What a superb analysis. It’s possible to see similar political issues at work in New Zealand, where I’m from, where a once-famous social democracy has similarly degenerated into a “a thin veneer of progressiveness crippled by the aging and fearful,” as you put it.

This is partly a result of the ageing of the European majority (gradually heading toward minority status) in the face of other, demographically younger, ethnic groups such as the Māori.

Incidentally, that reminds me that a nineteenth-century Māori warrior named Tuta Nihoniho wrote a treatise in which, among other things, he noted that “a woman’s voice is one that has much power, and commands much sympathy in time of battle. For if a woman assumes the function of uttering the war-cries and calls to action, then the enemy will not be able to resist . . . Again, if peace is concluded in time of war by men, it will not be a firm or lasting one. It is termed a male peace, and stands for treachery, deceit, trouble. But if women assume the function of making peace, that is known as a female peace and it will be a firm, durable one.” Source begins here: http://teaohou.natlib.govt.nz/journals/teaohou/image/Mao26TeA/Mao26TeAFCo.html

I thought that was interesting in view of your skepticism as to whether any of the male politicians in the Democratic Party were really up to it. Not that I necessarily share that view but it’s an interesting parallel with Nihoniho’s theory about females having greater power to rally the roops and the differences between ‘male’ and ‘female’ peaces.