I agree with a ton of this.
The most important point of all is his opening. This whole thing is rigged. The politics is rigged, the media ecosphere, the rewards system...it's all rigged to deliver EXACTLY the outcome that he's predicting. Maybe not intentionally, but it's all but locked in. Most of all, NEITHER party is interested in un-rigging it.
You can definitely choose which party you think favors good policies, and which ones favor bad policies. But both parties are absolutely all in on reducing competitive districts to near zero, undermining the integrity of elections they don't like the results of, assaulting any and all institutions that don't deliver their preference, and silencing those who disagree with them. There is no "if my party wins, this will get better" because these structures are close to baked in at this point with zero help in sight.
I have a few quibbles with it.
One, I still think he overrates Trump a little bit, these factors are wreaking havoc with or without Trump, if he died tomorrow. Trump shines a light on more than he caused.
Also, it underrates the number of people that still don't give that much of a shit about politics. A third of people still don't vote in the most polarizing presidential elections in our lifetime, with the easiest voting ever. Only of a fraction of that vote for non-presidential races. A huge portion of those that do vote are barely informed. There's no question that social media has energized more people politically in the past, but these analysts still way over estimate how much this "division" plays out in the real world. This still describes a world where like 50 percent of people hate the other 50%, and I still think its much more like 20% at one extreme hate 20% at the other extreme. Most people aren't out here tearing their hair out about being a blue voter in a red state or vice versa.
The problem is that the rigged system allows the 20% on each side to fully control the agenda.
Here's the thing...any candidate that came out with an agenda like this would likely win 70% of the vote:
1. Abortion should be fully legal in the first trimester, restricted with some exceptions for rape and incest in the second trimester, and only to save the life of the mother or an unviable pregnancy in the third trimester.
2. The border should be secure and immigration laws enforced, and we should not have unknown numbers of people crossing the border. But we should welcome people from all over the world to become American citizens legally.
3. There are obviously two biological genders at birth and we can call people women and men, but we should not be discriminating against people who are trans and they should have the freedom to pursue happiness with protection.
4. Gay marriage is a right and gay people need to have every right as heterosexual. We should be protecting the rights of gay people to teach in our schools and do every other job, but elementary school kids do not need training in sexual orientation, gender identity, gender fluidity, pansexualism, etc. That's a job for parents at that age.
5. Schoolchildren need to be taught about this country's sordid record on slavery and racism and challenges that still exist. However, white supremacy is not the fundamental characteristic of the United States, and it's not the sole or primary feature of the United States. Your skin color is not your destiny.
6. The police should be fully funded and criminals prosecuted and crime addressed seriously. But cops who abuse that public and use of force should be dealt with and face consequences including jail time.
etc, etc, etc.
I don't like all those things, progressives on the board don't like all those things, but those are vastly winning propositions with likely 70% approval, pretty much across all ethnic groups. It's a severely broken system when you can not even get a sniff in either party with very mainstream views. If ONE party could advance mainstream candidates, they would absolutely crush.
It was as recently as Bill Clinton and GWB that moderates could face down the more extremes of the party. It's not like pining for Eisenhower for God's sake.
But it goes back to the rigged systems, and the fact that actually having to you know, win , is of decreasing importance. We've rendered as many house seats non competitive as possible, so even the most dramatic public repudiation from voters likely results in a deficit you can easily take back. You don't ever need to address the public outside of your side's media silo or ever be challenged on your positions or win voters. If you don't like the election results, just claim you didn't actually lose. We might be on the brink of actually rejecting election results at some point soon.
So what actually has to happen to put somebody with mainstream views in position at this point? Is it just a force of personality? Bill Clinton dragged the Democrats to the center by winning and basically stiff-armed the Dukakis wing of the party. Trump, while dragging the GOP more authoritarian, totally pulled them left on LGBTQ and stiff armed the warmonger hawks of the GOP. The rigged system is very problematic, but I have more hope than this author that there is a way forward with the right people, but it's going to get harder and harder.