The idea that what we're seeing is because "too many people voted for the wrong guy" fails to recognize the larger condition for which all of this is merely emergent phenomena. We no longer have the resources to sustain the society we life in so it begins to uncomfortably revert to lower energy states in ways we haven't seen in a long time.
However both of them argue that a stable society can exist with stable energy inputs, but with much less than now.
* one of the best pieces of advice I ever got, related to skating to where the puck is going to be: "if you know where to be, you can let the young guys run"
A one hundred year old farmer's collective with deep assets and a membership that makes US preppers look ... uhhh, unprepped.
Literally established well outside what one US astronaut called the most remote city in the world, it is made up of individuals that are all capable of survival in harsh environments and yet choose to work together to lower collective costs and ensure fires are kept in check, floods don't knock out individuals, roving scam artists get talked about on bush telegraph, etc.
Any group strongly united by a common goal (in this particular case, their religious order) can do surprisingly well.
Easier said than done