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

Full Version: The Maelstrom of Violence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
(08-19-2017, 08:37 AM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-17-2017, 01:24 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-16-2017, 09:02 PM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.

Even if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary.  At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.  
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter.  That's not fair, but it is reality.  The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole.  You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people.  If you don't win, you can't do anything.

Bernie Sanders supports Black Lives Matter.  You know, it is possible to care about "narrow interests," like whether black people are being unfairly and violently targeted by law enforcement, and many other things as well.

If the majority of white Americans think that the goals of racial justice and equality are exclusionary, that only goes to show how badly they are needed.

You can preach or govern: Your choice.  There is a large contingent of very disgruntled people out there, and it's easy to make them hate those advocating for the better treatment of everyone but them.  The GOP Dog Whistle Brigade is based on keeping that anger stoked, and it's served them well.  If you wish to break that stranglehold, you can't do it by doing the same failed things over and over.

It's down to this: break the narrative. I argued with Playwrite about this when he was still active here and on the old forum.  The liberals of the 1970s let the old narrative die, and this is the result.  I don't see the GOP doing the same.  Even Trump seems to be too little to turn the tide, so the task will not be easy.  And no, I don't have a magic bullet plan either.

I'm not sure the Trump voters could have been won over even if the Democrats had concentrated solely on equality and environmental issues.  I live in a red state, and I know that many of them don't really care about environmental issues, and when asked if they would have voted for Sanders if he had been the Dem candidate, my Trump-voting family members said no, because he was a "socialist."

Remember, though, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  If there was some way to make our election system more democratic I think progressive issues and candidates would win the day more often.

I would argue that abolition of the electoral college would make our elections less democratic than more democratic.  HRC may or may not have won the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, we have never elected the president on who wins the most votes, but who wins the most states.

I explained it to my son as follows:  The presidential election is like the World Series.  It doesn't matter how many runs in a game you score (for example HRC's 3 Million more votes all come from CA and NY) in a particular game, what matters is how many games you win.

In a situation where the electoral college is absent, presidential candidates would focus on NYC, Chicago, LA, the large TX cities, Miami and maybe Atlanta.  The rest of the country would be completely ignored.

I would also say that those who voted for Trump are not monolithic.  A great many would not vote for Sanders, but Sanders voters did in fact vote for him.  Some of them because they were disgusted with the DNC (my boyfriend for example), some of them because they would NEVER vote for HRC (myself for example).
(08-18-2017, 08:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Kinser came up with an interesting set of events, some of which could clearly be catalysts, but the spin he puts on them is extremely partisan.  I suppose mine might be considered so too.  Anyway... <snip>

You are right.  Your spin is very partisan.  As for Trump's people skills, if he lacks them then explain his real estate empire.  You don't succeed in business unless you can get people to do what you want when you want it.  His problem is he's not a professional politician.  But I think that is precisely what the country needs.
(08-18-2017, 09:50 AM)noway2 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.
I read a quote this morning that said something to the effect of people who have no history will likewise have no future.  I think that is worth pondering on.

In 1984 the world described by Orwell is one in which history is altered to fit the needs of the Party.  In the PRC and Albania and every other state which had a Cultural Revolution, the same thing happened.  Indeed in the USSR history was purposely destroyed or perverted to establish an ersatz soviet culture and history.

The destruction of historical monuments can only end badly.
(08-20-2017, 01:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2017, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response.  I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored.  Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change.  Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.  

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly.  Worthy of noting?  Sure.  A catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'?  Perhaps.

Or perhaps instead of focusing on electoral politics we could focus on the very thing that provides the basis of S&H theory, social mood.  As I said previously the see-saw of who is in the White House has been happening since 1948.  Let me provide the proof:

1948:  Truman (Democrat)
1952:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1956:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1960:  Kennedy (Democrat)
1964:  Johnson (Democrat)
1968:  Nixon (GOP)
1972:  Nixon (GOP)
1976:  Carter (Democrat)
1980:  Reagan (GOP)
1984:  Reagan (GOP)
1988:  Bush I (GOP)
1992:  Clinton (Democrat)
1996:  Clinton (Democrat)
2000:  Bush II (GOP)
2004:  Bush II (GOP)
2008:  Obama (Democrat)
2012:  Obama (Democrat)
2016:  Trump (GOP)

Assuming that pattern holds Trump will likely be re-elected baring some major snafu.  If Trump is assassinated I foresee Pence being re-elected in a landslide.  But what does this pattern tell us about social mood?  Nothing.

If we look at social mood, the "everything is fine, lets go shopping" mood shifted irrevocably, at least in the South in 2005 with Katrina.  9-11 couldn't have the same effect for New York because the city and the state responded effectively even if the federal government did not, or could not.

You can see any pattern that you wish after the fact. The normal pattern is two terms for a President's Party as a norm. The only gap of this pattern Is that Ronald Reagan won what should have reasonably been the second term of Jimmy Carter followed by the expected normal two by Republicans. (Go figure if you wish; that seems unlikely to make any sense in any theory).

So why does the pattern work? I'm guessing that any President who is at all successful or even simply gets away with his inadequacies and blunders gets a second term, and that after eight years the President's party has usually tun out of ideas. Thus the usual turn after eight years.

But is it so simple? The Republican Party dominated the Presidency from 1860 to 1912, with only the two terms (themselves split) of Grover Cleveland as President. Maybe the Democrats had some structural weakness. After Wilson, it was back to the triad of three sub-par presidents (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover in twelve years) who reverted America to a Gilded Age philosophy and got away with a reactionary, pro-business ideology until the Great Depression.

FDR was basically two Presidencies: the Depression Presidency and the War President. So that messes the theory up. Reality tends to mess up theories based solely on the timing of cycles. That it seems like 'time for something to happen' doesn't ensure that the event will happen.

As a Trump cultist you have been unable to see what many of us see: that Donald Trump is already one of the most incompetent and offensive figures to have ever been President. yes, Carter was awful, but he was largely rational, decent, and honest. Trump is awful, and he has none of Carter's virtues. At this point I see Trump losing every state that he lost and at a minimum the three states that he most barely won.
(08-20-2017, 11:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]So why does the pattern work? I'm guessing that any President who is at all successful or even simply gets away with his inadequacies and blunders gets a second term, and that after eight years the President's party has usually tun out of ideas. Thus the usual turn after eight years.

I think the right way to think about those second terms is this:  the incumbent has a huge advantage in federal elections, whether it's the Presidency or congressional races.  That's why we now have term limits on Presidents.

The recent pattern of switching parties when the term limits are up is probably the same thing that causes the President's party to lose seats in midterms:  people who dislike the current incumbents tend to be more motivated than people who like them.  The effect is just not enough to overturn the advantages of incumbency in most cases.

Running out of ideas is what causes long periods of single party dominance.  Recently, the parties have figured out that they can always adopt the other party's ideas instead, though, as Clinton and the younger Bush did.
(08-20-2017, 01:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2017, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response.  I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored.  Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change.  Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.  

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly.  Worthy of noting?  Sure.  A catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'?  Perhaps.

Or perhaps instead of focusing on electoral politics we could focus on the very thing that provides the basis of S&H theory, social mood.  As I said previously the see-saw of who is in the White House has been happening since 1948.  Let me provide the proof:

1948:  Truman (Democrat)
1952:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1956:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1960:  Kennedy (Democrat)
1964:  Johnson (Democrat)
1968:  Nixon (GOP)
1972:  Nixon (GOP)
1976:  Carter (Democrat)
1980:  Reagan (GOP)
1984:  Reagan (GOP)
1988:  Bush I (GOP)
1992:  Clinton (Democrat)
1996:  Clinton (Democrat)
2000:  Bush II (GOP)
2004:  Bush II (GOP)
2008:  Obama (Democrat)
2012:  Obama (Democrat)
2016:  Trump (GOP)

Assuming that pattern holds Trump will likely be re-elected baring some major snafu.  If Trump is assassinated I foresee Pence being re-elected in a landslide.  But what does this pattern tell us about social mood?  Nothing.

If we look at social mood, the "everything is fine, lets go shopping" mood shifted irrevocably, at least in the South in 2005 with Katrina.  9-11 couldn't have the same effect for New York because the city and the state responded effectively even if the federal government did not, or could not.

I would pull in S&H theory and include FDR in the string.  If so, the string starts with the New Deal in 1933.  You have a Crisis - High - Awakening period where the Democrats dominated Congress and Eisenhower was the only Republican exception in the White House.  This was the heyday of tax and spend liberalism, a time when the government more than usual worked for the working man, the time when America was great.  While Eisenhower was clearly a Republican exception, he did not attempt to break FDR’s pattern, tax and spend, or the readiness of the GI generation to work hard to solve problems.  I see a fairly persistent pattern and set of values working from the New Deal through Great Society eras.

Things go muddy in the Nixon Ford Carter time frame.  We had Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, the Southern Strategy, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis, Stagflation, all helping to form the National Malaise.  The optimism and energy of the earlier era was to a great extent lost here.  Here the see saw started.  Nixon got booted out of office for more than sufficient cause.  Ford pardoned Nixon and became anathema.  Carter…  was Carter.  The see saw started on people more than ideas.

But it was Reagan who was the defining president for the unraveling.  Carter recognized the National Malaise, but it was Reagan who shaped what came next.  Much of it is what I call the unraveling memes.  Borrow and spend, trickle down, cut domestic spending, increase the military and blame the government were the open keys.  The Southern Strategy was in play as well, but it was downplayed.  Racism didn’t come out in the open again until Trump.  

To a great degree Reagan became a saint, formed a solid base in the middle of the country, and the Republicans cashed in seeking to repeat Reagan’s popularity and success.  I know some don’t want to hear about the unraveling memes, but listen to what the Republican politicians promise the base.  Listen in particular to Trump’s promises.  Reagan understood and articulated where the middle of the country was at.  The Republicans since have tried to cash in on it.

Tried.  Alas, if the unraveling memes were ever good it was at the end of the long Democratic string of New Deal though Great Society.  Any party and government pushing a set of ideas is apt to take that set of ideas too far.  Any generation, even the energetic GIs, can have their energy drained by too much effort and too many failures.  As right, respected, worshiped and praised as Reagan was and remains, his heirs experienced failures.  Bush 41 fell to “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Bush 43 lost a war, destabilized the Middle East, and collapsed the economy, leaving the door to the White House wide open.  I didn’t think it possible, but Trump isn’t looking any better.  It isn’t that the pattern caused Republicans to lose the White House, but that the Republicans fully deserved to lose the White House.

From a partisan point of view, the Democrats have tried to pick up the pieces, but the middle of the country isn’t patient enough to accept the coastal efforts nor accepting of the hostile attitude of the coasts.  The Democrats can sneak in for a few terms trying to use memories of the time America was Great, trying to rekindle a shadow of the time when it was thought only Big Government could solve Big Problems.  They get stuffed by the ghosts of welfare queens and the notion that big government was never successful.  They often face a Republican Congress defending the unraveling memes.  This has resulted in an impatient middle of the country launching the eternal quest for someone who can make Saint Reagan’s ideas work when it’s way past their time.

Anyway, that’s my idea of why the pattern is there.  I don’t see the pattern breaking easily.
Carter was ... Carter. I think that Carter ran on the cultural claims of the South to have solved the problems (largely Jim Crow practice) and did what no Democrat has even come close to doing as a Presidential nominee -- winning every former Confederate state except Virginia. It is ironic that the only former Confederate state that Hillary Clinton won was Virginia.

Carter may not have been particularly objectionable in the North and West, which he still lost. Because he could not rein inflation without bringing about another Great Depression or hurting key Democratic constituencies he got a malaise. Reagan was willing to needle Democratic special interests and got re-elected.

Trump is... well, Trump. He made promises that he could never keep because turning back the calendar on demographic change and well-received reforms is more destructive than effective. I see much getting worse. If you are not on the winning side of a partisan win, then you are irrelevant except as someone to follow orders and accept the personal consequences. I see a legislative branch in which unelected corporate lobbyists wield the real power. The Hard Right has decided to stoke old resentments, which is not good for social concord.

Dubya at least got away with his inadequacies long enough to get re-elected. Trump is an unmitigated disaster so far.
(08-21-2017, 12:10 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Running out of ideas is what causes long periods of single party dominance.  Recently, the parties have figured out that they can always adopt the other party's ideas instead, though, as Clinton and the younger Bush did.

I'd watch also for dominant leaders setting a pattern.  Granted, Clinton and Bush 41 adjusted to a significant shift, but FDR and Reagan were the major players setting how things would run for a time.
(08-20-2017, 01:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

If you like autocrats, then your argument holds.  Yes, democracy is messy and slow -- always late to the party.  I would prefer faster change too, but let's not forget that change is not universally for the good.

I lived my youth in the '50s and 60s.  Government worked then, though imperfectly, because public power is always opposed by private power that operates faster and is focused on the needs of the few.  Unless you can install a perfect government, you'll never have your ideal wish, regardless of the system you chose.

Kinser Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.
(08-20-2017, 01:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I would argue that abolition of the electoral college would make our elections less democratic than more democratic.  HRC may or may not have won the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, we have never elected the president on who wins the most votes, but who wins the most states.

The electoral college was created when we were "these united states", thinking that the states would continue to be quasi-independent.  It was also intended to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  Now, we are enjoying a tyranny of the minority -- certainly much worse.  

When something is rotten, it needs to replaced.  The electoral college certainly qualifies.
(08-20-2017, 01:49 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-18-2017, 08:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Kinser came up with an interesting set of events, some of which could clearly be catalysts, but the spin he puts on them is extremely partisan.  I suppose mine might be considered so too.  Anyway... <snip>

You are right.  Your spin is very partisan.  As for Trump's people skills, if he lacks them then explain his real estate empire.  You don't succeed in business unless you can get people to do what you want when you want it.  His problem is he's not a professional politician.  But I think that is precisely what the country needs.

That's the best you've got?  Trump was born rich, had connections from day one, and still managed to go bankrupt several times.  More the point, his funding is now down to one western bank (Deutsche Bank) and a bunch of oligarchs in bad places.  

Trump's success, such as it is, has always been predicated on intimidation.  He's looking less intimidating by the day.  Once that's gone, he's done.
(08-21-2017, 10:26 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-20-2017, 01:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I would argue that abolition of the electoral college would make our elections less democratic than more democratic.  HRC may or may not have won the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, we have never elected the president on who wins the most votes, but who wins the most states.

The electoral college was created when we were "these united states", thinking that the states would continue to be quasi-independent.  It was also intended to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  Now, we are enjoying a tyranny of the minority -- certainly much worse.  

When something is rotten, it needs to replaced.  The electoral college certainly qualifies.

So what you're saying is you want the President selected by New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and the other three or four major cities while the rest of the country is ignored.  Got it. Rolleyes
(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-20-2017, 01:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

If you like autocrats, then your argument holds.  Yes, democracy is messy and slow -- always late to the party.  I would prefer faster change too, but let's not forget that change is not universally for the good.

I lived my youth in the '50s and 60s.  Government worked then, though imperfectly, because public power is always opposed by private power that operates faster and is focused on the needs of the few.  Unless you can install a perfect government, you'll never have your ideal wish, regardless of the system you chose.

My ideal system would never exist, just like yours wouldn't. Ideal systems have a nasty habit of breaking down when they encounter the real world. That being said, democracy is messy and slow and an autocratic system is more efficent, but unfortuntely more prone to revolution.

Quote:
Kinser Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.
[/quote]

Okay but you would hate it.

Ideally we'd have a legislative system similar to current, but with Senators seclected by the State Governments as their role is to represent the needs and desires of the states rather than the population of those states. The population already has representaves....it's called the House. We would also impose a hard rule of one rep per million of population with a minimum of one rep per state.

I would leave the supreme court alone. Amazingly that part of the government isn't all that broken.

The presidency would be diminished in power in favor of the legislature.

The vote will be restricted to men over the age of 21 who own a minimum of 50K dollars in real property or have a yearly gross income of 25K dollars.

People who do not have an income, those on public assistance and women should not be permitted to vote.

Citizenship will be restricted to persons born on US soil whose mother is also a US Citizen. All others are aliens, and could be subject to deportation.

I have a feeling you would hate this system even though it most closely resembles that framed by the framers of the current constitution.
(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
Kinser79 Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.
You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose.  It will, or at least should, alter how you view government.  In short the idea that you can take a group of individuals and bestow upon them super power that the people don't have themselves is both irrational and inherently subject to corruption.  The fact that people do so, all be it, draped in all sorts of political rituals such as elections, is largely based in their belief in the need for there to be some sort of "authority" for them to obey. 

I used to believe that "government" could be a force for good, or for what is right.  I was mistaken.  Government by it's very nature will always corrupt.  The less of it, if any, the better off we will be.
(08-21-2017, 03:28 PM)noway2 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
Kinser79 Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.
You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose.  It will, or at least should, alter how you view government.  In short the idea that you can take a group of individuals and bestow upon them super power that the people don't have themselves is both irrational and inherently subject to corruption.  The fact that people do so, all be it, draped in all sorts of political rituals such as elections, is largely based in their belief in the need for there to be some sort of "authority" for them to obey. 

I used to believe that "government" could be a force for good, or for what is right.  I was mistaken.  Government by it's very nature will always corrupt.  The less of it, if any, the better off we will be.

I can't tell if this reply is addressed to me or to Mr. Horn.  Regardless I'm going to look for this book.  I need some new reading material.  I've been devouring Hoppe lately.
(08-21-2017, 03:28 PM)noway2 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
Kinser79 Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.
You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose.  It will, or at least should, alter how you view government.  In short the idea that you can take a group of individuals and bestow upon them super power that the people don't have themselves is both irrational and inherently subject to corruption.  The fact that people do so, all be it, draped in all sorts of political rituals such as elections, is largely based in their belief in the need for there to be some sort of "authority" for them to obey. 

I used to believe that "government" could be a force for good, or for what is right.  I was mistaken.  Government by it's very nature will always corrupt.  The less of it, if any, the better off we will be.

Among other paths I've tread, I've chased evolutionary biology. I've felt that humans have always coveted territory, resources and power. I've always been concerned with tribal morality, where humans can feel for others, but generally feel most for those close to them. I have been concerned and agree with a notion that the practitioners of representative democracy have grown too distant from the common man to be concerned about him in any real way.

Thus, from time to time, I mention direct vote computer democracy. We have to cut out a middle man who has indeed become corrupt. Even here, where there is in theory an openness towards drastic solutions to crisis scale problem, direct vote computer democracy tends to drop out of sight without a trace.

Occasionally you see anarchy. It can be a nice dream. There was Marx, with the idea that the state would fade away. Then there is a rather infamous quote from Civil Disobedience.

Thoreau Wrote:I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

I view these Thoreau and Marx proclamations as 19th Century daydreams. Will mankind suddenly change to become non political? With politicians suddenly not covet power? Good luck waiting for that. It will be a long wait.

I don't see representative democracy as apt to elect men who will make good decision. Power corrupts. At best, you hope it will allow the People to kick out people who make bad decisions. By that standard, while I've grumbled about the 'see saw', the pattern of people and parties being kicked out of the White House regularly and often, the People's boot isn't a bad thing, it's democracy in action. Given a world of corruption, its the best we can expect.

When I hear from wannabe anarchists, revolutionaries and tyrants hoping humans will suddenly become apolitical, I can sympathize. I can sympathize a lot. Still, given what humans are I'm not hoping or expecting us to walk that route. We won't go that way because that's what we are. If you read history at all, it should be obvious that that's not what we are. What we need is firmer ways for the People to look at the corrupt leaders and just say no.

How do you know if a leader is corrupt?

He's a leader. He must be.
(08-21-2017, 01:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-21-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-20-2017, 01:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

If you like autocrats, then your argument holds.  Yes, democracy is messy and slow -- always late to the party.  I would prefer faster change too, but let's not forget that change is not universally for the good.

I lived my youth in the '50s and 60s.  Government worked then, though imperfectly, because public power is always opposed by private power that operates faster and is focused on the needs of the few.  Unless you can install a perfect government, you'll never have your ideal wish, regardless of the system you chose.

My ideal system would never exist, just like yours wouldn't.  Ideal systems have a nasty habit of breaking down when they encounter the real world.  That being said, democracy is messy and slow and an autocratic system is more efficent, but unfortuntely more prone to revolution.

Quote:
Kinser Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

Okay but you would hate it.

Ideally we'd have a legislative system similar to current, but with Senators seclected by the State Governments as their role is to represent the needs and desires of the states rather than the population of those states.  The population already has representaves....it's called the House.  We would also impose a hard rule of one rep per million of population with a minimum of one rep per state.

I would leave the supreme court alone.  Amazingly that part of the government isn't all that broken.

The presidency would be diminished in power in favor of the legislature.

The vote will be restricted to men over the age of 21 who own a minimum of 50K dollars in real property or have a yearly gross income of 25K dollars.

People who do not have an income, those on public assistance and women should not be permitted to vote.

Citizenship will be restricted to persons born on US soil whose mother is also a US Citizen.  All others are aliens, and could be subject to deportation.

I have a feeling you would hate this system even though it most closely resembles that framed by the framers of the current constitution.
[/quote]

We have a political system established nearly 230 years ago, reflecting the social realities of the time (a big chunk of the new American Republic had slavery), the economic reality of still being in an agrarian era, all but a few parts of the settled pa4rts of America having frontier characteristics, and just having achieved formal independence from a political order whose political system Americans chose to do nothing to replicate (a despotic monarchy with a Parliament condemned in the Declaration of Independence almost as much as a nutty king).  The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

We have had the best political order possible considering the time and circumstances of its founding. But we did have a catastrophic war over slavery, and it took until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to formalize the concept of "All Men are created equal". Now we have Donald Trump.
(08-22-2017, 04:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

The problem is that these United States are and always have been a federation of smaller republics. We do not need, and should not have a strong centralized government because such is ultimately ineffective. Even with modern technology and modern infrastructure it is for all practical purposes ungovernable. The only thing right now keeping it together is tradition and well a certain political ideology is busy tearing that down. I'll give you a hint who it is...not the Right.
(08-22-2017, 06:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-22-2017, 04:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

The problem is that these United States are and always have been a federation of smaller republics.  We do not need, and should not have a strong centralized government because such is ultimately ineffective.  Even with modern technology and modern infrastructure it is for all practical purposes ungovernable.  The only thing right now keeping it together is tradition and well a certain political ideology is busy tearing that down.  I'll give you a hint who it is...not the Right.

As it happened, the Founding Fathers allocated the military to the federal level, and we approached military problems as a nation.  That's one place you are clearly wrong.  From there, you can look at other problems that have been solved at the federal level.  These might have been approached differently, but a muddle of small governments trying to resolve large problems would have generated a muddled result.

We do currently have two cultures with different agendas.  I've mentioned the see saw often enough of late.  One problem is that the divide is not clean.  Many states mix urban and rural populations.  State by state, you can see where one faction or the other generally has an edge.  Breaking the problem into fifty will resolve things in some places, splinter the solutions all over, and not resolve things in others.

It would be different if humans did not instinctively seek to amass power.  It would also be different if the moon were made of cheese.  You could wish for one of these things if you like.  Dream on.

And of course a partisan blinded into one perspective seeks to shift the blame to the other.  We could seek for each faction to grant what the other needs most rather than maximize the dysfunction.  That would be another vain wish.  Too many partisans are committed to the blame game and making life difficult for opposition partisans rather than opening their minds.  Common Sense is not in season.  It's too much fun to talk of violence, talk about tearing things down, while ignoring how to build things up after.

Domestic questions aside, should the military function be unified?  The United States since the world wars ended things, generally in the direction of the Enlightenment values and Democracy.  We are still in the habit of thinking ourselves the world's policemen, of forcing cultures anywhere in the world away from their own path and towards ours.  Are we going to end that?  Not an idle question.  It's just that reverting to 50 smaller nations would require one answer.  The history of the world would be much different if somehow we had pulled back from unity earlier.

And domestic problems have been attacked from unity as well.  It is blind doctrine for some partisans to willfully forget that, which is just one of the problems with partisans.

But, sure.  Spout your opinions.
(08-22-2017, 06:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-22-2017, 06:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-22-2017, 04:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

The problem is that these United States are and always have been a federation of smaller republics.  We do not need, and should not have a strong centralized government because such is ultimately ineffective.  Even with modern technology and modern infrastructure it is for all practical purposes ungovernable.  The only thing right now keeping it together is tradition and well a certain political ideology is busy tearing that down.  I'll give you a hint who it is...not the Right.

As it happened, the Founding Fathers allocated the military to the federal level, and we approached military problems as a nation.  That's one place you are clearly wrong. 

No. I made no mention of leaving military matters to the states. Having a federal army, navy and air force is provided for in the current constitution. Any re-establishment of that constituion or an establishment of a constitution like it would not change that.

Quote: From there, you can look at other problems that have been solved at the federal level.

And what problems would these be? Poverty? It is worse than ever. Social cohesion? We have less than that than ever. Response to natural and man made disaster? Well Katrina and Sandy points out the effectiveness of the Federal response, whereas the states which have dealt with similar issues (say Florida with its many hurricanes) have been far more effective.

Quote:  These might have been approached differently, but a muddle of small governments trying to resolve large problems would have generated a muddled result.

At the best of times federal solutions are a hodgepodge. I'm not seeing what is different.

Quote:We do currently have two cultures

More than that actually. Which of course demonstrates why these United States are not a nation, but are rather a federation of nations. Nations must as a consequence of being a nation be historically constituted groups of people who share a territory, language, common economic life and psychological make up manifesting in a national culture.

Multiculturalism is not a culture, rather it is a failed ideology about culture.

Quote:It would be different if humans did not instinctively seek to amass power.

I don't know about you but I actually expect humans to seek to amass power (and wealth). Obtaining and maintaining resources is an animal instinct and humans are animals so they have this instinct.

Quote:And of course a partisan blinded into one perspective seeks to shift the blame to the other.  We could seek for each faction to grant what the other needs most rather than maximize the dysfunction.  That would be another vain wish.  Too many partisans are committed to the blame game and making life difficult for opposition partisans rather than opening their minds.  Common Sense is not in season.  It's too much fun to talk of violence, talk about tearing things down, while ignoring how to build things up after.

When a wild place is over grown and in need of a cleansing fire the plants and trees do not debate what will grow where after the fire. Lightning strikes, the place burns, and life continues on. Likewise with human societies.

Quote:Domestic questions aside, should the military function be unified?  The United States since the world wars ended things, generally in the direction of the Enlightenment values and Democracy.  We are still in the habit of thinking ourselves the world's policemen, of forcing cultures anywhere in the world away from their own path and towards ours.  Are we going to end that?  Not an idle question.  It's just that reverting to 50 smaller nations would require one answer.  The history of the world would be much different if somehow we had pulled back from unity earlier.

The idea that the US is or should be the "World Policeman" is absurd. It was a role the rest of the world does not need or want. The world would have been better off had the US after WW2 retreated back to its traditional isolationism. Instead, there was a push to develop and maintain an empire. But that is understandable if one understands that humans have an instinct to amass power (and wealth).

No state, and no regime has to this date found it possible to change the nature of mankind.

Quote:And domestic problems have been attacked from unity as well.  It is blind doctrine for some partisans to willfully forget that, which is just one of the problems with partisans.

But, sure.  Spout your opinions.

I would argue that the domestic problems we've had have not been attacked from unity. And where they have been the problem has been made worse by that federal action. Domestic spheres should be the sole province of the states because it is far easier for me to contact my state rep or senator in Tallahassee than it is to get Lil' Marco or Bill Nelson on the phone.

As for spouting my opinions....well that is the purpose of a forum. I don't force you to read them.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32