Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(11-20-2018, 01:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 02:55 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 12:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Another point, is that Kavanaugh portrayed HIMSELF as a horrible person, by the way he behaved, and so did the Republican senators who defended him. This circus should have caused more people to vote Democratic. While it may have done so, a little bit, in the blue states, as part of the 38-seat turnover in the House, in the red states the loonies voted to put more loony Republicans in the senate, rewarding Kavanaugh and the loonies already there for their horrible behavior with 2 more seats. It's like giving more candy to a crying baby.

A horrible person like myself would have completely flipped it around and began persecuting Amy Klobuchar and the black dude and Hispanic chick who didn't seem to know what country they live in or the basic laws and the Constitutional that relate to the country that they claim to be associated with but are some how still unable to relate with most of it.

I notice an attempt to develop some style. A little self-effacing humor. That is very American -- especially Silent. That sort of humor is heavily fossilized now.

Kavanaugh inappropriately accused Amy Klobuchar of being a problem drinker by asking the impertinent question, to effect "Isn't everybody?"

"Dude" and "chick" reduce people to their sexuality, so avoid using them in a professional context or relating them to a professional context unless they are in fact used. Formalities matter greatly in the Senate, where people are not identified as "the black dude (from New Jersey)" or the "Hispanic chick". I don't know of any Hispanic females in the Senate. Biracial Americans like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are Americans in ways that I am not.

Parts of America are difficult for many Americans to relate to. If I am in Appalachia I am obviously a tourist. Its cultural norms are foreign to me.

Well, the black dude from New Jersey and the Hispanic chick from California and the Caucasian chick from Minnesota are supposed to be members of a political wing of a national party that no longer  views issues or judges people or makes their decisions on the basis of ones race or gender. The Silents had class and got away with it by doing it with class. Well, we've moved beyond that as a society. Class no longer matters, the tolerance of society pertaining to what is viewed as acceptable or willing to live with has greatly increased to the point that just about anything goes these day. The social protections that women once grew up and learned to understand and learned take advantage of or enjoyed as women are disappearing and women are no longer being judged on the basis of their gender. Unfortunately, Amy Klobuchar ain't quite up to par with me or my values and if we were to ever meet she'd find out how far she was/is behind ordinary purples (men and women alike) like me. Bob doesn't seem to understand that there's two groups of progressives, a blue group that's fighting like crazy to protect itself and the systems they use to control and a reddish group who is working to break the cycles that has been trapping people and holding people back  for years. BTW, according to you and your views of those who live in your area and view of those around you, you live in a poor God forsaken place  like Appalachia.

Kamala Harris has a black American father and an India-born mother. She is not Hispanic.

Having class? Do you mean in the sense of socio-economic status (SES) or in showing off one's real or imagined economic success?  Or is it cultural identity? SES applies to educational and vocational achievement, Showing off economically might impress someone like the late Paul Fussell if one spends money or time on some leisure activities and material objects than on some others. Being a high roller in Vegas and spending a lot of time there is less impressive than being heavily involved in the art scene in Boston. A sail boat may be similar in cost to a motorcycle, but riding the freeways on a motorcycle is less impressive than sailing around Cape Cod in a wind-powered wooden boat.
Having a bachelor's degree from Harvard is more impressive than having a PhD from a diploma mill.

Paul Fussell is no longer around to discuss the matter, but Donald Trump has great wealth but behavior characteristic of the sort of person who typically wins the Super Duper Megabucks lottery. He is vulgar in the extreme, as I showed on another thread. 

You have me pinned down well on the sort of place in which I live. Maybe I have left too many clues. It was a good place to live when anyone with a good work ethic could get a well-paying job in a factory. That ended about 50 years ago. The factories, the most reliable means of escape from poverty, are no longer around.

OK, so what would I do if I had such money? Early? Grad school of some kind. I would have a passport full of endorsements from interesting places. House full of souvenirs? How impressive is a coffee cup with the name "PARIS" across it, the Eiffel Tower substituting for the A? You would tire of it, too. All that I envy about the rich is their foreign travel and their economic security.

(11-20-2018, 01:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Bob doesn't seem to understand that there's two groups of progressives, a blue group that's fighting like crazy to protect itself and the systems they use to control and a reddish group who is working to break the cycles that has been trapping people and holding people back  for years.

I do understand there are multiple motivations.  Some will support movements like Me Too to end the abuse of women which has gone on for years and is almost traditional.  Some are out for power, and are using the movement to hurt Trump, Kavanaugh and other specific red people.  In the process, if some of them end up under the bus, that is the cost of doing business.  The red are certainly not the sole abusers.  Then there are 'all men are created equal' folk who support multiple minorities seeking to fight the prejudices of the white males.

And this is par for the course, the way the elites exploit exploitation, how values change to become more inclusive.  The elites want to hurt someone, so they get behind what suddenly is unacceptable.

I don't know about reddish progressives.  (Oxymoron?)   I am more used to among the reddish, the KKK, the votes stolen by the Republican Southern Strategy, the so called deplorables.  The Agricultural Age was one of class and privilege, and some of it lingers, and this is what it is all about, preserving or rejecting white male Protestant class and privilege.  This doesn't mean there are not honorable Reds.  There certainly are.  I am just not used to thinking of them as numerous or dominant.  There is nothing wrong with small government and self reliance.  Population density certainly effects how to best provide necessary services, and how obvious problems are where a person lives.  

There is something wrong with ignoring real problems, prejudice and being selfish.  Unravellings should come as part of the cycles, but should not last forever.  The Reagan unravelling values have run their time.

(11-21-2018, 04:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I do understand there are multiple motivations.  Some will support movements like Me Too to end the abuse of women which has gone on for years and is almost traditional.  Some are out for power, and are using the movement to hurt Trump, Kavanaugh and other specific red people.  In the process, if some of them end up under the bus, that is the cost of doing business.  The red are certainly not the sole abusers.  Then there are 'all men are created equal' folk who support multiple minorities seeking to fight the prejudices of the white males.

And this is par for the course, the way the elites exploit exploitation, how values change to become more inclusive.  The elites want to hurt someone, so they get behind what suddenly is unacceptable.

I don't know about reddish progressives.  (Oxymoron?)   I am more used to among the reddish, the KKK, the votes stolen by the Republican Southern Strategy, the so called deplorables.  The Agricultural Age was one of class and privilege, and some of it lingers, and this is what it is all about, preserving or rejecting white male Protestant class and privilege.  This doesn't mean there are not honorable Reds.  There certainly are.  I am just not used to thinking of them as numerous or dominant.  There is nothing wrong with small government and self reliance.  Population density certainly effects how to best provide necessary services, and how obvious problems are where a person lives.  

There is something wrong with ignoring real problems, prejudice and being selfish.  Unravellings should come as part of the cycles, but should not last forever.  The Reagan unravelling values have run their time.

Bob, if you were able to stop clinging to your interpretation/understanding of Strauss and Howe's theory and quit assuming the outcome will be the same as it was in the past 4T and quit ignoring the advancements we have made since then and the lessons we have learned since then. The Reagan values have taken hold and are staying for good. The progressive values of old are being or have largely rejected and the progressives aren't responding well to its rejection these days. In my opinion, the Obama election represented it's last dying gasp. How many blue voters believed they hit the jack pot? How many American voters found out they didn't matter as much to the blues? How many voted to save their home that was being foreclose and ended up loosing it? How many American voters voted for jobs and ended up being jobless for years or forced to work a few jobs to make up for the job loss? You better get familiar with them because that's who is going to be showing up in large numbers to support Trump and advance the continuation of his policies who are more likely to vote Republican than they were a decade ago. The small blue wave turned purple like I said it would be not so along ago.

(11-21-2018, 04:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, if you were able to stop clinging to your interpretation/understanding of Strauss and Howe's theory and quit assuming the outcome will be the same as it was in the past 4T and quit ignoring the advancements we have made since then and the lessons we have learned since then. The Reagan values have taken hold and are staying for good. The progressive values of old are being or have largely rejected and the progressives aren't responding well to its rejection these days. In my opinion, the Obama election represented it's last dying gasp. How many blue voters believed they hit the jack pot? How many American voters found out they didn't matter as much to the blues? How many voted to save their home that was being foreclose and ended up loosing it? How many American voters voted for jobs and ended up being jobless for years or forced to work a few jobs to make up for the job loss? You better get familiar with them because that's who is going to be showing up in large numbers to support Trump and advance the continuation of his policies who are more likely to vote Republican than they were a decade ago. The small blue wave turned purple like I said it would be not so along ago.

We are on a see saw.  Trump did flip it.  The blue establishment chose the wrong candidate.  We came within an inch of overcoming the slave compromises and holding the White House in 2016, but didn't.  It is typical extremist thinking to project their own thinking on others, on the majority.  You are going to continue it until after the regeneracy, where the last set of values is overturned, when you are left to do nothing but curse "That man in the White House" and fade away.

Maybe.  We'll see.

I worry about the rest of the world.  My vision of the future requires democracy.  In places like China, democracy never took hold, and never might.  They lived through an extended bad time, from the Opium Wars through Mao, and very much fear a return to chaos, the evils and suffering of perpetual revolution.  The capitalist and political elites are working together now, the former producing the wealth, the latter trimming the worst abuses, the people too fearful to upset the apple cart.  Too many folk world wide are accepting this compromise, giving up on the power of the people to demand change.

But the troubles will fade further in the past, and competition with true democracies remains.

Maybe.  We'll see.

(11-21-2018, 04:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2018, 04:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I do understand there are multiple motivations.  Some will support movements like Me Too to end the abuse of women which has gone on for years and is almost traditional.  Some are out for power, and are using the movement to hurt Trump, Kavanaugh and other specific red people.  In the process, if some of them end up under the bus, that is the cost of doing business.  The red are certainly not the sole abusers.  Then there are 'all men are created equal' folk who support multiple minorities seeking to fight the prejudices of the white males.

And this is par for the course, the way the elites exploit exploitation, how values change to become more inclusive.  The elites want to hurt someone, so they get behind what suddenly is unacceptable.

I don't know about reddish progressives.  (Oxymoron?)   I am more used to among the reddish, the KKK, the votes stolen by the Republican Southern Strategy, the so called deplorables.  The Agricultural Age was one of class and privilege, and some of it lingers, and this is what it is all about, preserving or rejecting white male Protestant class and privilege.  This doesn't mean there are not honorable Reds.  There certainly are.  I am just not used to thinking of them as numerous or dominant.  There is nothing wrong with small government and self reliance.  Population density certainly effects how to best provide necessary services, and how obvious problems are where a person lives.  

There is something wrong with ignoring real problems, prejudice and being selfish.  Unravellings should come as part of the cycles, but should not last forever.  The Reagan unravelling values have run their time.

Bob, if you were able to stop clinging to your interpretation/understanding of Strauss and Howe's theory and quit assuming the outcome will be the same as it was in the past 4T and quit ignoring the advancements we have made since then and the lessons we have learned since then. The Reagan values have taken hold and are staying for good. The progressive values of old are being or have largely rejected and the progressives aren't responding well to its rejection these days. In my opinion, the Obama election represented it's last dying gasp. How many blue voters believed they hit the jack pot? How many American voters found out they didn't matter as much to the blues? How many voted to save their home that was being foreclosed and ended up losing it? How many American voters voted for jobs and ended up being jobless for years or forced to work a few jobs to make up for the job loss? You better get familiar with them because that's who is going to be showing up in large numbers to support Trump and advance the continuation of his policies who are more likely to vote Republican than they were a decade ago. The small blue wave turned purple like I said it would be not so along ago.

Somehow the values projected by the charming actor who was able to deceive so many, became entrenched especially among conservative individualist Gen Xers and also many Boomers and Silents. It was a temporary fluke, but now those such as Classic Xer who became wedded to those free-market self reliance values feel they are entitled to power in this country and are able to mobilize a reaction to any change such as that led by Gingrich in 1994 and the Tea Party in 2010. Conservatives hope for an end to progress to preserve their privileges, and thus oppose or hate "progressives." But progress is probably embedded in the human spirit and DNA and cannot be blocked forever. "Progressive values of old" is an oxymoron; progressive values are always advanced compared to regressive ones; no matter how far back the former might reach, the regressive values go back further. Being stuck on the ideology of the charming actor is an anomaly that won't last. The precedent of past 4Ts always featuring a conflict between progress and regression with progress winning may not be stopped either. Progress has made a recovery in the House and in some statehouses in this midterm, but that is hardly grounds for declaring a progressive victory yet. 

Astrology, astutely practiced, can be a source of revealing predictions of what can happen, and I have a good track record here and elsewhere as a prophet. For 4 decades, I have predicted the 2020s would be a progressive decade based on the cyclic patterns, so I won't change it now despite reversals in Florida and some red states in this midterm. People can't be deceived forever that Republican policies that protect the interests of the bosses instead of the workers create more jobs for the workers, or that Republican policies that encourage financial gambling with mortgages by the rich bankers will keep middle class people in their homes.

(11-20-2018, 08:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 01:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 02:55 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 12:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Another point, is that Kavanaugh portrayed HIMSELF as a horrible person, by the way he behaved, and so did the Republican senators who defended him. This circus should have caused more people to vote Democratic. While it may have done so, a little bit, in the blue states, as part of the 38-seat turnover in the House, in the red states the loonies voted to put more loony Republicans in the senate, rewarding Kavanaugh and the loonies already there for their horrible behavior with 2 more seats. It's like giving more candy to a crying baby.

A horrible person like myself would have completely flipped it around and began persecuting Amy Klobuchar and the black dude and Hispanic chick who didn't seem to know what country they live in or the basic laws and the Constitutional that relate to the country that they claim to be associated with but are some how still unable to relate with most of it.

I notice an attempt to develop some style. A little self-effacing humor. That is very American -- especially Silent. That sort of humor is heavily fossilized now.

Kavanaugh inappropriately accused Amy Klobuchar of being a problem drinker by asking the impertinent question, to effect "Isn't everybody?"

"Dude" and "chick" reduce people to their sexuality, so avoid using them in a professional context or relating them to a professional context unless they are in fact used. Formalities matter greatly in the Senate, where people are not identified as "the black dude (from New Jersey)" or the "Hispanic chick". I don't know of any Hispanic females in the Senate. Biracial Americans like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are Americans in ways that I am not.

Parts of America are difficult for many Americans to relate to. If I am in Appalachia I am obviously a tourist. Its cultural norms are foreign to me.

Well, the black dude from New Jersey and the Hispanic chick from California and the Caucasian chick from Minnesota are supposed to be members of a political wing of a national party that no longer  views issues or judges people or makes their decisions on the basis of ones race or gender. The Silents had class and got away with it by doing it with class. Well, we've moved beyond that as a society. Class no longer matters, the tolerance of society pertaining to what is viewed as acceptable or willing to live with has greatly increased to the point that just about anything goes these day. The social protections that women once grew up and learned to understand and learned take advantage of or enjoyed as women are disappearing and women are no longer being judged on the basis of their gender. Unfortunately, Amy Klobuchar ain't quite up to par with me or my values and if we were to ever meet she'd find out how far she was/is behind ordinary purples (men and women alike) like me. Bob doesn't seem to understand that there's two groups of progressives, a blue group that's fighting like crazy to protect itself and the systems they use to control and a reddish group who is working to break the cycles that has been trapping people and holding people back  for years. BTW, according to you and your views of those who live in your area and view of those around you, you live in a poor God forsaken place  like Appalachia.

Kamala Harris has a black American father and an India-born mother. She is not Hispanic.

Having class? Do you mean in the sense of socio-economic status (SES) or in showing off one's real or imagined economic success?  Or is it cultural identity? SES applies to educational and vocational achievement, Showing off economically might impress someone like the late Paul Fussell if one spends money or time on some leisure activities and material objects than on some others. Being a high roller in Vegas and spending a lot of time there is less impressive than being heavily involved in the art scene in Boston. A sail boat may be similar in cost to a motorcycle, but riding the freeways on a motorcycle is less impressive than sailing around Cape Cod in a wind-powered wooden boat.
Having a bachelor's degree from Harvard is more impressive than having a PhD from a diploma mill.

Paul Fussell is no longer around to discuss the matter, but Donald Trump has great wealth but behavior characteristic of the sort of person who typically wins the Super Duper Megabucks lottery. He is vulgar in the extreme, as I showed on another thread. 

You have me pinned down well on the sort of place in which I live. Maybe I have left too many clues. It was a good place to live when anyone with a good work ethic could get a well-paying job in a factory. That ended about 50 years ago. The factories, the most reliable means of escape from poverty, are no longer around.

OK, so what would I do if I had such money? Early? Grad school of some kind. I would have a passport full of endorsements from interesting places. House full of souvenirs? How impressive is a coffee cup with the name "PARIS" across it, the Eiffel Tower substituting for the A? You would tire of it, too. All that I envy about the rich is their foreign travel and their economic security.

Well, she looks like a Hispanic woman to me. I didn't know she was half African American and half Asian Indian instead. Did she grow up in a wealthy blue neighborhood or did she grow up in a typical American neighborhood? Was she fed with a silver spoon or a cheap Gerber spoon or a cheap run of the mill baby spoon that was also used by other brothers and sisters too? You seem to know more about her than me and seem to have more interest in finding out her actual ethnicity then me as well. Next time, I'll just refer to her as the brownish chick from California instead.

(11-21-2018, 07:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow the values projected by the charming actor who was able to deceive so many, became entrenched especially among conservative individualist Gen Xers and also many Boomers and Silents. It was a temporary fluke, but now those such as Classic Xer who became wedded to those free-market self reliance values feel they are entitled to power in this country and are able to mobilize a reaction to any change such as that led by Gingrich in 1994 and the Tea Party in 2010. Conservatives hope for an end to progress to preserve their privileges, and thus oppose or hate "progressives." But progress is probably embedded in the human spirit and DNA and cannot be blocked forever. "Progressive values of old" is an oxymoron; progressive values are always advanced compared to regressive ones; no matter how far back the former might reach, the regressive values go back further. Being stuck on the ideology of the charming actor is an anomaly that won't last. The precedent of past 4Ts always featuring a conflict between progress and regression with progress winning may not be stopped either. Progress has made a recovery in the House and in some statehouses in this midterm, but that is hardly grounds for declaring a progressive victory yet. 

Astrology, astutely practiced, can be a source of revealing predictions of what can happen, and I have a good track record here and elsewhere as a prophet. For 4 decades, I have predicted the 2020s would be a progressive decade based on the cyclic patterns, so I won't change it now despite reversals in Florida and some red states in this midterm. People can't be deceived forever that Republican policies that protect the interests of the bosses instead of the workers create more jobs for the workers, or that Republican policies that encourage financial gambling with mortgages by the rich bankers will keep middle class people in their homes.

You're track record sucks.  You've already admitted that you partisan view/liberal bias got in the way of you're ability to make an accurate prediction. Do the stars predict the central issue or issues, political outcomes and the victors? You'd think so based on your predictions that have the progressives coming out on top. You've predicted that a period of social unrest is going to occur during the 2020's. A prediction of yours that I actually agree with at this time. BTW, I predicted the 08 crash was coming soon and got out of the new home construction market before it hit without using information from the stars as a guide.

(11-22-2018, 12:01 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2018, 07:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow the values projected by the charming actor who was able to deceive so many, became entrenched especially among conservative individualist Gen Xers and also many Boomers and Silents. It was a temporary fluke, but now those such as Classic Xer who became wedded to those free-market self reliance values feel they are entitled to power in this country and are able to mobilize a reaction to any change such as that led by Gingrich in 1994 and the Tea Party in 2010. Conservatives hope for an end to progress to preserve their privileges, and thus oppose or hate "progressives." But progress is probably embedded in the human spirit and DNA and cannot be blocked forever. "Progressive values of old" is an oxymoron; progressive values are always advanced compared to regressive ones; no matter how far back the former might reach, the regressive values go back further. Being stuck on the ideology of the charming actor is an anomaly that won't last. The precedent of past 4Ts always featuring a conflict between progress and regression with progress winning may not be stopped either. Progress has made a recovery in the House and in some statehouses in this midterm, but that is hardly grounds for declaring a progressive victory yet. 

Astrology, astutely practiced, can be a source of revealing predictions of what can happen, and I have a good track record here and elsewhere as a prophet. For 4 decades, I have predicted the 2020s would be a progressive decade based on the cyclic patterns, so I won't change it now despite reversals in Florida and some red states in this midterm. People can't be deceived forever that Republican policies that protect the interests of the bosses instead of the workers create more jobs for the workers, or that Republican policies that encourage financial gambling with mortgages by the rich bankers will keep middle class people in their homes.

You're track record sucks.  You've already admitted that you partisan view/liberal bias got in the way of you're ability to make an accurate prediction. Do the stars predict the central issue or issues, political outcomes and the victors? You'd think so based on your predictions that have the progressives coming out on top. You've predicted that a period of social unrest is going to occur during the 2020's. A prediction of yours that I actually agree with at this time. BTW, I predicted the 08 crash was coming soon and got out of the new home construction market before it hit without using information from the stars as a guide.

My track record is strong, here and elsewhere. Another poster here challenged me by listing the most important events of the last 50 years, and asked me how many of them I predicted. I had predicted half of them. That's better than anyone. And in my video I discussed my track record in predicting elections. Although yes, my bias helped get in the way of predicting Trump would win. A prophet needs to admit mistakes. And yet, both of the main methods I use to predict elections worked! Hillary won the popular vote for the party in power, as I predicted, and Trump had the superior horoscope score, predicting his victory. It was very close. But I predicted that the 2010s would be a conservative decade; that fits the 30-year Saturn cycle. The 2020s fits the pattern of progressive decades according to that cycle. But note that I predict a Trump victory in 2020 if the Democrats nominate someone with a lower horoscope score than Trump. Bias or no bias.

But that's good you predicted the 2008 crash. I had predicted that one several decades in advance, and you can also hear that in my video of one of my many speeches in which I made that prediction, from 10 years before it happened. Most people, prophets and pundits did NOT predict that 08 crash. I'll post the links again just for reference.

(11-21-2018, 09:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 08:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 01:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2018, 02:55 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]A horrible person like myself would have completely flipped it around and began persecuting Amy Klobuchar and the black dude and Hispanic chick who didn't seem to know what country they live in or the basic laws and the Constitutional that relate to the country that they claim to be associated with but are some how still unable to relate with most of it.

I notice an attempt to develop some style. A little self-effacing humor. That is very American -- especially Silent. That sort of humor is heavily fossilized now.

Kavanaugh inappropriately accused Amy Klobuchar of being a problem drinker by asking the impertinent question, to effect "Isn't everybody?"

"Dude" and "chick" reduce people to their sexuality, so avoid using them in a professional context or relating them to a professional context unless they are in fact used. Formalities matter greatly in the Senate, where people are not identified as "the black dude (from New Jersey)" or the "Hispanic chick". I don't know of any Hispanic females in the Senate. Biracial Americans like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are Americans in ways that I am not.

Parts of America are difficult for many Americans to relate to. If I am in Appalachia I am obviously a tourist. Its cultural norms are foreign to me.

Well, the black dude from New Jersey and the Hispanic chick from California and the Caucasian chick from Minnesota are supposed to be members of a political wing of a national party that no longer  views issues or judges people or makes their decisions on the basis of ones race or gender. The Silents had class and got away with it by doing it with class. Well, we've moved beyond that as a society. Class no longer matters, the tolerance of society pertaining to what is viewed as acceptable or willing to live with has greatly increased to the point that just about anything goes these day. The social protections that women once grew up and learned to understand and learned take advantage of or enjoyed as women are disappearing and women are no longer being judged on the basis of their gender. Unfortunately, Amy Klobuchar ain't quite up to par with me or my values and if we were to ever meet she'd find out how far she was/is behind ordinary purples (men and women alike) like me. Bob doesn't seem to understand that there's two groups of progressives, a blue group that's fighting like crazy to protect itself and the systems they use to control and a reddish group who is working to break the cycles that has been trapping people and holding people back  for years. BTW, according to you and your views of those who live in your area and view of those around you, you live in a poor God forsaken place  like Appalachia.

Kamala Harris has a black American father and an India-born mother. She is not Hispanic.

Having class? Do you mean in the sense of socio-economic status (SES) or in showing off one's real or imagined economic success?  Or is it cultural identity? SES applies to educational and vocational achievement, Showing off economically might impress someone like the late Paul Fussell if one spends money or time on some leisure activities and material objects than on some others. Being a high roller in Vegas and spending a lot of time there is less impressive than being heavily involved in the art scene in Boston. A sail boat may be similar in cost to a motorcycle, but riding the freeways on a motorcycle is less impressive than sailing around Cape Cod in a wind-powered wooden boat.
Having a bachelor's degree from Harvard is more impressive than having a PhD from a diploma mill.

Paul Fussell is no longer around to discuss the matter, but Donald Trump has great wealth but behavior characteristic of the sort of person who typically wins the Super Duper Megabucks lottery. He is vulgar in the extreme, as I showed on another thread. 

You have me pinned down well on the sort of place in which I live. Maybe I have left too many clues. It was a good place to live when anyone with a good work ethic could get a well-paying job in a factory. That ended about 50 years ago. The factories, the most reliable means of escape from poverty, are no longer around.

OK, so what would I do if I had such money? Early? Grad school of some kind. I would have a passport full of endorsements from interesting places. House full of souvenirs? How impressive is a coffee cup with the name "PARIS" across it, the Eiffel Tower substituting for the A? You would tire of it, too. All that I envy about the rich is their foreign travel and their economic security.

Well, she looks like a Hispanic woman to me. I didn't know she was half African American and half Asian Indian instead. Did she grow up in a wealthy blue neighborhood or did she grow up in a typical American neighborhood? Was she fed with a silver spoon or a cheap Gerber spoon or a cheap run of the mill baby spoon that was also used by other brothers and sisters too? You seem to know more about her than me and seem to have more interest in finding out her actual ethnicity then me as well. Next time, I'll just refer to her as the brownish chick from California instead.

You could just refer to her as Kamala Harris. But you can also note that I predict that she has no chance to win a presidential election.

(11-21-2018, 04:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, if you were able to stop clinging to your interpretation/understanding of Strauss and Howe's theory and quit assuming the outcome will be the same as it was in the past 4T and quit ignoring the advancements we have made since then and the lessons we have learned since then. The Reagan values have taken hold and are staying for good. The progressive values of old are being or have largely rejected and the progressives aren't responding well to its rejection these days. In my opinion, the Obama election represented it's last dying gasp. How many blue voters believed they hit the jack pot? How many American voters found out they didn't matter as much to the blues? How many voted to save their home that was being foreclose and ended up loosing it? How many American voters voted for jobs and ended up being jobless for years or forced to work a few jobs to make up for the job loss? You better get familiar with them because that's who is going to be showing up in large numbers to support Trump and advance the continuation of his policies who are more likely to vote Republican than they were a decade ago. The small blue wave turned purple like I said it would be not so along ago.

Well, to start with, I do not center my views entirely on S&H, and am among the first to point out where the new age will have different patterns than the Industrial Age that S&H centered on.  Computers, nukes and renewable energy will do that.  If one assumes the old pattern, you will be in error.  This can be seen if you look objectively, but the patterns you find can be confirmed by analysis.  You note that wars between major powers stopped about as nukes were developed, and think what nukes can do to the elites source of wealth.  They can reduce the wealth to ashes, which makes the elites very much inclined to discourage major wars.

I also find a scientific world view superior to a political one in many ways.  It is hard to let go of the politics, entirely.  I am a Whig.  I am a fan of the enlightenment, one who would push the ideals of equality, democracy and human rights.  I lean heavily blue.  That shapes my more scientific world view.  But I am not your great-grandfather's Whig.  If the conditions have changed, you'd hope the political world views would change with them.  Often they don't.  An extremist will indeed cling to his perspective as the world moves on.  It is hard to keep up to date.

Conservatives and progressives often crash into each other.  The conservative often benefits from the existing situation, and thus it seems to make sense.   The progressive sees problems, and wishes to change the existing situation to solve said problems.  I believe that if you don't address a problem, it will get worse until you do commit to solving it.  Thus, the blues may have an advantage.  If you wait long enough, the problems will definitely have to be solved.  Until the problems are put in the past - like ruling nobility, kings, slaves, and wars between major powers - you get worse and worse.  This seems to be the ruling dynamic between red and blue.  The question is whether things have changed that much.  What new dynamic has changed the established dynamic.

Among the things that must change in blue eyes are division of wealth, prejudice, global warming, reusable energy and pollution.  The need for change is not clear on all issues, but they seem to get clearer with time.  I see no reason to change the basic Whig perspective.  There are always those who cling to the past, who worry only about their time, or cling to a certain political way of looking at things.  Still, such people have faded away in the past.

While the above applies mostly to the domestic situation, we have to look also at the international.  In some ways, the democracies have an advantage.  The influence of the people can force a culture to change, to better adapt, to defeat the tendency of the elites to monopolize wealth.  There is a way short of violence to change.  In other ways, the still autocratic cultures of today may have the advantage.  The people under an autocratic culture have less power, fewer rights, are usually poorer, and in general can be better exploited.  The elites are ready to move jobs to autocratic nations to better exploit poorer people.

In a way, this is good.  If a rising tide lifts all boats, these are some of the boats that need to be raised.

In a way, this is bad.  Representative democracy has a bad flaw, namely representatives.  Once elected the representatives are effectively elites, and thus will do the elite's bidding, not the people's.  This flaw could be solved by computer network direct vote democracy.  The correct rules, enough attention, enough security, could make the government serve the people again.  Yet, striving for direct vote democracy is (surprise!) on neither the red, blue or elite agenda.  Thus, we are doomed to fail, there will be at least one more S&H cycle where the problem will rise to the lead.

Anyway, I do not see myself as locked tightly into one political perspective.  I do see the blue learning lessons from Reagan and unraveling politics.  I for one would not get overconfident during a time like the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the new style political awakening, a time of change.  Progressives have to expect reactionaries.  They have to fight their own corruption and inefficiency.  Have they leaned?  Likely not enough.

(11-21-2018, 04:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2018, 04:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I do understand there are multiple motivations.  Some will support movements like Me Too to end the abuse of women which has gone on for years and is almost traditional.  Some are out for power, and are using the movement to hurt Trump, Kavanaugh and other specific red people.  In the process, if some of them end up under the bus, that is the cost of doing business.  The red are certainly not the sole abusers.  Then there are 'all men are created equal' folk who support multiple minorities seeking to fight the prejudices of the white males.

And this is par for the course, the way the elites exploit exploitation, how values change to become more inclusive.  The elites want to hurt someone, so they get behind what suddenly is unacceptable.

I don't know about reddish progressives.  (Oxymoron?)   I am more used to among the reddish, the KKK, the votes stolen by the Republican Southern Strategy, the so called deplorables.  The Agricultural Age was one of class and privilege, and some of it lingers, and this is what it is all about, preserving or rejecting white male Protestant class and privilege.  This doesn't mean there are not honorable Reds.  There certainly are.  I am just not used to thinking of them as numerous or dominant.  There is nothing wrong with small government and self reliance.  Population density certainly effects how to best provide necessary services, and how obvious problems are where a person lives.  

There is something wrong with ignoring real problems, prejudice and being selfish.  Unravellings should come as part of the cycles, but should not last forever.  The Reagan unravelling values have run their time.

Bob, if you were able to stop clinging to your interpretation/understanding of Strauss and Howe's theory and quit assuming the outcome will be the same as it was in the past 4T and quit ignoring the advancements we have made since then and the lessons we have learned since then. The Reagan values have taken hold and are staying for good. The progressive values of old are being or have largely rejected and the progressives aren't responding well to its rejection these days. In my opinion, the Obama election represented it's last dying gasp. How many blue voters believed they hit the jack pot? How many American voters found out they didn't matter as much to the blues? How many voted to save their home that was being foreclose and ended up loosing it? How many American voters voted for jobs and ended up being jobless for years or forced to work a few jobs to make up for the job loss? You better get familiar with them because that's who is going to be showing up in large numbers to support Trump and advance the continuation of his policies who are more likely to vote Republican than they were a decade ago. The small blue wave turned purple like I said it would be not so along ago.

The Glorious Revolution is not Crisis of the American Revolution and Constitutional formation; neither is fully comparable to the American Civil War and its prequels (such as Bleeding Kansas); and neither of the three is the Great Depression and World War II. How different is the situation from the Great Depression and the Civil War? Should America be involved in a war in which Germany and Japan between tyranny and freedom it will be the Germans and Japanese on the side of freedom and us with a despotic or dictatorial government -- and I could imagine in the aftermath that Japanese occupation authorities will mandate the teaching of the Japanese  language (if in a Roman script) in public schools in Washington, Oregon, and California -- and don't be surprised if the Japanese annex Alaska and establish a puppet state in Hawaii. (As Longfellow's poem goes... the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail). We Americans kicked fascist butt all the way from Midway to Tokyo and from Omaha Beach and Kasserine Pass to Venice, Salzburg, Pilsen, and and Weimar and stopped only because the Japanese surrendered and the Russians got to Berlin, Prague, and Vienna before we did. It helped that we were under the rule of decent leaders instead of the brutes who prevailed in Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo. Change the relationship between Good and Evil to its opposite, and Chicago is the infamously-divided city.  

Due to recent polarization of politics and mass culture on ethnic or regional lines, the Civil War scares me as an ominous analogue this time. The recent example of Yugoslavia scares the Hell out of me.

You may ignore that a President so different from Reagan in ideology (Obama) could largely adopt his style as a political leader. You may ignore that the closest analogue to Obama as President is Eisenhower (which might surprise people unfamiliar with the Howe and Strauss theory).

I see Trump as a catastrophic failure as President (but that is for a later post), and I predict that the next effective conservative President will be much more like Obama in style and substance, either adopting an ideology more pro-capitalist and more compatible with Protestant fundamentalism or deciding to hinder 'progress' from his position. No new wars, no scandals, respect for precedent and protocol, recognizing the importance of civic ritual -- that is Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama -- and not Trump! Scandals alone are at an unprecedented level; it is hard to compare his scandals to other political disasters such as economic meltdowns, military and diplomatic disasters, or simple incompetence.

The 2018 elections should disabuse anyone of any idea of the inevitable and inexorable success of the right-wing ideology of Donald Trump. This is not to say that conservatism will not arise again in America, but instead that it will be shorn of its demagoguery and divisiveness. It will need to offer opportunity for people other than economic elites. It will need to accept some humanistic values. It will need to be more traditional than revolutionary.

My posting on Leip's Atlas of Elections:

Now  for the potential dynamics of the electorate (of 2012 for the Presidency, and not also the colors inverted from what is normal in American political journalism, reflecting the norm in that site):



Navy indicates that nothing suggests anything other than a Trump victory in 2020.  The state

(1) has not voted for any Democratic nominee for President in the 21st century
(2) voted for Trump by more than 10% in 2016 and with a majority of the total vote, and
(3) did not elect a Democratic Senator in 2018
(4) did not elect a Democratic Governor in 2018.
(5) gave a majority of its House votes to the Republicans in 2018.

Maroon indicates the absence of any signal of a Trump victory in 2020. The state

(1) has not voted for any Republican nominee for President in the 21st century
(2) voted against Trump by 10% or more in 2016
(3) did not elect a Republican Senator in 2018.
(4) gave a majority of its House votes for Democrats in 2018

OK, there are some anomalous results. New Mexico should be considered a firm D state because it elected a Democratic governor, it elected a full House delegation to Congress, and it went for Clinton by just less than 10%. Colorado and Virginia seem to be drifting D very fast. That these states voted for Dubya twice or once may be of little relevance now. Trump has been shown extremely unpopular in these states. Minnesota seemed like the most stalwart of Democratic states, having even voted against Reagan in his 49-state blowout... but it was close in 2016. It did elect two Democratic Senators, one veteran in a landslide and an appointed Senator decisively. Appointed politicians have a poor record of being elected on  their own -- but those that do are either very strong or win in states that strongly favor their Party. Nevada ousted a Republican Senator and elected a Democratic Governor, so it goes into the medium-red category.

Maine was close in 2016, but it utterly crushed Republicans in House races after barely going for Clinton. Pennsylvania gave House Democrats an edge of 10% in 2018, so the vote for Trump in 2016 looks like an anomaly in a way that it doesn't look like such an anomaly in Michigan or Wisconsin. New Hampshire barely voted for Clinton in 2016, but the edge that it gave to House Democrats makes it look similarly tough.  

On the other side, the dark green in Utah indicates that if the Utah Democratic Party ends up endorsing a third-party nominee for President rather than the Democrat who wins nomination in the national convention, then Trump will be in trouble.  Indiana did vote for Obama in 2008, so it is on a very lax level of probation even if it voted by an edge of more than 10% for House Republicans in 2018. Kansas voted in a Democrat as Governor and gave House Republicans a 10% statewide, so it is on a watch list.   West Virginia barely elected a Democrat to the Senate, so that is more than can be said of Democratic chances in Missouri.    


 

Now things get dicier. The only states that I put in pink are two states whose sole indication that they will vote for Trump again (Michigan and Wisconsin)  is that they voted for him in 2016, and just barely. They did not vote for the Democrats for the House by overwhelming numbers as was the case in Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania. If they go solid D in my next analysis in this thread, it will be because I have seen a recent credible poll that suggests that Trump will lose severely in 2020 (disapproval of 55% or more or a matchup in which Trump loses to a generic or every specific Democrat by 10% or more).  But note well -- the Democrat must basically win every state in any shade of red (including pink) to barely win the Presidency. Both states elected Democrats as Governor and Secretary of State, so President Trump wins them the hard way or does not win them at all.

Iowa gave an edge in the House of nearly 4%, but it re-elected a Republican Governor, so it is in white. I'm putting Florida in a 'caution' category in the event that the President muffs the handling of a hurricane between now and November 2020. This state is really close to 50-50. Montana and Ohio both re-elected Democratic governors even if Republicans won most statewide races, so they are in pale blue. Texas falls into this category because it came close to electing a Democrat for a Senate seat. In all of these states the Republican edge for House seats was less than 5.2%  Texas was closest, so that counts about as much as Ohio going twice for Obama. North Carolina had no statewide races, but it elected a Democratic Governor in 2017 (which still counts) and gave a very narrow win for Republicans in the total vote for House seats. North Carolina Republicans tightly gerrymandered the state back in 2011, but that will not have enough of an effect on statewide totals for any Presidential or Senatorial race (and the Senate race in North Carolina may decide which Party has the Senate majority in 2021, but I am going on a tangent here). I could put the Tarheel State into the super-iffy category but have provisionally decided to not do so.  Arizona voted for a Democratic Senator (if also a Republican Governor), and gave (except perhaps for Florida) the narrowest edge in total votes in House races.

Finally -- I am giving slight edges to Republicans in Nebraska-02 because the Republican Representative won the district outright with a small majority, and  the Republican Party in ME-02, even if the Democrat won. Trump won that district by 10% in 2016 -- and the Republican nominee for the House seat won a plurality in the first round  of the election but lost the second round due to ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting does not apply to the Presidential election, as I understand.


 

Safe D  188
Likely D 64
Lean D 26

278 in all shades of red, enough for a Democratic win

46 too close to call -- in white or yellow

Lean R 93
Likely R 22
Solid R 95

Utah is safe R (6) without a conservative alternative to Trump -- otherwise a possible win for a Third Party nominee (6)

Trump must win everything in any shade of blue, green, or yellow -- and white while picking off something in a red  shade to win.

Winning those 278 votes might well be possible for Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. Wisconsin would be the key state that's on the edge. McAuliffe and Landrieu and possibly Sherrod Brown might be able to flip the states in white and yellow, plus Ohio and Maine 1. Landrieu might also have a chance in Georgia and North Carolina. No other Democratic candidate is likely to beat Trump, if Trump runs in 2020.

(11-23-2018, 02:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]… Conservatives and progressives often crash into each other.  The conservative often benefits from the existing situation, and thus it seems to make sense.   The progressive sees problems, and wishes to change the existing situation to solve said problems.  I believe that if you don't address a problem, it will get worse until you do commit to solving it.  Thus, the blues may have an advantage.  If you wait long enough, the problems will definitely have to be solved.  Until the problems are put in the past - like ruling nobility, kings, slaves, and wars between major powers - you get worse and worse.  This seems to be the ruling dynamic between red and blue.  The question is whether things have changed that much.  What new dynamic has changed the established dynamic.

Among the things that must change in blue eyes are division of wealth, prejudice, global warming, reusable energy and pollution.  The need for change is not clear on all issues, but they seem to get clearer with time.  I see no reason to change the basic Whig perspective.  There are always those who cling to the past, who worry only about their time, or cling to a certain political way of looking at things.  Still, such people have faded away in the past...

This is exactly where the problems exist. We have a world in flux, driven by forces that are self-directed and, mostly, unmitigated. Does anyone or anything have a solid brake on the excesses of private business -- especially multi-national corporations? Yet the conservatives among us tend, by nature, to abhor correctives that threaten to change "the way things are", even though those current social economic structures are frayed to the point of decomposing. Meanwhile, private power continues on its current trajectory, with Silicone Valley now the emerging giant of bad behavior.

Our counter to private power is supposed to be public power, but public power has been so thoroughly trashed as "elitist" or "anti everything good and wholesome", that it is totally ineffectual. Before any of the real problems can be addressed, and most are screaming for focus and effort, the principal engine of change needs to set back on its feet and made whole again. Neither party is working to that end, and the Democrats, more than the GOP, should be making the effort. They are the party of government, or have been in the past.

Making government righteous again is not a trivial or short-term project. It may take a collapse of the economy or, far worse, the climate to adjust communal thinking. I would prefer a less draconian option, but I'm not sure that's even possible anymore.

Well stated and I thoroughly agree. I don't know what's possible either. I see a possible economic downturn as I predicted probably unfolding now over the next couple years, but no big downturn in the 2020s. But that may depend on Democrats retaking power in 2020; otherwise perhaps things may get worse. Republican power would be severely curtailed in the 2022 midterms in that case; Democrats would get enough power in congress to virtually run things. 6th-year midterms are historically unfavorable or disastrous for the party holding the White House. With Trump still in office, it would be a tsunami. But I doubt Trump will last past 2021 if he's re-elected. Meanwhile the climate crisis will get worse, and we have seen nothing yet as far as fires, floods, drought and heat are concerned. And appropo of this thread, gun massacres and violence will continue unabated until the Democrats pass comprehensive gun control including civilian bans on weapons of war. More and more supporters of gun control appear and get active after each massacre.

(11-24-2018, 12:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](snip). 

And appropo of this thread, gun massacres and violence will continue unabated until the Democrats pass comprehensive gun control including civilian bans on weapons of war. More and more supporters of gun control appear and get active after each massacre.

The Founding Fathers were perfectly capable of writing a Constitution to prevent just that.  You can try to spend political capital and lose votes in the process, stalling other changes, but you will achieve nothing.  I don't know that this is particularly wise, even though you might be sincere in holding your beliefs.  

Lots of folks are sincere in their beliefs.

The place of least resistance is having psychiatrist identify the high risk suicide prone people and use that in your perpetual attempt at prohibition.  Unfortunately, I don't see how much this will help.  Prohibition has not worked.  Unfortunately suicide by cop and making a profit off news coverage of said events has become part of the culture.  Trying to get the news people involved in stopping their link in the spiral of violence seems futile.  How do you stop someone from enhancing their profits?

We just need to focus on things that might be done and promise a return on investment.  We need to come together, rather than have the news radio pundits and late night comics profit over splitting folks apart.

(11-24-2018, 04:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-24-2018, 12:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](snip). 

And appropo of this thread, gun massacres and violence will continue unabated until the Democrats pass comprehensive gun control including civilian bans on weapons of war. More and more supporters of gun control appear and get active after each massacre.

The Founding Fathers were perfectly capable of writing a Constitution to prevent just that.  You can try to spend political capital and lose votes in the process, stalling other changes, but you will achieve nothing.  I don't know that this is particularly wise, even though you might be sincere in holding your beliefs.  

Lots of folks are sincere in their beliefs.

The place of least resistance is having psychiatrist identify the high risk suicide prone people and use that in your perpetual attempt at prohibition.  Unfortunately, I don't see how much this will help.  Prohibition has not worked.  Unfortunately suicide by cop and making a profit off news coverage of said events has become part of the culture.  Trying to get the news people involved in stopping their link in the spiral of violence seems futile.  How do you stop someone from enhancing their profits?

We just need to focus on things that might be done and promise a return on investment.  We need to come together, rather than have the news radio pundits and late night comics profit over splitting folks apart.

Gun "rights" and abortion bans are still used to get votes successfully in red states, I admit. But their red tide is shrinking in many places, such as Texas. Meanwhile though, on the blue side gun control is very popular, including bans on war weapons like the AR-15. That will get done if the blues win the elections. It's only we blues that need to "come together," though the rising blue tide will take some reds along with them. Just not the many fanatics who will go down with the Drump ship with their guns and their abortion bans.  The great late night comics will make the truth more attractive, as they are the ones telling the truth in an entertaining way. Telling the truth with a smile is great strategy. Hoping for kumbaya in a 4T is like singing a sing song as you sink into the sea. But you can join King Arnulf if you wish, and not deal with the 4T reality as it is.

(11-24-2018, 04:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-24-2018, 12:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](snip). 

And appropo of this thread, gun massacres and violence will continue unabated until the Democrats pass comprehensive gun control including civilian bans on weapons of war. More and more supporters of gun control appear and get active after each massacre.

The Founding Fathers were perfectly capable of writing a Constitution to prevent just that.  You can try to spend political capital and lose votes in the process, stalling other changes, but you will achieve nothing.  I don't know that this is particularly wise, even though you might be sincere in holding your beliefs.

The military weapons of the time had dual use, both military and civilian. As late as 1941 Yamamoto said of America that in the event that Japan invaded the United States there would be a gun behind every tree. In the time of the American Revolution the firearm that could be used against a pirate, a slave in revolt, a marauding Indian, a highwayman, a rabid dog, or a bear (all legitimate fears) -- or in shooting a deer as prey or a wolf approaching one's livestock -- was also a military weapon. Let us remember that we do not have the right to keep artillery pieces, rocket launchers, or tanks.

Quote:Lots of folks are sincere in their beliefs.

People can be sincere and wrong in their believes, and I know circumstances in which I will be wrong. We all know about optical illusions and hallucinations. Let me miss a day of sleep or two days of food, and I will hallucinate. I ordinarily stop with one alcoholic beverage and completely avoid street drugs.

Quote:The place of least resistance is having psychiatrist identify the high risk suicide prone people and use that in your perpetual attempt at prohibition.  Unfortunately, I don't see how much this will help.

Having been there, I should not have a firearm unless I am on a bona fide hunting trip or if I need a firearm for defense of myself or loved ones (bear nearby, basically). I can think of some places in Alaska and the northern Rockies in which I would have a gun. 

Quote:Prohibition has not worked.  Unfortunately suicide by cop and making a profit off news coverage of said events has become part of the culture.  Trying to get the news people involved in stopping their link in the spiral of violence seems futile.  How do you stop someone from enhancing their profits?

When I lived in Greater Dallas, I well knew that convenience stores were places to get in and out with the speed of an armed robber because I dreaded being there in the event that an honest-to-Dillinger armed robber stopped by. Armed robberies are rare, but they are one of the most frequent circumstances in which murders happen (the others were family arguments, barroom brawls, and drug trafficking). I try to get away from any family argument, I am very careful about what bars I patronize, and you can imagine how much I loathe and dread drug activity.

Quote:We just need to focus on things that might be done and promise a return on investment.  We need to come together, rather than have the news radio pundits and late night comics profit over splitting folks apart.

Whatever our political philosophies and economic positions, we all need to promote a more life-affirming culture. That is a rational but not heartless culture, a culture that respects learning and thought, cherishes individuality and achievement, honors human rights, and that recognizes the public welfare  as an objective instead of an option. Wherever one is on the continuum between economic libertarianism and democratic socialism (the latter Marxist economics without the terror and dictatorship of Commie states), we need this lest the rest of what we believe in become a nightmare.

I do not see Donald Trump as part of a life-affirming culture.

(11-26-2018, 09:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Whatever our political philosophies and economic positions, we all need to promote a more life-affirming culture. That is a rational but not heartless culture, a culture that respects learning and thought, cherishes individuality and achievement, honors human rights, and that recognizes the public welfare  as an objective instead of an option. Wherever one is on the continuum between economic libertarianism and democratic socialism (the latter Marxist economics without the terror and dictatorship of Commie states), we need this lest the rest of what we believe in become a nightmare.

Let us start with an assumption that you have stated a blue value fairly well.

Let us further say that you have not stated a red value very well at all.  Let us assume many red will disagree firmly, that this is a big difference between red and blue.  You are stating your personal values not a Universal Truth.

In the Industrial Age, the positive steps, including the progressive Whig ones, were achieved by violence.  The reduction in power of the kings and nobles, the freedom of the slaves, the defeat of major autocratic powers including fascism and communism, all happened by war and threat of war.  The red acknowledge it.  They see no need to change.  They wish to continue the possibility of violence, if as a last resort if nothing else.  

Ironically, what we saw through the Industrial Age was that the more industrialized blue culture with superior manufacturing was able to regularly defeat the militaristic Agricultural Age power with the glorification of force.  We often saw progress triumph while the older values pressed force.  The autocratic and military cultures lost and died.

Now, I have been pushing recently that this dynamic has changed.  Nukes ended war between fully technological civilizations.  Awakenings and votes of Congress may have replaced crises and war for changing domestic culture.  Democracy may have become reliable enough to replace violence as a way of transforming cultures in some places.  Things may be very different since WW II and the Consciousness Revolution.

If so, the red do not see it yet.  They are still proud that the red do more than their share of maintaining military readiness.  They see value in keeping the government honest by maintaining an armed populace.  They honor the concept of self defense, that the good guys outnumber the bad guys if only they are trained, equipped and ready.

And in the Industrial Age, they were absolutely correct.  Without doubt.  Period.  I still see it as prudent to be stronger than our international autocratic rivals.  Violence remains the ultimate resolution.  It may become obsolete, a true last resort,  to be avoided if possible, but it does remain even in the new age.

Not that I am sure if the red are right anymore.  I have my doubts.  Letting go of the violent trump card and trusting softer forms of power may be risky. Knowing you are morally superior to the armed burger as you bleed out might not be the ideal resolution.

But they are values locked, many of them, in their beliefs.  Asking them to change is unlikely, futile, and unthinkable.  You might be better off considering what changes you demand of them.  It makes some sense to pick your battles and wait for the next crisis awakening.

(11-27-2018, 03:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-26-2018, 09:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Whatever our political philosophies and economic positions, we all need to promote a more life-affirming culture. That is a rational but not heartless culture, a culture that respects learning and thought, cherishes individuality and achievement, honors human rights, and that recognizes the public welfare  as an objective instead of an option. Wherever one is on the continuum between economic libertarianism and democratic socialism (the latter Marxist economics without the terror and dictatorship of Commie states), we need this lest the rest of what we believe in become a nightmare.

Let us start with an assumption that you have stated a blue value fairly well.

Let us further say that you have not stated a red value very well at all.  Let us assume many red will disagree firmly, that this is a big difference between red and blue.  You are stating your personal values not a Universal Truth.

Moral values always begin with some non-rational premise. I find in practice that I never say anything really new I see virtues as ideals to cultivate and practice because people with those virtues can look out for each other instead of having to watch their backs. Virtues make a good society; their lack or antitheses damn people to Hell on Earth.

Just today I saw a fairly good expression of what I believe in. I may not achieve these, but I know what I am missing, which shows where I need to work.

Quote:

1. Authenticity—Be the same person at every occasion in life. Don’t act differently in front of your parents, friends, co-workers, in-laws, and strangers. Stay your true self. And never be afraid of other people’s judgments.
   
2. Truthfulness—Tell the truth. Always. Especially when it comes to your own life. Don’t have money? Don’t pretend that you’re wealthy. Never went to college? Own it. Be honest about who you are and what you’ve done. You’ll be able to look at yourself in the mirror with pride.
   
3. Joyfulness—Life is short. Do things that bring you joy. And NEVER do something you hate for longer than is necessary. Enjoy the small things. Music, other people, working out, walking, laying down, reading, and so forth.
   
4. Curiosity—Get to the bottom of everything that you do. Not because you must. But because it’s fun to know things. Life is fascinating. Acknowledge it. And then, try to understand it. But leave it at trying. Some things can’t be understood. But you can still admire it.
   
5. Responsibility—Own your actions, mistakes, and current life situation. Understand what’s in your control, and fully own it. Don’t like something? Change it. But don’t take responsibility for things that are not on your plate. Focus on yourself. What other adults do is not your concern, nor your responsibility.
   
6. Love—Build intimate and deep relationships with a few people. Depth matters more than breadth. Spend more time with your spouse than your co-workers. Get to know your siblings on a deeper level. Have two or three friends that you spend your time with. Love your family. The people you see every day should get your highest priority.
   
7. Fearlessness—Don’t fear the future. And don’t be afraid of what people you don’t care about think of you. Only care about what you and the people you love think about you. Everything else is noise. Have dignity. Do the right thing and don’t fear the rest.
   
8. Loyalty—Even though you might not see your old friends, co-workers, team members, stay loyal. Once you build a bond with someone, don’t break it unless it’s necessary. But most importantly, stay loyal to yourself. Never sacrifice your own mental well-being for others. Treat yourself like you treat someone you love.
   

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a-lis...2325294839

It is only coincidence that I find this on the Web today. It all makes eminent sense. Making the world more livable, which means that happiness will be more accessible and not the result of elite status, will take effort. All must pitch in and do their share as if they were waging war on a relentless enemy.

Some of us may not be what we wish we are. Asperger's syndrome has me. I would like recognition that I often express myself in ways that others do not like. Some people have 'excessive melanin' in a world of white privilege. Some people have limited mobility due to disease, accident, or congenital conditions. Some people have limitations of mental capacity. We need see people for what they are and not for their limitations. Significantly, poverty in a culture that practically worships economic gain and indulgence degrades life for many. One would think that with all the wonders of technology and productive ability that we would have solved poverty, yet our economic elites maintain it as a tool of control of the common man today as the lash was a tool of control of slaves in the last hurrah of an aristocratic, agrarian order.

A good society based on good people as their behavior demonstrates? That is nothing new. It is Aristotle.

Quote:In the Industrial Age, the positive steps, including the progressive Whig ones, were achieved by violence.  The reduction in power of the kings and nobles, the freedom of the slaves, the defeat of major autocratic powers including fascism and communism, all happened by war and threat of war.  The red acknowledge it.  They see no need to change.  They wish to continue the possibility of violence, if as a last resort if nothing else. 

Of course. Elites may start with a necessary and even revolutionary change that serves all, and over time they exploit the hereditary principle (Why should 'my' serfs receive emancipation? Or, who will do the dirty work if we do not subject a race? Or more recently, why should I as a member of a Commie nomenklatura let into positions of potential responsibility people with no connections of kin or crony status into my great way of life?)

It is the aristocratic principle that is suspect, and it could reappear even in the allegedly 'classless' society in which the government owns all and denies the possibility of people getting rich by serving people better than the state can.

There have been challenges to the aristocratic order of the time from Samuel Adams to Vaclav Havel.  There are also people who would impose a new hierarchy of deprivation for the many and ostentatious indulgence for the few. Even revolutions that did not result in civil war have often had some institutional threat behind them. Ferdinand Marcos was through once the military and the police tuned on him. Commie dictators in central and Balkan Europe found themselves in a vise grip between NATO and  the Soviet Union, neither of which was going to accept attempts at brutal suppression that lead to chaos.

As I have noticed, revolutions succeed when the police and military change sides. Lenin found ways to pay the police and the soldiers, which was more important to making his revolution possible so that he could impose his insane and absurd economics.

"As I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master" -- Abraham Lincoln, very much a part of the Whig tradition.

Quote:Ironically, what we saw through the Industrial Age was that the more industrialized blue culture with superior manufacturing was able to regularly defeat the militaristic Agricultural Age power with the glorification of force.  We often saw progress triumph while the older values pressed force.  The autocratic and military cultures lost and died.

But it was able to defeat an aristocratic order (Imperial Germany) which was as sophisticated in culture and technology as any country of the time. Aristocratic orders can adopt technologies of persuasion, production, and repression just to save themselves -- and especially to form fearsome armies and navies. The aristocratic principle can arise in unlikely places and at times in which old manifestations have lost all credibility. I look at America's executive class as no longer significantly different from the old Soviet nomenklatura and the heirs who dominate ownership of American assets as no better than medieval lords.

Note also that it was what remained of an aristocratic order that initiated the July 20 plot against Hitler for sundry reasons, including an effort to extricate their world from the consequences of a war to be waged in  Germany itself, with a consequence of Stalin's thugs bringing harsh judgment to anyone that he did not see as the 'heroic working class'. Hitler's system began as a populist assault on extant elites, including the perceived elite of the Jews.

Quote:Now, I have been pushing recently that this dynamic has changed.  Nukes ended war between fully technological civilizations.  Awakenings and votes of Congress may have replaced crises and war for changing domestic culture.  Democracy may have become reliable enough to replace violence as a way of transforming cultures in some places.  Things may be very different since WW II and the Consciousness Revolution.

Maybe, maybe not. Donald Trump, and should he falter due to health or panic, Mike Pence, stand firmly for the Red ideology that would impose a new version of a hierarchical, elitist, and perhaps repressive society. One or the other will have the power to enforce their egoistic lusts (Trump) or their premodern values systems (Pence) to the extent that the Presidency and the GOP majority in the Senate can get away with doing. Also -- watch Jair Bolsonaro as the new President of Brazil, someone who admires a vicious military dictatorship. 

Quote:If so, the red do not see it yet.  They are still proud that the red do more than their share of maintaining military readiness.  They see value in keeping the government honest by maintaining an armed populace.  They honor the concept of self defense, that the good guys outnumber the bad guys if only they are trained, equipped and ready.

But even military readiness depends upon the use of the most modern science and technology, and the effective waging of war depends heavily upon the art of persuasion. When crude exhortations are not enough, the sophisticated art of words and images of the ad man, the artist, the publisher, and the film-maker can be more effective. The (heavily Jewish) studio bosses of Hollywood and its British equivalent proved more powerfully convincing than the Judenrein film studios of Hitlerland.

Let us not forget that the Axis powers vastly underrated the ability of the British and Americans to force a swift pivot from civilian to military production. The British auto industry which made engines for this



could make engines for this to keep the Wehrmacht, Gestapo, and SS out of Britain



and this to traverse the ruined landscape that the former inflicted

Quote:And in the Industrial Age, they were absolutely correct.  Without doubt.  Period.  I still see it as prudent to be stronger than our international autocratic rivals.  Violence remains the ultimate resolution.  It may become obsolete, a true last resort,  to be avoided if possible, but it does remain even in the new age.

[url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus#French][/url]Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Speaking of the ancient Greeks -- we can still relate to their philosophy, their drama, and their epic poetry. Maybe as monotheists we cannot relate to their gods, but we have to pick and choose, don't we? We can have Jeffersonian democracy without slavery.

Quote:Not am sure if the red are right anymore.  I have my doubts.  Letting go of the violent trump card and trusting softer forms of power may be risky.

Self-defense is often even more violent than overt aggression.

Quote:But they are values locked, many of them, in their beliefs.  Asking them to change is unlikely, futile, and unthinkable.  You might be better off considering what changes you demand of them.  It makes some sense to pick your battles and wait for the next crisis awakening.

Having been born in 1955, I am unlikely to be around for the next Awakening, let alone capable of shaping or enjoying it. The best that I can do is to give some fair warning to youth of the next Awakening to not make the same mistakes as Boomers did, which might be good for a new thread in its own right. Waiting for the next Awakening to solve the moral issues of the time was obviously pointless in a society that at the time was doing everything possible to keep the Wehrmacht, Gestapo, and SS with the demonic ideology that allowed them to bring Hell to countries like Poland and France from crossing the Channel and doing much the same in Britain.

So, to the next Idealist generation, appreciate the equivalent of the revival of this:






(even if a GI conductor like Leonard Bernstein revived Gustav Mahler as an expression of the cultural grandeur of the European equivalent of the Missionary Generation, Mahler seems to better fit Boom sensibilities than those of any previous generation).

...and avoid LSD and Manson-like gurus. Above all, if you have children, then recognize that they can never enjoy your cultural ephemera in your own extended childhood. Once you have children, it is time for you to take unambiguously adult roles in life.