Another comment somewhere else in this thread mentioned 2008 and the bailouts for banks, bankruptcy for the public, as the place we should look at. With big society wide trends like this it's impossible to have a clear cause and effect. It's all a muddle which is why I've listed a few different ideas all of which contribute in their own way.

Covid is such a unique situation though and I think it will serve as a clear turning point where preexisting trends were shattered and others were turned up to 11.

But ultimately, we didn't start the fire, but we can try to fight it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

I'm probably being naive but the assassination of JFK is the most interesting alternative history moment for me.

Should he have finished his term and steered the US clear of Vietnam (I know very debatable) and seen man go to the "moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard," I think things would have gone much better.

My history is a little fuzzy but would we have gotten the Civil Rights Act? From what I understand, JFK was having some serious trouble getting it passed (instead of some watered down piecemeal legislation) but a combination of the state of a mourning country post-assassination + Johnson betraying the people who elected him(he was the good ol boy from the south placed there to represent their 'values') provided the catalyst for getting this difficult legislation through. Unfortunately this also had the consequence of further alienating the south and made them run into Reagan's arms a few elections later.

I shudder to think what would have happened if the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed. I may not have even been born in this country.

Alternate history is impossible to prove, and to your point, my history is just as fuzzy if not fuzzier; however, I do remember the reverence RFK had for MLK when announcing his assassination.

I don't know that the Civil Rights Act passes in this timeline, at least not at the exact moment, but maybe it does? However, you get to avoid Vietnam. Maybe it's not helpful pondering these sorts of things, but is trading the Civil Rights Act for Vietnam a good deal, net benefit for humanity wise?

There's this idea of "punching down" and "punching up". I'm fairly sure that in 2012, Obama mocking Donald Trump was generally considered closer to "punching up" than "punching down" (whether that was really accurate depends a lot on the true state of Trump's financial affairs, but in general he projected a persona that involved being uber-wealthy, uber-famous and generally able to do whatever he wanted).

By contrast, Trump's mocking of, variously, Mexican and central American migrants, the disabled, media reporters etc. is generally seen as "punching down".

In our culture, those further up the ladder are generally expected to take a "punching" (i.e. mockery, jokes, satires, ridicule) from below in good stead. We generally expect them to not "punch down" at those less enabled by power and wealth.

I'm having a hard time accepting that the President ever punches up. He's the most powerful person in the world and has the sole authority to authorize the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. The office enjoys the Bully Pulpit and it is valuable to have this arrangement in my opinion.

At any rate, watch the clip if you haven't recently.

https://youtu.be/n9mzJhvC-8E?t=574

It's pretty interesting actually, to me at least, that Obama roasts Biden pretty much just as well for his off-the-cuff remarks and age immediately after his digs at Trump, which are less derogatory than I had remembered.

If the president was trying to "punch up" with respect to national and international policy, I would totally agree with you.

But consider the moment right now. Do you think that if President Biden were to satirically mock Jeff Bezos about wealth, space travel, employee care, or putative drone delivery, that he would actually be punching "down" from the white house? I certainly don't think so.

Trump on Jeff Bezos' divorce: "I wish him luck, I wish him luck. It's going to be a beauty."

I think that's punching down. I'm not sure it's a helpful abstraction, but I think once one becomes President it's impossible to separate the person from the office until their term ends.

>The office enjoys the Bully Pulpit and it is valuable to have this arrangement in my opinion.

A lot of good that is doing in the Biden years. :/

How about we just not punch people in any direction?

I think that it is extremely important that our leaders, and to some extent even our idols, should be subject to satire and perhaps even mockery on occasion. That's what "punching" means in the context we're talking about.