REAP WHAT YOU SOW.

It's possible to seize control of the institutions and still fail to achieve the outcomes you desire.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the political left waged an endless war on the alleged corruption of government and the leadership elite. The 1960s political revolution preached mistrust of government and all governing establishments. In the 1970s, the social and cultural revolution turned against all the nongovernmental institutions in society. The family, the neighborhood, the church, the employer – all were corrupt and in need of either drastic reform or abandonment. Consequently, by the time the 21st century arrived, the political left had succeeded in cultivating the seedlings of mistrust throughout American society.

That claim paints with too broad a brush, for although what Patrick Garry calls "the left" includes people who argued with, but often, out of allegiance to the binary choice logic, voted for Democrats, there's still a lot of technocratic interference by the administrative state that helped undermine, for example, families and neighborhoods.  There are still solid criticisms of the technocratic vision from the left.  I agree, though, that "It is difficult to be optimistic when the ominous signs have been accumulating for half a century."  The self-styled progressives might think they control the federal machinery, but they are kidding themselves, and that's probably going to keep the worst case scenario Mr Garry envisions from coming true.

Now that the left has succeeded in discrediting nearly every American social and cultural institution, it has turned full circle back to where it began – the federal government. Except now, the left wants Americans to place all their trust in the bureaucracies of central government. Now that little if any trust remains toward any social institution, the left wants all Americans to give their unquestioned loyalty and trust to the one institution at which the left first aimed its campaign of mistrust.

That bureaucracy has been a comedy of errors of late, and there are probably some ancient leftists who are not disappointed, although their notion of "the worse, the better" likely involves a different outcome than the libertarian populists contemplate.

The professional-managerial class has discredited itself precisely by being contemptuous.

It is no wonder that wide reaches of American society refuse to trust the vaccination messages of the political left. Those liberal elites who call farmers and factory workers and rural residents the “deplorables” of society now insist that vaccinations are essential to life and membership in democratic society. Even though they once derided people as “deplorables,” the liberal elite now say they want to save and protect them. Is it no wonder that mistrust exists?

But this has been part of the technocratic playbook for a long time: rather than persuade, they talk down.  How much compliance do you get from people you've insulted?  Not much.

“Democracy” now means not the rule or sovereignty of the people but the fiat of elites and “experts.” When the people can be persuaded, duped, or bullied into ratifying expert insistence, so much the better. That extra pretense of legitimacy helps quiet and discredit dissent. When they can’t, no matter. The “right thing” will be done, come what may, and that too is “democratic” under the new meaning. The cloyingly disingenuous phrase “our democracy” really means “their oligarchy.”

Is that a false idealism at work?

One especially amazing feature of our time is the clear astonishment of those who unremittingly spew hatred when their hatred returns disdain. They seem honestly to expect to be loved and are hurt that they aren’t. Somehow their own sense of self-worth as Reds’ natural superiors is tied to Red affirmation; they are, in a sense, slaves to the good opinion of those they despise.

(That's Michael "Flight 93" Anton writing; there's a fair amount of polemic to go with those excerpts.)  He might be right, though, that despising people isn't a winning move.

No one on the receiving end of what Blue America consistently dishes out to Red ever votes for that.

But it’s clear that Blue America is not really trying to win over Red. Rather, its aim is to rally its side to permanent offense (in part to avoid infighting) and to guilt Reds into lying down and taking it.

Sometimes, all it takes is a surprise election outcome to get the technocratic types to stop and think.

After years of declines in rural America, Democrats are now facing the real possibility of losing their House and Senate majorities next year over what many see as a failure to address pocketbook issues; the feeling has contributed to a sense of abandonment among many rural Americans, including many voters who backed Democratic candidates in the past. Heitkamp is one of several individuals with a knowledge of rural issues who spoke to Insider and have sounded alarm bells over Democrats' missteps. In assessing why Democratic support continues to falter in rural areas, Heitkamp said that the decline in ticket-splitting has been a major component. "I think people in general have gotten more tribal," she said. "The willingness for Democrats to vote for Republicans is diminished and vice versa."

And it might be foolish to hope that larger turnouts in thickly settled areas.

Ben Tribbett, a Virginia-based Democratic strategist, told Insider that without concerted voter outreach in the countryside, the party could face deeper losses in future election cycles.

"I've been asked before, 'What's the lowest we can go in a place like Buchanan County and if we have hit rock bottom?' And the answer is zero," he said. "You would think that this happening cycle after cycle would cause the Democratic Party to get out there and go ask voters why and find out how we get them back. But instead, what I've seen happen on the consultant side is because the suburbs are growing, they just say, 'Don't worry about it. We'll go pick up the votes elsewhere.' And I think those people hear that message."

Here's where that punitive approach might have bit the Donks in Virginia. Is it really wise to suggest that parents who object to derivative critical studies thinking in third grade are "domestic terrorists" or that some support for shopping centers not being looted makes one "racist?"

That article notes some opportunities for more conventional Democrats, which is to say, not beholden to the Gimme Caucus, to offer a bundle of sensible schools, crime prevention, and improved internet service outside the metropolitan areas.  Whether anybody gets the memo is yet to be determined.