If there was no such thing as scarcity of resources, both the United States' industrial revolution and Chinese reformations would be resounding victories for human progress. In the short term, there is a great easing of misery. You cannot discount how meaningful that is to people directly involved. I'm not as up on India, but it seems like they are going down a similar path.
The problem is we now know what the long-term consequences are, but the idea of a forever-growing economy as a pathway to further prosperity is something that seems hardwired into our philosophies of being. I think in a multi-party democratic system, there is more room for protest, education, consciousness-building; whereas, in a one-party system, if that party is not prepared to do something about the path of environmental degradation down which we've already gone pretty far, and dissidents are jailed and killed, you're totally screwed. Our fanatical wing of science deniers are just people totally consumed by the idea of forever-growth. They aren't empowered by democracy, they're using the anti-democratic institutions Bondo mentioned (the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court) to undermine a majority that at least understand it's a problem, a surging plurality that think it's a crisis, and a large majority that knows there will need to be sacrifices made.
I still think we need to look outside the super powers for real answers about how to live now that we know forever-consumption is at odds with human longevity. And we need to look at countries that are full democracies* with many parties that ultimately make life better for great numbers of people without consuming at an outsized rate. We have to look there to start formalizing a plan to get the world to zero-growth, which would likely include job shares and some material sacrifices, but that we'd all still be provided for and have freedom to dissent, to question, to form counter-arguments and organizations that put pressure on the status quo. Denmark, Findland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway have always been fascinating case studies on multi-party democracy eventually leading to a commitment to slowdown consumption and prepare themselves for a post-growth world.
On Sandy's remarks about Trump being the guru for the evangelicals, I think that's down to the embracing the "prosperity gospel." That's much easier to swallow than Matthew 19:24, New International Version: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
*Democracy Index Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
I want you to know that I read this and I've considered your point. I haven't considered the idea that we haven't come to terms with the fact that we are in a post-growth society, but it makes sense when innovation has slowed down considerably since the Silicon Valley age in the 80s.
Perhaps part of me is thinking that socialism could win the political war but not the culture one and, because of that, far-left candidates will end up losing. We need to stop associating socialism with pure evil. To do that, I think you have to destroy whatever belief that the model of government created for the United States isn't morally superior to other forms of government, in this case, communism, because this current model is far more rooted in conservative ideology than most would like to admit (instead we appear to insist that it is truly the centrist, fair and balanced view which just reinforces the status quo). I have my way, you have yours, but your way makes me question mine.
I think that democratic socialism can win on both political and cultural fronts, and that's why we're seeing a surge for Sanders and the negative connotations attached to socialism start to wane. Polls (see below) show that young people like socialism at a similar rate as they like capitalism. Honestly, I'm still coming around to the difference between communism and socialism, and I think that in our modern day it's because communism is more closely associated with totalitarianism and a closed society, and socialism seems now possible without that. That's how I'm now using those terms, and again, that seems like how a lot of younger voters are seeing it. Thus, I actually think what you're ultimately after, a leftward shift in politics and a departure from Cold War era red scare thinking/paranoia, is occurring, it's just a matter of whether or not it can get to the majority and start setting the agenda in our government, and what ultimate form it takes. And I still think it's important to steer clear of evoking communist governments of old, if only because it sets off old fears and anxieties, and it's not useful for forwarding a progressive agenda. You can make the argument that unfettered capitalism is immoral and leads to oligarchy, thus needs to be regulated, while social programs that provide universal access to health care, education, good jobs, and a pension are both moral and necessary, without relitigating the Cold War. Let's (not you and me, but the capital-L Let's) agree that we need something better and figure out what that better is without feeling trapped by history, BUT making sure we always have an open society where the people can vote, make decisions, protest and demonstrate, and make great movies freely and without fear of retribution (that's where the learning from collectivist failings from the past can help inform a better, more collective future in the U.S.A., which, as you well stated, has a right-wing bent compared to other developed countries.). And, I won't deny, I think our country, with its diversity, with its evolution into a more inclusive society for more than just white, male, Christian people, its big economy and penchant for innovation is uniquely positioned to really make a bigger, better something, as opposed to just being a huge hurdle toward worldwide progress on important issues.
Sorry if I ramble too much. Always trying to figure out just the best way to word this.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx