The problem, Dan, is that we live in a Panglossian world.  Most of your fellow citizens have allowed themselves to become convinced that this system of ours is as good as it gets for all of humanity.  These are the people who believe that God gave their nose bridges to hold up their spectacles.

First, I agree with auntsam's comment.  It is a lockdown certainty that it will be up to organized and mobilized citizens to create the pressure and support for movement in the direction of the kinds of changes you are talking about. 

In response to your questions, here are a few stabs:

1. I believe there are visionary progressive thinkers, writers and activists who have done important parts of the intellectual work that will be needed.  The issue is the rest of your question: are they well-positioned to establish themselves as heralds of major change?  About that I'm inclined to think not, at least not yet.  One lesson I draw from Occupy is that leadership emergence is probably going to have to be organic (slow).  Choosing leaders is something that the folks associated with Occupy seemed deliberately averse to doing.  Their concept seemed to be that distributed leadership is preferable, partly to ensure against setbacks that can come about due to a movement's vulnerability created by having a single high-profile leader.  The process by which Martin Luther King, Jr. emerged as the most widely recognized (by the media) spokesperson of the civil rights movement up until around 1967 or 1968 is instructive.  King was essentially reluctantly dragged into being the spokesperson for the Mongtomery bus boycott.  Out of which he acquired the national visibility without which he probably would not have emerged in the role that he played. 

2. The historically useful ones, such as boycotts, demonstrations, civil disobedience, etc., of course need to be on the table and are likely to be useful again.  One of the wildcards in the current situation is whether someone(s) will figure out how to greatly amp up the impact of social media, already significant.  Another, related, is whether relatively coordinated and effective cross-national mobilizations can and will take place.  There is certainly far more global awareness about some of the big issues than there has been in other eras.    

3. The Democratic party may be the party that benefits most from the type of mobilization of people and consciousness that you are talking about if we are going to get any major traction on the bigger issues.  Historically, at times when we've seen the (often regional) constituency configurations and/or issue stances of the major parties switch (during the 1960s and 1970s most recently), these have often been a response to independent social movements or even third party candidacies (that has perhaps been their greatest positive value, when their consequences are overall positive; I disagree with those who believe that 3rd party candidacy votes are always a "waste of a vote").  I hear old farts like Ed Rollins say the GOP is too too white, too male, too bald and too fat and is on its way to extinction unless it changes and I wonder if, and when, that might happen.  This I have come to believe based on observations over the years: the Democratic party may react to stronger pressure, but it will not lead in the sense you are referring to absent substantially more pressure generated through growing unrest, to the point where a lot more folks get off the couch and supplement what they're doing on their keyboards by getting out there and participating more actively, visibly, or with farther reaching consequences.   (Aren't something like 2/3 of American adults obese?  This could be an effective weight-loss approach.)  The Democratic party will behave as political parties do--usually cautiously with the belief that therein lies the best hope of winning elections.  Political parties don't exist to repair or better society.  They exist to win elections.  You know there is a difference between the two.  If the Democratic party thinks it stands to gain more than it stands to lose by making changes in the directions you favor--or, perhaps if enough of its key officials acquire a mindset over time of panic or desperation--it may do so, may take greater risks on the policies it decides to fight for.    

4. Perhaps.  But one question is how much citizen support are specific proposed strategies or tactics capable of drawing if there is visible and immediate hardship and pain that goes with that?  And will those who are willing to do such things further or hinder their cause by doing so?   

5. Well it just may be the case that, as some here have maintained, things will have to get worse before there is a possibility that they may get better.  Heaven help us and I do not wish for that.  Many who have participated in them have tried to warn us that social or political crises or upheavals are not romantic and good-exciting as some may like to imagine they are or as they are sometimes portrayed in movies or fiction.  They tend to last not that long, a few years at most, because, I surmise, it is emotionally exhausting as well as often materially unpleasant, to live amidst a widespread sense of crisis and because most individuals prefer some sense of order and stability to their lives.  I would think that living in the midst of a widely perceived social or political crisis would in fact reduce the high degree of disengagement or alienation from public affairs that seems so prevalent in our society today.  In times where there is a lot of social and political change, lots of folks who are not habitually politically active get active or at least engaged.  In that sense, a widespread sense of social or political crisis down the road a bit might well provide some of the sense of experiential urgency, vividness, or immediacy that draws some people to war, others to daredevil stunts or high-stakes athletics or other forms of competition.  But that would come with large and costs that would be unacceptable to many people who would be hurt.  By no means is it a foregone conclusion that we would come out of a period of intensifying social disruption better off overall at the end for it.  Personally I would rather see us go the more boring and less disruptive, less destabilizing routes to the kind of historically rapid changes I think we need.  But our institutions as they are currently functioning, or not functioning as the case may be, may not permit a more orderly and conventional and less disruptive approach that will still be effective.  Just looking at the major changes our society has been through, when has it ever not been highly disruptive and bumpy?  But I find it impossible to make any meaningful predictions about how historical change processes are most likely to play out.  They emerge organically and have a life of their own.  I think that if there are folks who fashion themselves as something like masters of the universe, able to channel and control an increasingly restive public indefinitely and on their terms, they are quite wrong about that. The US public remains mostly asleep.  That will not continue indefinitely on current trajectories.  I would have thought that there would have been more modern-day plutocrats and oligarchs, like Buffett in some ways, who by now would have seen the wisdom of helping shape more manageable change in directions they may not particularly welcome, the better to reduce the chances of more radical and disruptive changes which they would see as dangerous or disastrous or merely very much unwanted.  But that would require more of them seeing themselves as, and acting like, leaders of our society and our world who adhere to a stewardship and more broadly life-affirming and democratic ethic.  We are a long way from that; there appears to be no critical mass of such individuals that has emerged to play helpful roles in permitting, let alone advocating, changes in the operative rules that might enable us to get traction dealing with some of more fundamental and tougher issues we face today.

6. a. Yes.  Many futures are possible, including ones directionally similar to what you are talking about.  b. I sure as hell hope so.  I will not engage in violent actions--by that I mean actions that involve direct physical injury to other people, not necessarily ruling out tactics such as boycotts, which in some cases predictably can harm oneself or others.  I oppose the use of such tactics.  I will not support them in any way and if I see opportunities to try to dissuade others from doing so I think I should seize them, and will try to do so.

An interesting and sobering take on America which I just came across is a 2009 book, The Eliminationists, from Amazon review:

 Neiwert.....links the proliferation of radical conservative ideas in the political mainstream to the looming specter of "eliminationism," an ideology rejecting dialogue and debate "in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile, and eviction, or extermination." Eliminationism has taken many forms in American history,...a perversion of nationalism and so-called patriotism is not just sprees of deadly shootings such as we saw in.........(it is) the death of discourse itself.

Instead of offering an opposing idea, it simply shuts down intellectual exchange and replaces it with the brute intention to silence and eliminate." And at the heart of democracy lies the belief that no matter our differences, we are committed to communication. When silence falls, democracy loses, and the author here maintains that when hate rhetoric is employed, at its base it really is a hatred of America itself--with its stated ideals of pluralism--that is the unacknowledged target.

Interesting post, Dan. Brings up a number of problems. Demographics for one.

We have now additional demographics we did not have after WWII.

Suburban for one.  It was not initially a separate demographic as those who lived in suburbia originally came from the cities or from the rural areas.  Now a distinct demographic as we now have people who have been raised in and lived entirely in the burbs as it were.

And a sub group -  the gated suburban community which is usually of the higher income bracket.

The questions you pose were difficult enough to answer when there were only the city dwellers and rural/farm dwellers who had each there own views and there fore agendas and wants.

True that some of these agendas do overlap but not enough, I feel, to create a strong consensus. 

The small towns, which at one time were extensions of the rural/agrarian culture - being mostly to support it - are now not so much and could be considered a separate demographic unto themselves. 

All of which makes reaching an accord much more difficult.

Fewer and fewer groups with similar shared experiences.