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

(12-29-2016, 05:42 PM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 12:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]How many Minnesotan's would vote to give you a free ride? Minnesotan's aren't that stupid.

The whole notion that people on the Left are "asking for a free ride" is a right-wing straw man. Minnesotans HAVE voted to give help to those who need it, a lot of states don't have something like Minnesota Medical Assistance, or our extremely strong country-funded support systems for people with disabilities.

Some of us will need help at some time or another. Sometimes we are wise to accept that help and fools not to do so. Such help may be the difference between being a competent participant in the economic life of a prosperous society and misssing out both in contributions and in enjoyment.

A work ethic is necessary, but it isn't enough.

(12-29-2016, 07:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]All I want for Christmas is a Merrick Garland recess appointment.

By Frank Vyan Walton  
Sunday Dec 25, 2016 · 2:28 PM PST


Merrick Garland on his nominating day - over 300 days ago.


On his way out the Oval Office door there is one thing President Obama can do to give the do-less-than-nothing Congress a big stiff middle finger.  Recess appoint Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court so sayeth the New Republic .

Come January, President Barack Obama will be consigned to the sidelines as Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office and begins the work of dismantling his legacy. But there is one action that Obama could take on January 3, 2017 that could hold off some of the worst potential abuses of a Trump administration for up to a year. Obama can appoint his nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on that date, in between the two sessions of Congress.

Here’s how it would work. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” This has been used for Supreme Court vacancies before—William Brennan began his Court tenure with a recess appointment in 1956. Any appointments made in this fashion expire at the end of the next Senate session. So a Garland appointment on January 3 would last until December 2017, the end of the first session of the 115th Congress.
Wouldn’t that be awesome?

Obama would have to do it on the January 3rd, because the last time he did a recess appointment it was during a period that the Senate was holding pro-forma sessions, where they would be gaveled in, and then immediately out again by just one Senator every three days, specifically to block the President from making recess appointments.  Which is pretty dickish.  He made a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board anyway and the Senate sued, sending it all the way to the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning where they decided 9-0 that the appointment was unconstitutional.  Therefore he would have to do it during the inter-session recess when the Senate completely finished their current year of congress and the next. And no, that’ isn’t new Theodore Roosevelt used the same break to make hundreds of appointments.

In fact, it’s so not new there are some in congress who are already anticipating exactly this move.

This is a highly aggressive and probably doomed strategy, without question. But we know that Congress understands the potential for inter-session recess appointments because Representative Chris Collins (a member of the Trump transition team) filed a constitutional amendment this year to end them. Collins specifically cited the Garland issue as his justification: “It’s been 111 days since President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the bench and, while the Senate has continued to hold their ground on proceeding, we need to ensure the president cannot fill this slot—in the form of a recess appointment.”

So it’s not unprecedented, or even unthinkable, it’s perfectly within the powers of the President and it would — for a year at least — put down a major back-stop against the agenda of incoming President-Elect Pepe.  Also it would really piss off the GOP Congress, and if anyone deserves to be pissed off, and pissed on, it’s the GOP Congress.

And what’s even more delicious is that if they sue again, and the case again goes to the SCOTUS, it will be a court that will include Merrick Garland on the bench.  So he's going to vote to remove himself?  Not likely.  And the media would lose it’s collective mind because they’d actually have something to talk about besides Trump’s latest, brainless nuclear tipped Tweet!

The Republicans have been stealing the Democrats lunch money with gerrymandering, voter suppressing and blatant obstruction with them hardly complaining about it for far too long.  During his time 79 of Obama’s nominees have been blocked or filibustered, contrasted with 68 for all other previous presidents combined.  

Enough is enough.  

It’s time the Democrats stop bringing a butter-knife to the gun fight. It’s time to fight back, to finally get up when the bullies push you down and punch him right in the nose.  Recess appointing Garland to the Supreme Court would be a great big fat well deserved and long needed punch in the nose.

Hit back, Mr. President — what are they gonna do, Impeach you? Make up stories about you? Lie about you? Insult you?

I mean, more than they already have.

Do it!

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/...ppointment

Fuck it. I think you guys (Obama included) should do it. I mean, what's the worst thing that could happen to all of you guys politically at this point right. You can't sink any further politically than you've already sunk right. Your precious blue image can't be tainted anymore than it's already been tainted right. WTF, experience what life feels like as your living on the edge and go for it. BTW, the feeling is quite exhilarating if your able to survive all the stress.

(12-29-2016, 07:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Imagine if you will...."

... a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal gives up on liberty and equality. But a huckster comes along who tells people that they don't need liberty and equality if they can return to some mythical time of 'greatness'. It's been tried before, and it never worked well in the past. All that anyone need is a hollow leader who creates his own myths and has nothing to lose if those myths fail to work.

Many Americans have seen their high-school civics classes as good times for taking a nap. Now they are going to get to see what they missed while napping in those high-school classes, because the classroom is coming to them. They won't be able to sleep through a lesson taught by someone lacking the temperament to teach anything... and a school called The Twilight Zone.

(12-29-2016, 12:21 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 08:04 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The 4T was much more extreme ten years ago. American politics is still about the same as it was ten years ago.

2006 was still 3T, before the Crash and before the Tea Party lunatics.

There is a contingent that believes that the 4T began on 9/11.  I don't know if Classic X is part of that group.  Just pointing out that it has not been established when the 4T began.

The divide between the South and North put the antebellum South in the 4T mood much earlier than it did for the North.  This may, in fact, be the reason the debate about the ACW crisis is still not resolved.  Is the current urban/rural divide similar, just somewhat less extreme? 

Unlike Mike Alexander and many others, I've never been wedded to a fixed clock on this issue, so maybe I'm more open to variance than I should be.  In any case, the fact that we still can't pinpoint the start of the 4T is telling, don't you think?

(12-29-2016, 12:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]Your views aren't even popular in your own state, Classic. When the Tea Party crazy wing of the Minnesota GOP tried to impose themselves on the state in 2012 they got slaughtered at the polls.

You don't even know what my views are on most issues that would matter to a progressive like yourself. How many Minnesotan's would vote to give you a free ride? Minnesotan's aren't that stupid.

Just as a point of reference, the most subsidized segment in the US is the business community.  Farmers get crops subsidies and tax abatements, companies get sweetheart deals to locate in communities, and all corporate entities, including LLCs, get preferred tax treatment -- to name just a few of the benefits that accrue. 

The free ride is hardly aimed at the bottom or even the middle.

(12-29-2016, 02:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Good so they will eventually push America in that way. Btw keep in mind my mother was ahead of her time. Which is why I feel more like a late civic/artist. But my personality type also plays a part in that....ISFP. This makes me happy that with time people will move in this direction and will become a bit more civil for it.

I'm not at all surprised.  Not all members of a generation exhibit the properties of the dominant archetype.  In fact, there has to be some degree of balance to keep things on a more or less even keel.  A split of 20%/20%/20%/40% still leaves the dominant archetype in charge of the message.  I'm sure the balance varies from generation to generation, but the pattern still follows.

(12-31-2016, 08:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 02:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Good so they will eventually push America in that way. Btw keep in mind my mother was ahead of her time. Which is why I feel more like a late civic/artist. But my personality type also plays a part in that....ISFP. This makes me happy that with time people will move in this direction and will become a bit more civil for it.

I'm not at all surprised.  Not all members of a generation exhibit the properties of the dominant archetype.  In fact, there has to be some degree of balance to keep things on a more or less even keel.  A split of 20%/20%/20%/40% still leaves the dominant archetype in charge of the message.  I'm sure the balance varies from generation to generation, but the pattern still follows.

I've always wanted to see a study done to see if the ratios of Myers Briggs personality types shifts cyclically and in sync with the S&H cycles.  It's as close as I can come to an empirical proof of the cycle's existence.  Better yet, I suspect that such a study would reveal stuff unexpected that we'd have to explain.

(12-29-2016, 12:21 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 08:04 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The 4T was much more extreme ten years ago. American politics is still about the same as it was ten years ago.

2006 was still 3T, before the Crash and before the Tea Party lunatics.

There is a contingent that believes that the 4T began on 9/11.  I don't know if Classic X is part of that group.  Just pointing out that it has not been established when the 4T began.

I'm part of that contingent, though I rate Bush 43's foreign adventures as a false regeneracy.  He did produce some new values suggesting that force could be used to spread democracy, human rights, and US Big Oil, but it turned out that the ideas didn't work in practice.  Fighting insurgents required more force than the US was willing to commit.  What happens when the Grey Champion attempts to transform the nation's culture with bad ideas?  In this case, I see a return to the stagnation and arguments of a 3T.  We have not yet had a true regeneracy, a union behind a new set of ideas and values that transform the country.

Arguably you might have a hope of a regeneracy with the election of a new president.  Obama came in with a lot of hope and cheering.  Trump, perhaps as well.  I don't see the people or the Congress as united enough for the sort of regeneracy and transformation that the United States has had in the past, though.

To me, the 3T / 4T border isn't defined well enough.  For me, division, argument and stalemate speak of 3T.  United efforts to actively solve problems speak of 4T.  Successful efforts to actively solve problems mark a successful 4T.

I suspect the best tool to find turning boundaries is 20 20 hindsight.

Somebody lacks a clue here. Yes, it is in Mumbai, where extreme prosperity and extreme indulgence are often next to each other. But India has an excuse: it is truly a developing country, and no country develops evenly. This photo is genuine.



...In any event, does anyone want to guess how long Donald Trump will be seen as even benign in India?

(12-31-2016, 09:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 12:21 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 08:04 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The 4T was much more extreme ten years ago. American politics is still about the same as it was ten years ago.

2006 was still 3T, before the Crash and before the Tea Party lunatics.

There is a contingent that believes that the 4T began on 9/11.  I don't know if Classic X is part of that group.  Just pointing out that it has not been established when the 4T began.

I'm part of that contingent, though I rate Bush 43's foreign adventures as a false regeneracy.  He did produce some new values suggesting that force could be used to spread democracy, human rights, and US Big Oil, but it turned out that the ideas didn't work in practice.  Fighting insurgents required more force than the US was willing to commit.  What happens when the Grey Champion attempts to transform the nation's culture with bad ideas?  In this case, I see a return to the stagnation and arguments of a 3T.  We have not yet had a true regeneracy, a union behind a new set of ideas and values that transform the country.

Arguably you might have a hope of a regeneracy with the election of a new president.  Obama came in with a lot of hope and cheering.  Trump, perhaps as well.  I don't see the people or the Congress as united enough for the sort of regeneracy and transformation that the United States has had in the past, though.

To me, the 3T / 4T border isn't defined well enough.  For me, division, argument and stalemate speak of 3T.  United efforts to actively solve problems speak of 4T.  Successful efforts to actively solve problems mark a successful 4T.

I suspect the best tool to find turning boundaries is 20 20 hindsight.

I am fairly confident that prophets such as Mr. Howe and myself will be proven correct on that account. The 4T will end in circa 2028. Then those who insist that 9-11 was the start of the 4T, will have to accept the idea of a 27 or 28-year 4T.

(12-31-2016, 09:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 08:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 02:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Good so they will eventually push America in that way. Btw keep in mind my mother was ahead of her time. Which is why I feel more like a late civic/artist. But my personality type also plays a part in that....ISFP. This makes me happy that with time people will move in this direction and will become a bit more civil for it.

I'm not at all surprised.  Not all members of a generation exhibit the properties of the dominant archetype.  In fact, there has to be some degree of balance to keep things on a more or less even keel.  A split of 20%/20%/20%/40% still leaves the dominant archetype in charge of the message.  I'm sure the balance varies from generation to generation, but the pattern still follows.

I've always wanted to see a study done to see if the ratios of Myers Briggs personality types shifts cyclically and in sync with the S&H cycles.  It's as close as I can come to an empirical proof of the cycle's existence.  Better yet, I suspect that such a study would reveal stuff unexpected that we'd have to explain.

Yes, that would be a useful study, although fairly massive I suspect. The idea would be to show that generational archetypes mirror to some extent the Myers-Briggs archetypes. Perhaps, more SF types among Artist/Adaptives. More NFs among prophets, more NTs among civics and more STs among nomads, would be my hypothesis.

(12-31-2016, 08:05 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 12:21 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 08:04 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The 4T was much more extreme ten years ago. American politics is still about the same as it was ten years ago.

2006 was still 3T, before the Crash and before the Tea Party lunatics.

There is a contingent that believes that the 4T began on 9/11.  I don't know if Classic X is part of that group.  Just pointing out that it has not been established when the 4T began.

The divide between the South and North put the antebellum South in the 4T mood much earlier than it did for the North.  This may, in fact, be the reason the debate about the ACW crisis is still not resolved.  Is the current urban/rural divide similar, just somewhat less extreme? 

Unlike Mike Alexander and many others, I've never been wedded to a fixed clock on this issue, so maybe I'm more open to variance than I should be.  In any case, the fact that we still can't pinpoint the start of the 4T is telling, don't you think?

Maybe it's another reason to suspect that the Civil War saeculum and crisis mirrors our own; both can be considered "anomalous" because the notion that the 1850s or our own time is 4T is not quite obvious.

Just WHO "ignores facts?"

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/...ly-Believe

(12-31-2016, 09:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-2016, 08:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-29-2016, 02:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Good so they will eventually push America in that way. Btw keep in mind my mother was ahead of her time. Which is why I feel more like a late civic/artist. But my personality type also plays a part in that....ISFP. This makes me happy that with time people will move in this direction and will become a bit more civil for it.

I'm not at all surprised.  Not all members of a generation exhibit the properties of the dominant archetype.  In fact, there has to be some degree of balance to keep things on a more or less even keel.  A split of 20%/20%/20%/40% still leaves the dominant archetype in charge of the message.  I'm sure the balance varies from generation to generation, but the pattern still follows.

I've always wanted to see a study done to see if the ratios of Myers Briggs personality types shifts cyclically and in sync with the S&H cycles.  It's as close as I can come to an empirical proof of the cycle's existence.  Better yet, I suspect that such a study would reveal stuff unexpected that we'd have to explain.

That's a great idea, but a hard one to implement.  Myers-Briggs testing is usually either voluntary, and not good sampling practice, or workplace driven, and typically tied to specific roles -- sales being the most common.  Look at the over abundance of INTPs and on this board.  That's certainly an example of voluntary testing.

I have the same interest as you do in a cohort-based random testing process, but I have never seen one and have no idea how to get one going.

(12-31-2016, 09:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, the 3T / 4T border isn't defined well enough.  For me, division, argument and stalemate speak of 3T.  United efforts to actively solve problems speak of 4T.  Successful efforts to actively solve problems mark a successful 4T.

I suspect the best tool to find turning boundaries is 20 20 hindsight.

The ACW was as divisive as any period in our history, yet no one questions it being a 4T.  My measurement criterion has to do with passion and commitment.  If there is a focused effort to make changes, successful or not, that is probably a 4T.

(01-03-2017, 01:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Just WHO "ignores facts?"

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/...ly-Believe

The real issue is applicability.  It's easy to see things being worse if they are for you and almost everyone you know.  You live in one of the places that has seen the most positive gains in the last 8 years.  Trump didn't do very well there for that very reason.

My apologies for this if others have already seen it and posted it under another thread, but anyway ....

See the article below from the AP today. Clearly, Donald Trump is a Boomer. And, based on these observations, which may be pretty well on target, we may have a man as POTUS who is fundamentally stuck at the beginning of a Third Turning! I'm thinking that I'll dial up some of the principal attitudes and features of early T3's and see if he stays more consistent with those than with the ones ordinarly required of leaders (and Grey Champions?) during a 4T.


http://bigstory.ap.org/node/13287007

Bobby Knight. Don King. Sylvester Stallone. Carl Ichan

Many of President-elect Donald Trump's cultural touchstones, which he'd frequently name-drop at campaign rallies and on Twitter, were at their peak in the 1980s — the decade Trump's celebrity status rose in New York, Trump Tower was built, "The Art of the Deal" was published and he first flirted with running for public office. …

Trump has seemingly internalized its ethos, which is reflected in the decor of the Trump Tower lobby and the celebrities he stood alongside during the campaign. …

He also took his first steps onto the national media stage, making his debut on "60 Minutes" in 1985. Several times at rallies, Trump invoked a "60 Minutes" segment he had just watched and he gave his first post-election interview to the show last month. That show was at its apex in the ratings in the 1980s.

Time Magazine, which also wielded significant clout in the 1980s, also has remained an obsession for Trump.
Trump mostly chose to trot out 1980s celebrities during his campaign, even if many of them had seen their star fade in the ensuing 30 years.

Knight, the former Indiana University basketball coach who captured college basketball national titles in 1981 and 1987 but was later fired for attacking a student, became a favorite sidekick. He first appeared with Trump during the spring's Indiana primary and reappeared at rallies in the Midwest during the general election stretch run.

King, the flamboyant boxing promoter who hyped Mike Tyson's 1980s fights, was also saluted by Trump as "a phenomenal person" despite a conviction for manslaughter.

Trump has been drawn to other 1980s stars. Tyson endorsed the celebrity businessman. Actor Scott Baio, an outspoken Trump supporter, reached the zenith of his fame in the 1980s with the shows "Happy Days" and "Charles in Charge." And on Saturday, actor Sylvester Stallone — who starred in three "Rambo" movies and two "Rocky" sequels in the 1980s — was a star guest at Trump's New Year's Eve bash at Mar-a-Lago.

His frequent depictions of inner cities as dangerous and crime-ridden seem to harken to the crack-plagued life of urban areas in the 1980s, more than the largely safer big cities of today.

In "The Art of the Deal," published in the 1980s, he voiced positions on trade he still holds today.

"I play into people's fantasies," he wrote. "People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular."

Trump’s Corporate Cabinet
Trump's Cabinet of billionaires, business moguls and entertainment personalities brings a new look to who runs our government.

BY ROBERT WEISSMAN | JANUARY 12, 2017



Former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, US President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of state, testifies during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 11, 2017. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

This post originally appeared at The Huffington Post.

We’re facing the prospect of a government literally of the Exxons, by the Goldman Sachses and for the Kochs.

President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet and top nominees draw more deeply from an extremist faction of the corporate class than any in memory, and likely in history. We are witnessing the wholesale corporate takeover of the American government.

Nothing more plainly shows Trump’s complete cynicism and dishonesty than his absolute betrayal of the core claim of his campaign — to rid Washington of corruption, cronyism and insider dealing. The corporate interests who he properly alleged in the campaign buy politicians will now themselves be directly in charge of the government.

Nothing more plainly shows Trump’s complete cynicism and dishonesty than his absolute betrayal of the core claim of his campaign — to rid Washington of corruption, cronyism and insider dealing.

With this Cabinet, it is a virtual certainty that this administration will be the most corrupt and scandal-prone in American history.

And it is absolute certainty that, by design, they will pursue a policy agenda that serves the interests of the corporate class against and does deep harm to the American people.

To understand the scope of what we are facing, it’s useful for a moment to step back and consider not just one or two of Trump’s nominees, but the totality of his handover to corporate interests:

Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who has strong ties to Koch Industries and raked in eye-popping sums from the finance sector, construction industry, pharmaceutical industry and chemical industry;

Rex Tillerson, Trump’s secretary of state pick, spent his entire career at ExxonMobil, which is not just among the world’s largest oil companies, but the corporation most responsible for spreading climate denial and intimidating climate activists.

Steven Mnuchin, treasury secretary nominee and longtime Goldman Sachs executive, through a hedge fund took over the failed IndyMac, turned it into OneWest and went on a foreclosure rampage, engaging in robosigning and other abuses such that one judge found the bank to have engaged in practices that were “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive.”

Gen. James Mattis, the pick for secretary of defense, has spun through the revolving door, leaving the military to serve on the board of General Dynamics, a multinational military contractor, and the scandal-ridden Theranos, a startup company that misled investors and consumers about its blood-testing technology.

US Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), under consideration for attorney general despite a racist record that disqualified him from a federal judgeship three decades ago, and who has a record of gentle treatment of the finance, tobacco and other industries.

Betsy DeVos, named to be education secretary, is a billionaire scion and whose husband is heir to the Amway fortune, is a purveyor of extremist education privatization proposals and has herself invested in for-profit education companies.

Elaine Chao, up to run the US Department of Transportation, who served on the board of directors of Wells Fargo during the cross-selling scandal, as well as a half-dozen other corporate boards.

Former Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn, slated to head the National Economic Council, who led Goldman Sachs as it profited off the housing market collapse in part by misleading its own clients;

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to the run the US Environmental Protection Agency, believes climate science is “far from settled,” has repeatedly sued the agency he will be tasked with leading and as Oklahoma attorney general sent letters to federal agencies that were literally drafted by Devon Energy, one of the state’s largest oil and gas corporations.

Steve Bannon, a special adviser to Trump who once ran and may maintain undisclosed business or other ties with Breitbart.com, a far-right, racist website, and is a former Goldman Sachs executive;

Linda McMahon, picked to run the Small Business Administration, who as World Wrestling Entertainment CEO helped ensure the wrestling industry remained largely unregulated, putting the health and safety of wrestlers at risk;

Andy Puzder, who is to head the US Department of Labor, the longtime mogul in charge of the Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. fast-food chains, companies known for being anti-worker and anti-union, and who opposes many or all of the most important, recent pro-worker initiatives of the Obama Labor Department, including a rule to ensure that worker are properly compensated for overtime.

Wilbur Ross, a billionaire whose firm has profited from buying distressed firms and cutting workers’ benefits, named to take the post of secretary of the US Department of Commerce.

Carl Icahn, named as Trump’s “special advisor on regulatory affairs,” is the emblematic corporate raider and epitomizes predatory corporate capitalism, with financial holdings that give him a direct stake in many of the matters about which he will be advising the president.

In any prior administration, it would have been a tempest if even one of these individuals had been named to the Cabinet. The totality of the harm these individuals can inflict on America is hard to overstate. Consider some of the particulars.

First, the Trump administration with a huge assist from Senate Republicans is displaying a stunningly cavalier attitude toward ethics rules. Nominees for Cabinet positions are being rushed through Senate confirmation hearings without full vetting of ethical issues (as well as security issues). States the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), the agency in charge of ethics reviews: “It has left some nominees with potentially unknown or potentially unresolved ethics issues shortly before their scheduled hearings. I am not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had completed the ethics review process.” In 2009, now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell demanded that no hearing be held on a Cabinet nominee until ethics reviews were complete — now, well, not so much.

Now, Sen. McConnell says these are picayune and technical requirements and the process of governing must proceed. But he’s wrong. The ethics pre-clearance process — by which nominees disclose their financial holdings and work with the OGE on an arrangement of divestitures and commitments to recuse themselves from issues relating to current and former investments — is vital to avoid transgressing criminal conflict of interest standards. It is the moment when there is, or should be, the most attention to conflict of interest rules. If attention is not paid now, it is a virtual certainty that scandal will emerge later.

Second, the unprecedented wealth and corporate entanglements of Cabinet nominees means those inevitable scandals won’t just involve conferring relatively small benefits on favored businesses. It means that policy-making itself will be corrupted. Consider the case of Carl Icahn. The corporate raider is known for his aggressive investment strategies that involve complex disputes about securities laws and has been implicated in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations over wrongdoing himself. Now Icahn has reportedly played a major role in selecting Trump’s nominee to chair the SEC.

Even more troublingly, Icahn had a key role in vetting Trump’s candidates to run the EPA, and had enthused over the selection of Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general who has shown much more loyalty to oil-and-gas interests than environmental protection. Icahn has a controlling stake in CVR Energy Inc., which claims pending EPA rules will cost it hundreds of millions of dollars, and Icahn has stridently attacked EPA’s renewable fuel standards and shows no compunction about using his influence to get them removed. Are we all going to breathe dirtier air just to help Icahn earn his next few hundred million dollars? It’s entirely possible.

This revolving door problem will define the Trump administration.

Third, even if the legal conflict issues are resolved, the bigger revolving-door problem will nonetheless pervade this administration. The revolving door refers to people moving back and forth between government and industry positions, and particularly between corporate jobs and in regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over past and future employers. People passing through the revolving door into government bring with them the views they had in the private sector, and project those corporate interests as governmental policy. People passing through the revolving door back into the private sector may capitalize on their prior associations; even more important is what they do while in government in anticipation of going back to corporate jobs.

This revolving door problem will define the Trump administration. Exxon’s worldview will now fundamentally shape the conduct of US foreign policy, including over the transcendentally important matter of negotiating global climate accords. The agency charged with enforcing worker protections will be headed by a fast-food chain mogul who has run afoul of those very standards. The Defense Department is to be headed by a retired general who rushed to join the board of directors of one the largest military contractors just five months after retiring from the marines. The Goldman Sachs view will once again control economic policymaking (Gary Cohn at the White House) and have a controlling power in financial regulation (Steven Mnuchin at Treasury). And on and on.

Fourth, these aren’t just your everyday corporatists and billionaires. We know from extensive poll and survey data that the superrich generally see the world very differently than the rest of us. But the Trump picks go way beyond that, hailing from an extremist faction of the super rich. Education Secretary pick Betsy DeVos’ primary qualification is that she is an extremist, corporate libertarian ideologue. She has paid a great deal of attention to public education, with the primary objective of gutting it, in favor of vouchers and for-profit enterprises. Says education historian Diane Ravitch, “Never has anyone been appointed to lead in the past 150 years who was hostile to public education.”

DeVos and her husband and their family are part of what is colloquially known as the “Koch network” of corporate libertarian zillionaires, and the Koch Brothers are poised to have a surprisingly far-reaching influence in the Trump administration, given their hostility to the president-elect. “Trump has surrounded himself with people tied to the Kochs,” reports Politico in an article titled “Trump’s Koch Administration,” referencing Devos, Pence, White House Counsel Don McGahn and a host of operatives on the transition team; more, including Marc Short, former financial director for the Kochs’ Freedom Partners, who will serve as White House legislative affairs director, have since joined the White House staff-in-waiting.

Fifth, all of this matters more than it might in other administrations because of the, shall we say, unconventional governing style expected of the incoming president. The Cabinet members are going to have unprecedented degrees of autonomy to pursue their preferred agendas.

Those in and around the transition, and those who have had prior business dealings with Trump, tell Politico that Trump “doesn’t usually like getting into day-to-day minutiae or taking lengthy briefings on issues. He doesn’t have particularly strong feelings on the intricacies of some government issues and agencies, these people say, and would rather focus on high-profile issues, publicity and his brand.”

Not only will the Cabinet officials be given lots of latitude, Trump will encourage them to carry out extremist agendas — even if Trump himself has little idea what changes are merited or what they are doing.

Get ready, America. We’re in for some very tough times. A massive resistance — including demands to block the confirmation of this motley collection of corporate Cabinet nominees — our best hope to limit the damage.

http://billmoyers.com/story/trumps-corporate-cabinet/
ROBERT WEISSMAN
Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen. Weissman was formerly director of Essential Action, editor of Multinational Monitor, a magazine that tracks corporate actions worldwide, and a public interest attorney at the Center for Study of Responsive Law. He was a leader in organizing the 2000 IMF and World Bank protests in DC and helped make HIV drugs available to the developing world. Follow Public Citizen on Twitter: @Public_Citizen.