If we adhere to this theory, which I do, the United States has more or less had revolutions on a 100 year cycle. The second revolution brought about a near total re-foundation of the American state, while the third brought about, if not quite a re-foundation, a major reconfiguration. While liberals may acknowledge this, they see it as evidence against a fourth revolution; liberals see history as being a straight line deterministic towards progress; when counter-revolution, or periods of reaction do occur, they are treated by liberals as either a hiccup, or a sign that things have gone too far. We can see this line applied often to the first two revolutions; while historian Charles Beard considered the constitution to be an oligarchic reaction to the more democratic Articles of Confederation, liberals treat it as a necessary evil to centralize the state; and Reconstruction is still often spoken of as a "disaster" for giving too much power to "those who weren't ready for it" (your average high school American history textbook repeats this line beloved by Jim Crow ideologues, albeit in more muted terms).
For many liberals, the Civil Rights Movement was the "last" revolution, and until the election of their bete noir Trump, American society was moving on a straight line towards progress (Nixon, Bush, Clintonite neoliberalism, the invasion of Iraq, etc... being treated, again, as hiccups, or necessary evils) that culminated in the election of Barack Obama as the first black president in 2008. Or, as liberal Saint Obama misquoted Dr. King, while his administration was bombing an unprecedented number of countries at one time, the "arc of the moral universe... bends towards justice". That Donald Trump was elected president is a major crisis for the liberal establishment, because it shatters their narrative of deterministic progress, and once again opens up the mainstream conversation to the possibility of revolutionary change. The Civil Rights Movement was supposed to have "solved" all of America's problems, so what is going on?
That periods of revolutionary change are usually followed by periods of intense reaction comes as no surprise to Marxists, who, unlike liberals, are able to analyze history in a dialectical and materialist manner. If we treat the election of Trump as the ultimate reaction against the Civil Rights Movement, that only shows the inadequacy and shortcomings of said movement. For all of its major changes, most of them were on paper, and didn't threaten the capitalist state; the latter adapted. In the place of Jim Crow capitalism, we now have "intersectional" capitalism, with an ever expanding rainbow of a ruling class, and an ever more alienated working class turning to either apathy, or outright reaction. This shows the necessity of socialist revolution, and such a revolution can only be led by a communist party armed with Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. The events of the past two years have only vindicated Marxism-Leninism, as an increasingly bold far-right movement stages more audacious campaigns and attacks, and have only been beaten back to some degree through counter-intimidation.
To sum up the discussion so far, a fourth American revolution looks likely; the bourgeois democratic state has reached the limit to which it can bend. There isn't going to be Nordic style social democracy in the epicenter of global capitalist power, because even such a small concession would be giving up too much power. Look at how the ruling class has fought at every turn against Obamacare, a neoliberal, market-driven form of "universal" health care. Bernie Sanders isn't happening. We need a communist party, there just isn't one yet. The main challenge is that the American left is in its own process of re-foundation, having been eviscerated by neoliberalism, identity politics, and a constant tailing of the Democratic Party. So far, no grouping (they can't really be called parties) has been able to formulate a correct position analyzing American history and its revolutionary prospects.
The American working class is hardly revolutionary, and is, in many cases, conservative and nationalistic, especially the "White Working Class". The Roseanne revival curled the blood of many liberals, aghast to find the once liberal Conners have become Trump supporters. Except the Conners didn't change, what passes as the "left" changed. Patriotism is a potent force among the American working class, and to ignore it, or to take a knee-jerk anti-Americanism position is political suicide. This is not to suggest leftists should embrace American nationalism, but we also have to be careful to separate the American state from the American nation and the American people. With the exception of Puerto Rico, Guam, and other nations under American colonial occupation, separatism has ceased to play any kind of significant role in American radical politics. However, because the idea of a socialist revolution in the United States appears to be so remote, some leftists have embraced the idea of just destroying the American state altogether without thought of what would come next. Usually the proponents of "let chaos reign" are the ones who would be the least affected by it, i.e. petite bourgeois liberals who like to "play" "revolution". Should such a scenario come to pass, it would be an unmitigated disaster for the "marginalized" they claim to champion.
For socialism to triumph in the US, revolutionaries must believe in it, and build their organizations with the conviction that they can actually win. America may appear to be invincible to the outside world, but like all empires, the cracks are building up. To believe that things will just stay this way, and that there is no possibility for transformation is a liberal idea, not a Marxist one. While the American state may not have the history of constant re-foundation like, say, France has, its upheavals tend to be far more significant in scope and impact. There is no material reason to indicate that this will not continue to be so. For victory, we must embrace a politics of victory that centers the working class as its revolutionary vanguard.