any meaningful influence of the American public on US long-term strategy. — Tzeentch

Really?

How about the opposition to the Vietnam war? I think the Domino-theory was a long-term strategy.

Or the Civil Rights movement? The policy towards blacks in the south was a long-term strategy too.

It’s a realist perspective. Those that are in government are mostly motivated by security and power concerns, as overarching long-term goals. That seems to be the case, especially when looking at something like defense spending, which has only gone up over the years regardless of what the public thinks, and regardless of political party.

But the public do have influence in the short term, beyond question. I think it’s obvious they have long term effects as well (the very fact that the government has to be more cautious or clandestine is itself an effect), but I guess that’s arguable.

Good post.
I think one slight spanner here is that not only do governments change (thinking long term) somewhat radically (in context - not radical in its normal use) this seems to be due to changing times- i.e the voter base also goes through similar (although, not necessarily aligned) changes. This seems to me a quite clear long-term aspect of the US which will (and seems to have, as you and ssu note) continue to cause those in power to adjust - cynically, i would think.

That seems to be the case, especially when looking at something like defense spending, which has only gone up over the years regardless of what the public thinks, and regardless of political party. — Mikie

Defense spending, as a share of GDP and of the federal budget, is historically very low right now.

Correct.

In fact, payments on the national debt are now larger than the defense expenditure. During the Cold War the spending was far higher.