Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,183
» Latest member: Charlespog
» Forum threads: 1,150
» Forum posts: 36,401

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 17 online users.
» 2 Member(s) | 15 Guest(s)
AspieMillennial, John J. Xenakis

Latest Threads
Generational Dynamics Wor...
Forum: Theories Of History
Last Post: John J. Xenakis
12 minutes ago
» Replies: 2,463
» Views: 470,728
Waiting for the Apocalyps...
Forum: Generation X
Last Post: Warren Dew
56 minutes ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 14
A broken cycle?
Forum: Turnings
Last Post: Warren Dew
1 hour ago
» Replies: 18
» Views: 157
Donald Trump: polls of ap...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 10:52 PM
» Replies: 511
» Views: 87,653
Global warming
Forum: Environmental issues
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 10:42 PM
» Replies: 257
» Views: 65,759
Breaking the idea that sa...
Forum: Generations
Last Post: Ghost
Yesterday, 02:34 PM
» Replies: 16
» Views: 241
Let's make fun of Trump, ...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Bill the Piper
Yesterday, 08:54 AM
» Replies: 2,431
» Views: 498,573
Sound reproduction and pl...
Forum: Technology
Last Post: pbrower2a
Yesterday, 08:38 AM
» Replies: 28
» Views: 8,364
What's going on with you,...
Forum: Special Topics/G-T Lounge
Last Post: taramarie
Yesterday, 07:22 AM
» Replies: 320
» Views: 67,643
What do you believe is th...
Forum: Generations
Last Post: Eric the Green
07-18-2019, 07:27 PM
» Replies: 9
» Views: 105

 
  account activation thread
Posted by: Webmaster - 05-10-2016, 09:09 AM - Forum: Account Activation - Replies (26)

If you did not receive an account activation email reply to this thread by stating the color of the sky to have your account activated.

Print this item

Video The Moral Rubicon -- Sargon
Posted by: Kinser79 - 05-10-2016, 02:18 AM - Forum: Society and Culture - No Replies









It appears that a Youtuber colloquially termed "Gay Black Hitler" has crossed the moral Rubicon. A point at which one must be 100% right or 100% wrong.

Print this item

  They finally like Gen X !!!
Posted by: Danilynn - 05-09-2016, 07:46 PM - Forum: Generation X - Replies (21)

Found an interesting article today.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bofa-emplo...21822.html

Print this item

  The GI Generation
Posted by: pbrower2a - 05-09-2016, 07:35 PM - Forum: Generations - Replies (3)

Just because they are no longer part of the political or cultural scene because they have passed 90 if they are still alive does not mean that they have no role in creating the world that we are now in. They grew up in a world that now looks hardscrabble except for elites.

Many of us have known them as teachers, bosses, or entrepreneurs. As I post this we need remember that two former GI Presidents are still alive (Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush). So is the Republican nominee for President in the 1996 election (Bob Dole). So is the founder of much of our contemporary foreign policy (Henry Kissinger).

We can of course compare and contrast the rising-adult Millennial Generation (which now looks much like a Civic/Hero generation and is likely on the brink of a significant move into academia and political life). We can also discuss their interactions with younger generations.

They did much well. They had a heavy role in what may be the apex of cultural creation in America, to wit the Golden Age of Cinema of the 1930s and early 1940s as screen actors, scriptwriters, and even directors. Think of Casablanca (my favorite), which I once reviewed as having the sort of screenplay that Shakespeare would have written, with allusions to the Divine Comedy of Dante Aligheri. (The USA is Paradise, Casablanca is a Purgatory that people are trying to leave, and Nazi-dominated Europe is Hell). Then there is Citizen Kane, an inimitable achievement by Orson Welles, who starred as one of the most complex anti-heroes ever found in cinema. One has quite possibly the greatest American director in Billy Wilder, and such screen stars as Jimmy Stewart, Bette Davis, Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, Henry Fonda, John Wayne, Gregory Peck, Kirk Douglas, Barbara Stanwick, and Lauren Bacall. They practically founded television with Bob Hope, Lucille Ball, and Milton Berle. Do you miss such GI screen journalists as Walter Cronkhite, Edward R. Murrow, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Mike Wallace, and Howard K. Smith? I most certainly do.

GI scientists and engineers were really, really good. You may have mixed feelings about fast food (Roy Kroc for McDonald's) and box stores (Sam Walton, Wal-Mart)... but admit it. You are one of the 'billions of customers served at the Golden Arches (I admit to buying snacks for my pet dog, so some of those 'billions of customers served' aren't even human) and it is unlikely that you have stayed clear of Wally World. GI women may have been among the most dedicated and competent teachers that you ever knew if you were a Boomer. Black GIs took the first steps to tearing down Jim Crow -- and white GIs largely acceded.

On the whole GI politics were far more civilized than what we now have.

Above all, they fought with extreme competence and dedication in the one war (really a double war) that America absolutely had to win, and they well behaved themselves as occupiers and kept the peace.

Print this item

  Moment of Battle
Posted by: pbrower2a - 05-09-2016, 04:56 PM - Forum: Theories Of History - Replies (13)

My material from an old forum. It is general history specific to many times and places. Not all of these battles have a 4T quality about them...but some do. Some may have defined significant aspects of times from antiquity to now. Here is a start for discussion:

‘Moment of Battle’ author James Lacey on the most pivotal military battles in history.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/24804...mp=sem_outloud

Lacey's choices?

Marathon 490 BC (First Greco-Persian War -- unlikely Greek victory, prevented the Persian conquest of Greece)
Gaugamela 331 BC (Alexander's campaign against Persia-- caused the swift disintegration of the Persian Army)
Zama 202 BC (Second Punic War -- Carthage broken to a client state)
Teutoburger Wald 9 AD (Early Germanic tribes destroy the Roman XVII Legion and stop Roman expansion into northern Germany)
Adrianople 376 AD (Huge defeat of Imperial Rome, gross weakening of Roman authority and power in the west).
Yarmuk 636 AD (allows Arab/Muslim conquest of the Levant, North Africa, Sicily, and Spain)
Hastings 1066 AD (Allowed Norman conquest of England)
Spanish Armada 1588 (Thwarted Spanish hegemony in western Europe)
Breitenfeld 1631 (First Protestant victory in the Thirty Years War, established a continuing Protestant-Catholic division in German lands)
Annus Mirabilis 1759 (several British victories in the Seven-Years War worldwide)
Saratoga 1777 (First Continental victory, American War of Independence)
Trafalgar 1805 (British naval victory over France, thwarted Napoleonic hegemony in southwest Europe and led him eastward to his ruin)
Vicksburg 1863 (Severed the Confederate States of America)
Battle of the Marne 1914 (Stopped a swift German thrust into France that would have decided the war)
Battle of Britain 1940 (Prevented a Nazi invasion of Great Britain, inspired Hitler to go east to his ruin)
Midway 1942 (First US victory against Imperial Japan -- unambiguous turning point)
Kursk 1943 (German offensive stalled, German tank capacities gutted, Soviet advance into central Europe effectively unstoppable)
Normandy 1944 (Arguable death-blow to the Third Reich)
Dien Bien Phu 1954 (Forced French departure from Vietnam)
Objective Peach 2003 (Allowed the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein)

I will give my comment on these choices and give some of my alternatives.

---------------

The most important of those battles may be the earliest ones for determining what cultural possibilities remain and what ethnic or religious identity is possible. Marathon is obvious because it prevents a Persian conquest that would have suppressed the rise of classical Greek culture with incalculable change afterward. Maybe the Golden Age of Greece still happens -- but I would not bet on it. Gaugamela allows Hellenistic culture to expand beyond the Levant as far as western India, with the spread of Greek esthetic norms into India and the fertilization of Indian culture (on effect being on the philosophical basis of Buddhism) with effects beyond India.



Zama? I would have chosen some other Punic defeat. A Punic conquest of Rome would have left a very different world -- one in which Semitic languages dominate in southwestern Europe. There would probably be no French, Spanish, or Portuguese language. Rome might be a micro-state of marginal interest to historians. The Punic Wars are of course critical to world history.

Teutoburger Wald? It prevented Roman expansion into the forested zones of central Europe. Germany would be German. German-speaking peoples soon came to dominate the middle of Europe, for better or worse.

Adrianople? The eastern part of the Roman Empire recovered, but at the expense of the stability of the West. In 100 years the Western Roman Empire would be no more.

Yarmuk? I can't overestimate that one. The still-powerful Byzantine Army was effectively severed, and the southern shore of the Mediterranean would be lost forever to the Classical World. Arab influence upon culture would spread in places from which it was finally ousted (Sicily, Spain, and Portugal). The Christian presence from Morocco to Libya would be destroyed, and once-influential Coptic Christianity would begin to dwindle.

Hastings? The final definition of English nationhood with the decisive transformation of the English language into the speech with a hybrid vocabulary (sheep/mutton).

Spanish Armada? The great storm that weakened the Spanish fleet allowed England to keep its independence and its Protestant identity -- and become the master of the High Seas. Without this victory, the British colonies from Newfoundland to Georgia never exist, and neither do the United States nor Canada.

Breitenfeld? This Protestant victory allowed northern Germany to remain Protestant. Germany would be ruled largely from Berlin and not from Vienna in the end. It also left some deep religious bigotry, much of which would be projected upon a people often identified with the letter "J", and we know how that ends.

Annus Mirabilis? I disqualify this one. Those were impressive victories, but they were many. We are looking at one victory and not several.

-----------------


Quote:Saratoga? I concur. Without this victory, the American struggle for independence withers and dies much like the anti-colonial revolt of Tupac Amaru II in Peru.
 
 Trafalgar? Enough said.
 
 Vicksburg? Better choice than Gettysburg (Confederate overreach), but I would have chosen some battle leading to Sherman's march through Georgia. My criteria involve a situation in which a powerful entity has a chance to win to one in which one of those entities is doomed. The American Civil War was more likely decided in eastern Tennessee. Chattanooga was the "Foundry of the South", and once it was gone the Confederacy lost much of its capacity to make weapons. The Confederacy would have done well enough without the rough frontier of Texas, insignificant Arkansas. and western Louisiana once it had lost New Orleans.
 
 Victory of the Marne? That prevented a rapid German thrust into France and swift victory in the West. In view of the collapse of Russia in the East, a German victory over France would have made Germany the arbiter of all in Europe.
 
 Battle of Britain? Probably more important than the Battle of Hastings. Reeling from a succession of defeats, the British finally got some victories that kept it from being consumed in the Devil's Reich. Hitler could not invade Britain; the Holocaust would be prevented in England through military force alone. Britain would eventually get an ally which would use the country as a collection of air bases for bombers and fighters -- and of course the final death-blow to the Evil Empire through the Normandy invasion.
 
 To give some idea of the cultural impact -- Star Wars IV: A New Hope seems heavily modeled after this death struggle between nearly-pure good and nearly-pure evil.
 
 Kursk? Germany had just been defeated badly at Stalingrad, but this offensive quickly led to a complete Soviet victory after which the Wehrmacht could only retreat -- sometimes with some order, and sometimes in complete disarray. Before Kursk, the Wehrmacht seemed to have a chance at the least to recover and get a stable line somewhere well to the east of the border of the Soviet Union at the start of Operation Barbarossa. Within a year the Third Reich was dead.
 
 Midway? I can hardly imagine more critical battle of the Pacific. If the United States lost Midway it would have lost Hawaii and had at most a defensive perimeter on the Pacific Coast. The Japanese would have conquered isolated Australia and New Zealand, perhaps while facing ferocious resistance by people who expected to be enslaved or slaughtered upon defeat. But those people would be defeated and decimated if not exterminated. Australia and New Zealand would probably be nearly depopulated and made 'magically' available for settlement by Japanese. Considering how badly the thug Japanese Empire treated people such as Koreans and Chinese similar to themselves in general appearance, let alone such people as the Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Burmese who could be starved if the Japanese military wanted the foodstocks, one can only imagine a Japanese-Australian war as a succession of massacres resembling Wounded Knee. Midway determined the fate of a continent -- even if that continent was 'only' Australia.
 
 The Normandy Invasion? That was several giant battles, strictly speaking. It proved the death-blow to the Third Reich, but only after the Reich was reeling in Italy and in Russia. The Allies broke out slowly and made decisive progress only after George Patton forced an assault to the south of German troops inland of the beachheads and destroyed those in the Falaise pocket, creating a disaster as severe as Stalingrad for the German Army and causing the German position in France to disintegrate. Within a year, the war was over. But was it the difference between a powerful Third Reich and a doomed Third Reich? Hardly. By then the Soviet armed forces were roughly at positions closely described by the Soviet border as of 1938 -- and Finland had been knocked out of the war.
 
 Dien Bien Phu? I can't figure why the French tried to stay in Indochina any longer than they did. They were disgraced there in World War II. But it was one colony. All of the former French Indochina would eventually fall to Commie rule -- but over twenty-some years after Dien Bien Phu.
 
 Operation Peach? Just look at the continuing presence of US forces in Iraq. Whoops!
Quote:Last edited by pbrower2a; 12-01-2015 at 07:44 PM.

OK -- my criteria are:
 
1. That both sides are considered powerful and so look before, but one side is utterly defeated, either being eventually absorbed by the victor of that battle (Gaugamela) or being stripped of  a huge chunk of its territory which it can never recover (Battle of Yarmuk) .

2. One side seems doomed, yet survives to become an eventual victor (Battle of Britain).

3. It is one distinct battle, let it be disqualified. The Normandy Invasion may have been a masterpiece of planning and execution -- and of course bravery of well-motivated troops -- but it is multiple beachheads. Likewise Annus Mirabilis.

4. Victory by an unexpected survivor allows that survivor to become a Great Power (Yarmuk again, Spanish Armada).

5. Genocide is committed in its wake or seems likely to be committed in its wake lest one side win. The British avoided both the Spanish Inquisition (Spanish Armada) and the Holocaust as well as a program of murderous repression (Battle of Britain).

6. Victory implies the survival of a people and its culture (as I see Midway for Australia or New Zealand) or defines what cultural and religious identity is possible (the Punic Wars -- is the western Mediterranean basin Punic or Roman in late classical times? Marathon, certainly, because if the Greeks did not win that battle there might never have been a Golden Age of Greece.

7. A political entity imperial in scale forms (Saratoga -- USA within six years) or is thwarted (Battle of the Marne).

8. A people or peoples scheduled for subjection maintain independence after the decisive defeat of would-be conquerors who choose not to return. Failure of the colonizer to return is the difference between Teutoburger Wald and Little Big Horn.

9. The struggle is not fore-ordained. Poland was doomed to defeat by its geometry in 1939. The battle is not simply the end of a doomed entity (let us say the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

10. The battle isn't noteworthy solely for its bloodiness.


B Butler;472959 Wrote:I have a soft spot for Vicksburg, not the siege, and not for taking the last major bastion on the Mississippi, but for Grant's marching a big army away from its chain of supply.  Grant took something of a risk, crossing the river south of Vicksburg and marching on the offensive without leaving troops behind to guard a supply train.  This allowed him to march fast and hit hard.  Prior to that crossing, even though the north had advantages in numbers, they were seldom able to exploit them as they spent too much of their force anchoring themselves to their supply route.

Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana in fact mattered little to whether the Confederacy thrived as a military power or failed. What mattered more was the Confederate ability to produce weapons, and once the Confederacy lost the foundries of Chattanooga it could never have the artillery necessary for then-modern warfare. It's easy to overestimate the significance of cutting off Texas because Texas is so important today. But the Confederacy was not operating on oil.

Quote:Without that first experiment in marching a large force out of supply, I doubt the March to the Sea would have happened.

It was easier after Vicksburg for the Union to enforce the naval blockade of the South because it had the Mississippi as a supply line for New Orleans. But if the Union capture of Vicksburg was a psychological blow, the campaign through eastern Tennessee and Sherman's march through Georgia effectively cut the South in two equal and ineffective halves politically and militarily and deprived the South of supplies and munitions. The Confederacy still had the desire in which to fight, but its communications were severed and its key supplies of food and munitions were cut off.

Quote:Also, prior to Vicksburg, the Army of the Potomac averaged about 6 miles a day on the road.  In the marches just prior to Gettysburg, General Mead parked the wagon trains to allow the troops priority on the roads.  Thirty miles a day was common.  The histories don't mention this change in marching doctrine save in describing how hungry and exhausted the Union forces were as the Battle of Gettysburg started.  Still, I see it as crucial.  Stuart was unable to execute a clean ride around the Union rear as the federal troops moved must faster than expected and got in his way.  Lee took the offensive on the second and third days of fighting because he knew where the Union forces were several days prior, knew they couldn't possibly have reached Gettysburg in numbers yet.  Lee thought he had a numbers advantage that didn't exist.

Gettysburg looks like a Confederate blunder. It looks like a pincer movement intended to cut the Union in half, but such would have failed. Those who know the topography of Pennsylvania recognize that once one leaves the fertile southeast of Pennsylvania near Harrisburg one enters some rough terrain. The only natural route north from Harrisburg is through a canyon. March through a canyon only if survival of troops and victory don't matter much because the enemy will have natural emplacements for picking off any advancing army and wagon trains with the artillery weapons of the day, whether javelins or Katyusha rockets. The Confederacy would have been wiser to turn east in an attempt to take Baltimore and cut off the formal chain of leadership.       

Quote:But the above is way down in the details.  How often does a battle really turn a war?  If Gettysburg and Vicksburg were decisive it was in giving Lincoln the victories he needed to win the election.

He could have suspended the election on the pretext that many of the States were unable to vote. Such is a choice that he was glad not to need to make. Winning the war mattered more to him than did the formality of an election.    

Quote:Midway was no doubt a big important battle that took the wind out of Japan's major offensive operations, but when the Essex class carriers started hitting the sea and the Hellcats took to the air, whatever happened earlier wouldn't have mattered a lot.  The Pacific War was one of attrition.  Japan was walking a doomed path from the start.

Hawaii is the last landmass in the Pacific Ocean on any naval route between Australia and New Zealand in the southwest and either Canada, the western United States, or Mexico in the northeast. If the Japanese naval forces could take Midway they were in position to take Hawaii and effectively cut off any possible Allied defense of the South Pacific from the US. Such would not have ended the Pacific War as such, but it would have cut off Australia and New Zealand. Australians and New Zealanders would have put up spirited defenses much like the Plains Indians did to the US Army -- but with a similar result in the end. Nobody could have been able to aid them in stopping a more powerful enemy with greater resources and more ammunition by the Japanese Armed Forces. The US would have been able to defend the Pacific Coast with comparative ease, but the Japanese would have never had to wage a naval battle of attrition against the USA because it could avoid it. Considering how badly the Japanese armed forces treated any captured Caucasians during WWII the Japanese conquests of Australia and New Zealand would have resulted in one Wounded Knee-style battle after another all the way to Perth, Hobart, and Wellington. Australia and New Zealand would be gone forever as large outposts of Western civilization and become part of the Far East indefinitely. That was potentially the naval equivalent of the Battle of Yarmuk, the battle that defined the Middle Ages. Just think: without the Battle of Yarmuk going as it did for the Arab Muslim armies, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt could be Christian countries.       

Quote:In a similar way, I am somewhat dubious about the entire list.  Did the battles listed actually turn the war involved, or were they just the most important incidents in conflicts that would have ended as they ended anyway even if a given battle went the other way.  D-Day was for sure important, but if the allies had been repulsed on the beaches could freeing up German Western Front troops and sending them back east have decisively defeated the Russians before the allies geared up to try again?

The United States was developing the atom bomb, and so long as it could deliver one to a German city, it could have destroyed the chain of command within the Reich. That would have taken until August 1945... but the Allies had a pretext for such -- the Holocaust. The German people were spared such a result not because they were white (something that Allied propaganda deliberately underplayed) but instead that Japan was still fighting in August 1945.  In any event, the D-day invasion was not enough to defeat the Third Reich. One of two things would have happened had the Normandy invasion failed: the Soviet Armies would have chased the German Armed Forces all the way to the Franco-Spanish border with "socialist republics" on the Continent except for Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and Portugal (Stalin would have invaded Spain if given a chance) or the Allies would have had the atom bomb to decide things.  The Normandy did not so much defeat Nazi Germany as keep the Iron Curtain somewhere in the middle of Europe instead of at the English Channel and Gibraltar.

The Allies did have most of Italy under control, having taken Rome on June 4, 1944. British and American forces might have still landed in the Balkans with devastating effect upon the Reich. But that requires a battle that Lacey does not put in his list.

Quote:But playing games like "important battles" can keep an armchair historian amused.

Indeed.   I notice that none of the battles were in the Far East (ethnocentrism?) except for Midway, which ensured that the Far East did not include Hawaii, Australia, and New Zealand, and Dien Bien Phu. None involved the Spanish conquest of the Inca and Aztec empires -- permanent destruction of impressive political orders. Not one is involved in any war for independence from Spain in the New World. Not one is in sub-Saharan Africa. I can think of two critical battles that Lacey neglected for their effects upon two medieval Empires. I will discuss those choices in my next post.

The Battle of Britain, Kursk, and Midway are toward the top of my list. World War II will have decided much that is possible from then. The colonial order withered and died; World War Ii was heavily a contest over colonial empires that now no longer exist.

There might again be wars as bloody as World War II, most likely between the Great Powers of the time (let us say India vs. Russia), but the colonial empires over which much of World War II was waged will not re-appear -- new material by PB).

-------------


Quote: Some that I would include:
 
 al-Qadisiya, 636. It shattered any meaningful resistance of the Sassanid (Zoroastrian Persian) Empire and allowed the Islamification of Persia, Central Asia, Sind, Afghanistan, Bengal, and Indonesia. Zoroastrianism quickly disappeared as a major religion. As important as the Battle of Yarmuk for its consequences. The impressive Sassanid Empire disintegrated quickly as a political entity.
 
 (Is there any question that ad 636 is one of the critical years of human history?)
 
 Tours/Poitiers (probably somewhere between them), 732 -- Charles Martel stops and reverses the Arab invasion of Western Europe. Carolingian Empire (source of modern France and Germany alike) can form. Historical details are murky in the extreme.
 
 Manzikert, 1071. Effectively gutted the Byzantine Empire which until then was a major power. Although the Seljuk Turks would only start the process and others (the Crusaders and the Serbs) would contribute to its demise, the Byzantine Empire lost its breadbasket. Asia Minor went from being Christian and predominantly Greek and Armenian to Islamic and Turkish. The Ottomans might have been a different tribe of Turks, but they became the effective heirs of the Byzantine Empire and a superpower in southwestern Asia, southeastern Europe, and North Africa.
 
 Siege of Vienna, 1683. The high-water mark of Turkish expansion into central Europe. The Ottoman Empire had a chance to win; had it done so it would have knocked out the Hapsburg monarchy. As a music lover I note this for a cultural effect: in the real historical timeline, Vienna becomes the center of the musical world. Would the great flowering of post-baroque music of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert have occurred had the Turks conquered Vienna had Turkish rule continued for a century there? Add such people as Liszt, Smetana, Dvorak, Schoenberg, and even Bartok. A huge chunk of the repertory of Classical music might not appear, which would be a huge difference.
 
 Adowa, 1896. Italy had designs on the Ethiopian Empire... and failed catastrophically. This was the only major defeat of European colonialists, and the Ethiopian Empire would survive until 1975 with the exception of a few years of Italian Rule -- ended by British liberators who chose to restore the empire. For the first time in a long time, European colonists were shown as something other than invincible.
 
 Tannenburg, 1914 -- if the Battle of the Marne prevented the swift German conquest of France, the German victory at Tannenberg sealed the doom of Imperial Russia. By February 1917 a revolution toppled Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanov dynasty -- likely forever. In November 1917 Lenin would stage his coup and establish the world's first Socialist state, his Bolshevik dictatorship and the first totalitarian state. Even though World War I would not end as a German victory it would not end without political chaos. Lenin would dispossess aristocrats, financiers, and plutocrats; he would also offend holders of traditional values with his militant atheism as official policy. Aping Lenin, extreme socialists saw the post-war chaos as an opportunity for revolutions that would topple capitalism and Christianity. The Hard Right in central and eastern Europe established their own counter-revolution in fascism and National Socialism which would adopt the totalitarian repression of Bolshevism in the service of entrenched elites while using Bolshevism as a pretext for right-wing, anti-democratic revolutions. Because persons of Jewish origin figured heavily in Bolshevism, the European Right which had never shown much sympathy toward Jews became extremely hostile to all Jews under any circumstances. Such hostility would culminate in Babi Yar and Auschwitz.
 
 Many of the current borders in Europe exist as defined in 1919, with practically all of the States coming into existence in the aftermath of World War I now in existence even if they have been subjugated at some time in the mean. The collapse of the tsarist order made such possible. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, Moldavia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan would not exist without the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty -- made possible by the Battle of Tannenberg.
 
 One consequence is that Paul von Hindenburg became a war hero even after Germany capitulated after World War I and became President of the German Republic. As he was going senile in 1933 some charming, charismatic politician pulled the wool over his eyes. Enough said.
 
 Second Battle of El Alamein, 1942. The Axis Powers seemed in a fortuitous position in which to take the Nile Delta (in modern times as in ancient times a rich land of agricultural production) and destroy the British position in the eastern Mediterranean, destroy the inchoate Zionist settlement in Palestine, and connect to an anti-Allied, fascistic regime in Iraq, effectively cutting off Middle Eastern oil from the Allies. The Second Battle of El Alamein put an end to that -- and led to the swift advance of British forces in Libya and Tunisia, where they combined with fresh American troops to eliminate all Axis presence in North Africa with few mortal casualties on either side -- but few escapes of German or Italian troops to continue fighting in Europe -- including Italy.
 
 I give it precedence over the Normandy invasions because without this win and the subsequent success of the Allied invasions of Sicily and the southern mainland of Italy the Allies might have never tried the Normandy invasion.
 
 Two involving Conquistadores through "Trojan Horse" strategies:
 
 Tenochtitlan, 1521 -- Spanish conquest, under Hernán Cortés, of the Aztec Empire after some defeats that the Aztec rulers thought had finished off the Spanish.
 
 Cajamarca, 1532 -- Spanish conquest, under Francisco Pizarro, of the Inca Empire
 
 Native-American dynasties have never resurfaced in the New World.
 
 My guess on the critical battle of the Chinese Revolution/Civil War:
 
 Jinzhao, 1948 -- utter failure of the Nationalist forces to coordinate caused the Maoist capture of whole divisions and their war materiel, and access to much of the armaments industry of China. Part of the Lioshan Campaign, it reversed the relative strength of Communist and Nationalist forces. The Communists fully took over Manchuria and its industrial capacity and could soon -- and swiftly -- capture the North China Plain with the near-dissolution of the Nationalist Army in mainland China within a year.
 
 The Chinese Civil War is one of the swiftest overturnings of rule in so large a territory as has ever happened through warfare. One Great Power remains intact, but a political regime diametrically opposed to the previous regime completely supplants the earlier one.
Quote:Last edited by pbrower2a; 06-17-2013 at 06:44 PM.

My choices:

Marathon 490 BC (First Greco-Persian War -- unlikely Greek victory, prevented the Persian conquest of Greece)
Gaugamela 331 BC (Alexander's campaign against Persia-- caused the swift disintegration of the Persian Army, allows the spread of Greek philosophical and esthetic influences into India -- subtle influence upon Buddhism?)
Zama 202 BC (Second Punic War -- Carthage broken to a client state)
Teutoburger Wald 9 AD (Early Germanic tribes destroy the Roman XVII Legion and stop Roman expansion into northern Germany)
Adrianople 376 AD (Huge defeat of Imperial Rome, gross weakening of Roman authority and power in the west).
Yarmuk 636 AD (allows Arab/Muslim conquest of the Levant, North Africa, Sicily, and Spain)
al-Qadisiya 636AD (disintegration of the Sassanid Empire, Islamization of Persia, Central Asia, Sind, Bengal, and Indonesia possible, Zoroastrianism ruined as a major world religion)
Poitiers 732 AD (Arabs turned back in northwestern France, giving western Europe a chance to develop culturally, politically, and technologically)
Divine Wind, 1281 (prevented Mongol invasion of Japan -- Japan's equivalent of the Spanish Armada)
Spanish Armada 1588 (Thwarted Spanish hegemony in western Europe)
Breitenfeld 1631 (First Protestant victory in the Thirty Years War, established a continuing Protestant-Catholic division in German lands)
Siege of Vienna, 1688 (Cultural effect -- the Austrian victory over the Turks allowed the flourishing of the greatest era of music ever)
Saratoga 1777 (First Continental victory, American War of Independence)
Trafalgar 1805 (British naval victory over France, thwarted Napoleonic hegemony in southwest Europe and led him eastward to his ruin)
Third Battle of Chattanooga, 1863 (Confederacy doomed afterward to Sherman's thrust into Georgia and lost of its  munitions factories)
Battle of the Marne 1914 (Stopped a swift German thrust into France that would have decided the war)
Tannenberg 1914 (Russian early advantages irretrievably lost, Bolshevik Revolution and Nazism made possible)
Battle of Britain 1940 (Prevented a Nazi invasion of Great Britain, inspired Hitler to go east to his ruin, Normandy invasion made possible)
Midway 1942 (First US victory against Imperial Japan -- unambiguous turning point; kept Australia and New Zealand in the West instead of the Far East)
Second battle of El Alamein, 1942 (German and Italians routed from a strong position and forced incessantly out of Africa; fascist Italy made vulnerable)
Kursk 1943 (German offensive stalled, German tank capacities gutted, Soviet advance into central Europe effectively unstoppable)
Jinzhao, 1948 (Nationalists and Communists reversed in relative power in a short time due to Nationalist incompetence; Communists could take China)

Special mention: Siege of Troy, semi-legendary (we get the Illiad and the Odyssey out of that)
Tenochtitlan, 1521; Cajamarca, 1534 -- Spanish conquests, Trojan Horse methods,  of Mexico and Peru, dissolution of Aztec and Inca Empires, no subsequent possibility of any First Peoples tribe to establish dominion over any American state, Christianization of most of Latin America

I'm not putting Adowa on my list. Italy eventually invaded forty years later under a more ruthless regime and with military technology more overpowering. The Ethiopian Empire lasted only 80 years after Adowa.

I may not have twenty. I chose to drop Hastings because the Anglo-Saxons ultimately prevailed in language, and even if the Normans had successfully established Norman French as the permanent language of England... maybe such people as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, and Orwell would have written as convincingly -- in something resembling the speech of William the Conqueror. I chose El Alamein over the Normandy invasion because it allowed the invasion of Sicily, without which the Allies might have been chary of the Normandy invasion. The Divine Wind that thwarted a Mongol invasion of Japan allowed Japan to maintain its isolation and uniqueness. Tannenburg starts a road to ruin for the decrepit Russian Empire. The Confederacy, the last political entity dedicated primarily to the preservation of slavery, is a viable military power until it loses its ability to produce munitions.
 

A decisive battle in China that allows Mao to take over is far bigger than Dien Bien Phu because China is much bigger and more important in economics and military position than is Vietnam.

Basically a new interruption in the re-posting of material:

Somewhat new and worthy of contemplation. I happen to like my music long and structured, and I like it to offer a universe of emotions. The  Octet in F by Franz Schubert exemplifies that.





Had the Ottoman Empire defeated Austria in 1683, would music like this ever be written?

Hitler lost the war because of his atrocities, persecutions, and oppression. The Battle of Britain took place about as reports came out from Poland, and had it not been for those even Churchill might have accepted a sauve-qui-peut deal. Keep the colonies, restore pre-war governments in Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway, recognize German hegemony in Poland and the Vichy regime in France... Churchill knew how Britain could be defeated, and even if war is always a zero-sum game it is not always complete loss for the survivors. But such implies a different character as leader of Germany, perhaps one who would have never set upon a course of conquest unless forced into it.

That's before I discuss the Soviet Union, a damnable order that would have fallen to any conqueror who promised free enterprise, freedom of religion, and an end to the brutal political order. Nazi satellite states from Estonia to the Caucasus would have satisfied the national aspirations of people other than the Jews. I can't say how long a puppet state in Russia would have lasted.

Victory comes from sapping the will of the other side to resist, which clearly contrasts Britain, America, and Free France from the Soviet Union and the Axis Powers other than Finland. There are reversals that allow the loser of one battle to survive and subsequently strike back harder or elsewhere. There are also reversals that turn a likely winner into a loser... or turn a stalemate into an irretrievable rout. Kasserine Pass? That was a US defeat... but soon afterward the US Army came back with a larger and better-trained force and within a few months had closed in on Axis forces that had gotten away from the British. Market-Garden? The Allies found better directions of advance than Holland.

Hitler exemplifies the worst sort of leader that a country could get through partially-democratic process: an anger-filled zealot who uses power with the ultimate purpose of self-glorification and the settling of old scores. Once someone is a leader he had better sacrifice some old enmities. Recent rivals could make desirable allies. Lacking caution, conscience, and kindness he could only bring disaster. But without question he had superb military, technological, and economic resources behind him. He signed onto strategies that none but his lackeys would sign onto, and some of those proved brilliant. Some of them turned into the greatest blunders of all time.

I listened to this music at a desperate point in my life. Not that I am that important, of course. Culture gives meaning to life. Without it we can easily have ugly souls.

Re: World War II

Hitler lost the war because of his atrocities, persecutions, and oppression. The Battle of Britain took place about as reports came out from Poland, and had it not been for those even Churchill might have accepted a sauve-qui-peut deal. Keep the colonies, restore pre-war governments in Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway, recognize German hegemony in Poland and the Vichy regime in France... Churchill knew how Britain could be defeated, and even if war is always a zero-sum game it is not always complete loss for the survivors. But such implies a different character as leader of Germany, perhaps one who would have never set upon a course of conquest unless forced into it.

That's before I discuss the Soviet Union, a damnable order that would have fallen to any conqueror who promised free enterprise, freedom of religion, and an end to the brutal political order. Nazi satellite states from Estonia to the Caucasus would have satisfied the national aspirations of people other than the Jews. I can't say how long a puppet state in Russia would have lasted.

Victory comes from sapping the will of the other side to resist, which clearly contrasts Britain, America, and Free France from the Soviet Union and the Axis Powers other than Finland. There are reversals that allow the loser of one battle to survive and subsequently strike back harder or elsewhere. There are also reversals that turn a likely winner into a loser... or turn a stalemate into an irretrievable rout. Kasserine Pass? That was a US defeat... but soon afterward the US Army came back with a larger and better-trained force and within a few months had closed in on Axis forces that had gotten away from the British. Market-Garden? The Allies found better directions of advance than Holland.

Hitler exemplifies the worst sort of leader that a country could get through partially-democratic process: an anger-filled zealot who uses power with the ultimate purpose of self-glorification and the settling of old scores. Once someone is a leader he had better sacrifice some old enmities. Recent rivals could make desirable allies. Lacking caution, conscience, and kindness he could only bring disaster. But without question he had superb military, technological, and economic resources behind him. He signed onto strategies that none but his lackeys would sign onto, and some of those proved brilliant. Some of them turned into the greatest blunders of all time.

Print this item

  A Eurovision style North American Song Contest possible?
Posted by: Lemanic - 05-09-2016, 08:39 AM - Forum: Entertainment and Media - Replies (3)

Well, as if Eurovision have finally dropped on to US TV and will air on LogoTV this Saturday on 03.00 PM EST, official discussions about a Eurovision style Song Contest have finally taken place.

http://eurovoix.com/2016/05/07/united-st...e-contest/


Sound fabulous if it wasn't for one tiny hitch...

...cultures in the US are REGIONAL.

As of now, there's regional differences rather than state-wise.

And if there was something akin to ESC over the pond, you would have to include both Canada and Mexico into this, but 92 states is a little much, so I would think that about 30 superstates would be reasonable. Two to four states who neighbours one an another to join forces for this kind of contest.

I've counted 32 superstates, to be exact. Just my suggestions though. No hard feelings.

Here they are in no particular order:

1. (California, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Hawaii)
2. (Oregon, Washington, British Columbia)
3. (Idaho, Nevada, Utah)
4. (Montana, Alberta, Saskatchewan)
5. (Manitoba, Nunavut)
6. (Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota)
7. (Ontario, Michigan, Wisconsin)
8. (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa)
9. (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York)
10. (Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska)
11. (Sonora, Arizona, New Mexico)
12. (Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador)
13. (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island)
14. (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire)
15. (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut)
16. (New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, D.C)
17. (West Virgina, Virgina)
18. (Kentucky, Tennessee)
19. (North Carolina, South Carolina)
20. (Georgia, Alabama)
21. (Florida, Puerto Rico)
22. (Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana)
23. (Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri)
24. (Texas, Coahuila de Zaragoza, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas)
25. (Alaska, Yukon Territories, Northwest Territories)
26. (Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Campeche)
27. (Chihuahua, Durango, Sinaloa)
28. (Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, Guanajuato, Aguascalientes)
29. (Nayarit, Jalsico, Colima)
30. (Tabasco, Chiapas, Veracruz, Oaxaca)
31. (Guerrero, Puebla, Michoacán, Tlaxala)
32. (Querétaro, Hidalgo, Mexico, Morelos, D.F)

Does this sound reasonable or is this blasphemy?

Print this item

  Future Economic Timeline - Transitioning from a 4T world to a 1T world
Posted by: JohnMc82 - 05-09-2016, 03:14 AM - Forum: The Future - Replies (10)


JohnMc82 
Senior Member


Future Economic Timeline - Transitioning from a 4T world to a 1T world

08-24-2014, 08:09 AM


Background:

Summer 2014: Bank of International Settlements issues guidance warning that the overvaluation of investment assets threatens global growth and economic stability. Banks and financial elites across the world have basically been put on notice: if you want to keep any of your wealth, you're going to have to share some of it by recognizing (and properly assigning) the value of labor in creating assets. Remember, setting prices is the fundamental job of high finance, and the Bank of International Settlements is pretty much the Vatican of modern global capitalism.

Summer 2014: Federal Reserve says no rate hike - this year. Most analysts expect a modest but deliberate rise in rates by early 2015.Prediction:Winter 2014: Travel remains slow, and demand weak. Gasoline approaches $3 per gallon (falling). Seasonal hiring is weak, adding to fears of a rate hike.

Spring 2015: Federal Reserve announces quarter-point interest rate increase. Markets panic and lose a significant percentage of value in a short period of time. Commodities and non-residential real estate are particularly hard hit. Residential real estate fares better than analysts expect, shortages due to slow construction are cited. (This is pretty much the last chance to buy a house at saecular lows)

Summer 2015: Business earnings reports are better than expected, but analysts say to wait because the full effects of the interest rate change haven't been felt yet. Summer trading remains slow and slightly depressed. Hiring remains weak

.Fall 2015: Business earnings reports beat expectations - again. Accountants cite declining cost of commodities (energy, materials, etc) and low industrial/commercial rents as delivering more-than-expected savings for business operations.

Fall-Winter 2015: Some investment funds return to the market, but the expectation of rising interest rates discourages speculation in commodities. Gasoline approaches $2.50.2016-2017: Music and fashion is increasingly defined by young adults with no personal memory of the 3T music and fashion cultures. Civics increasingly move to management and executive production roles in entertainment.

Spring 2016: Encouraged by better than expected economic situation, business begins expansion operations we haven't seen in a decade. However, new job creation remains in a very low income bracket, only offset by some reduction in consumer cost pressures. 

Summer 2016: Gas approaching $3 (heading up with the peak driving season)

Fall 2016: Hillary easily defeats the Republican nominee, but the GOP retains control of the House, leading to a relatively uneventful term.

Winter 2016: Tesla battery factory goes online. Electric cars reach 500 mile range and charging stations are easily found in most major metros.

Fall 2017: Frustrated with the continuing lack of action by the government, protests become more common. Conservative coalition continues rapid deterioration due to demographic pressure. Public arguments between social conservatives, business conservatives, and paleoconservatives become increasingly common and intense.

Summer 2018: 2018 model year cars begin to offer Google and Tesla "auto-pilot" features in states authorizing use. Regulation of self-driving cars become an urgent national discussion.

Fall 2018: Significant House/Senate gains for Democrats.

Summer 2019: Solar power hits cost parity with coal. Federal Funds Rates stabilize at a low but solid 3-4%. Stocks soar and commodities collapse.

Summer 2020: Planetary Explorations (or another competitor) demonstrates proof of concept by landing a survey vehicle on a near earth object. Commodities take another big hit.

Fall 2020: Hillary declines to seek re-election, citing age, health, and inability to work with reactionaries stuck in the past. Republican candidate gets a level of support that would make Mondale feel bad for him/her. (This could even be the Palin-for-president campaign if Republicans blame Hillary's victory on gender politics)

Winter 2020: Second Tesla battery factory opens, fast-charging technology allows a battery to get 300 miles worth of juice in five minutes of being plugged in. Abandoned gas stations become a more common sight, adding to the downward pressure on commercial real estate prices by increasing the availability of storefronts in prime locations.

Fall 2021: Comprehensive corporate, tax, and financial reform begins a rapid trend of favoring wages over corporate profitability. Summer 2022: Michael Bay's latest high-budget blockbuster about explosions and crisis and the end of the world flops so badly that we collectively wonder why we ever paid to see them in the first place.

2021-2035: Economic boom so intense that it can only seem absurd by those of us who put up with the last few decades. Equity values fail to keep up with real economic growth, largely due to the hesitation of civics to trust Wall Street with their money.

2035-2040: Music and fashion culture increasingly defined by young adults who have no personal memory of the 4T. Artists moving in to management and executive production roles.

2045-2050: Equity values overshoot the target, creating a brief but significant echo of the 4T's valuation of speculative paper over real stuff. Equities stumble, but at this point, it is increasingly clear that wages and worker retirement/investment portfolios are relatively overvalued. Right-wing economics becomes a thing again.


Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.'82 - Once & always independent


-24-2014, 10:55 AM



Kepi 
Senior Member

Join DateNov 2012LocationNorthern, VAPosts3,664

Couple things...If the economy tanks out again, I would expect to see house prices tank again, as well as gasoline prices. Any money market crash is a threat to Boomer retirement. So how do they scrape together an actual retirement? Well, they sell that 3T monstrosity to someone at a bargain basement price and buy a condo, cut the wining and dining they intended to do and live a hard scrabble life for a good while. Or they have their kids move back in or do the master bedroom flip and assume their loan (and give up the wining and dining).If gasoline commodities tank (which if there's another crash, they will), I expect to see the price drop to the late 08 level, especially now that I'm actually seeing some electric cars on the road.I still think Hillary is unelectable, and won't make it out of the primary if she decides to actually run (I suspect she's a flak target, out there making money while absorbing all the negative attention the conservative media can throw at her so the short list of hopefuls can escape character assassination). If the economy tanks again, I strongly expect that neither parties traditional candidates will fare well.

2014, 12:21 P

Eric the Green 
Senior Member



Wow, that's an impressive list of prophetic statements. Interesting to go through it all and see how it compares to this prophet's predictions. We've been disagreeing more lately, but I commend your attempt. Let's see. Originally Posted by JohnMc82 Background:Summer 2014: Bank of International Settlements issues guidance warning that the overvaluation of investment assets threatens global growth and economic stability. Banks and financial elites across the world have basically been put on notice: if you want to keep any of your wealth, you're going to have to share some of it by recognizing (and properly assigning) the value of labor in creating assets. Remember, setting prices is the fundamental job of high finance, and the Bank of International Settlements is pretty much the Vatican of modern global capitalism.Good advice that I don't think will be heeded.Summer 2014: Federal Reserve says no rate hike - this year. Most analysts expect a modest but deliberate rise in rates by early 2015.Prediction:Winter 2014: Travel remains slow, and demand weak. Gasoline approaches $3 per gallon (falling). Seasonal hiring is weak, adding to fears of a rate hike.Spring 2015: Federal Reserve announces quarter-point interest rate increase. Markets panic and lose a significant percentage of value in a short period of time. Commodities and non-residential real estate are particularly hard hit. Residential real estate fares better than analysts expect, shortages due to slow construction are cited. (This is pretty much the last chance to buy a house at saecular lows)There may be a slight increase in the interest rate. I think the recovery continues in 2014-15. Demand is not weakening, and there will be no significant panics. Construction is probably speeding up. But many people still having trouble finding work, though the job market is improving. This is a great 4T recession from which we never fully recover, at least not to the way things were in the 3T.Summer 2015: Business earnings reports are better than expected, but analysts say to wait because the full effects of the interest rate change haven't been felt yet. Summer trading remains slow and slightly depressed. Hiring remains weak.Fall 2015: Business earnings reports beat expectations - again. Accountants cite declining cost of commodities (energy, materials, etc) and low industrial/commercial rents as delivering more-than-expected savings for business operations.I don't know how you arrived at lower costs for commodities or rents. You may be right, but I don't see it. But business earnings may be pretty good as you say.Fall-Winter 2015: Some investment funds return to the market, but the expectation of rising interest rates discourages speculation in commodities. Gasoline approaches $2.50.Gasoline prices will probably be stable, about where they are now. I'm not sure what the connection is between speculation in commodities and expectations of higher interest rates.2016-2017: Music and fashion is increasingly defined by young adults with no personal memory of the 3T music and fashion cultures. Civics increasingly move to management and executive production roles in entertainment.Your statement about music, I sincerely hope is true. And it would be a blessing.Spring 2016: Encouraged by better than expected economic situation, business begins expansion operations we haven't seen in a decade. However, new job creation remains in a very low income bracket, only offset by some reduction in consumer cost pressures. Summer 2016: Gas approaching $3 (heading up with the peak driving season)Probably correct.Fall 2016: Hillary easily defeats the Republican nominee, but the GOP retains control of the House, leading to a relatively uneventful term.Winter 2016: Tesla battery factory goes online. Electric cars reach 500 mile range and charging stations are easily found in most major metros.Yes, those would seem to be spot-on predictions. I'm not sure exactly how fast the electric cars will progress, but sometime along in here the industry will start expanding faster. I have said the whole green energy sector will ramp up in about 2018.Fall 2017: Frustrated with the continuing lack of action by the government, protests become more common. Conservative coalition continues rapid deterioration due to demographic pressure. Public arguments between social conservatives, business conservatives, and paleoconservatives become increasingly common and intense.Summer 2018: 2018 model year cars begin to offer Google and Tesla "auto-pilot" features in states authorizing use. Regulation of self-driving cars become an urgent national discussion.Fall 2018: Significant House/Senate gains for Democrats.Summer 2019: Solar power hits cost parity with coal. Federal Funds Rates stabilize at a low but solid 3-4%. Stocks soar and commodities collapse.Except for that last one, I agree with the above. But now is the time when I think the economy could show signs of strain, due to the lack of reforms. I imagine it may be the reverse of what you say (stocks collapse and commodities soar) because shortages in many commodities are almost certain to increase as resources become strained by global warming and over-use, while stocks are already now overvalued, but will not suffer a panic as you expect so soon in 2015. There will likely be a bear market at the end of the decade instead.Summer 2020: Planetary Explorations (or another competitor) demonstrates proof of concept by landing a survey vehicle on a near earth object. Commodities take another big hit.Fall 2020: Hillary declines to seek re-election, citing age, health, and inability to work with reactionaries stuck in the past. Republican candidate gets a level of support that would make Mondale feel bad for him/her. (This could even be the Palin-for-president campaign if Republicans blame Hillary's victory on gender politics)Yes, you have stumbled into the truth regarding Hillary. But of course there will be no Palin campaign and Mondale is irrelevant. You've got it right though, as I see it now.Winter 2020: Second Tesla battery factory opens, fast-charging technology allows a battery to get 300 miles worth of juice in five minutes of being plugged in. Abandoned gas stations become a more common sight, adding to the downward pressure on commercial real estate prices by increasing the availability of storefronts in prime locations.Exactly, except closing gas stations won't have any effect on real estate prices.Fall 2021: Comprehensive corporate, tax, and financial reform begins a rapid trend of favoring wages over corporate profitability.That would be nice! Yes I think that prediction is spot on. I think pressure for reforms toward greater equality and value of labor will start building up now, and Democrats will gain more power. Hillary will regret her decision to bow out because of "inability to work with reactionaries." They are unlikely to survive the 2020 election.Summer 2022: Michael Bay's latest high-budget blockbuster about explosions and crisis and the end of the world flops so badly that we collectively wonder why we ever paid to see them in the first place.The mood as I see it in the early 2020s is upbeat, but fears have not gone away because the effects of our mismanagement of the Earth are coming home to roost. But in the 2020s they will encourage action and optimism that reform can work. In 2022, the mood of progress returns in a big way. It will seem like 1962 is resuming, after a 60-year hiatus. But now we will be smarter about "progress," having learned some lessons during the 60-year re-examination of what it means during the "post-modern" era. Now we enter the "transmodern" era; progress resumes, but with the light of sustainability and quality gradually returning. A renaissance in the arts is likely too, adding to the glow of this period. Reforms begin in earnest, though not without resistance since this is still after-all America.2021-2035: Economic boom so intense that it can only seem absurd by those of us who put up with the last few decades. Equity values fail to keep up with real economic growth, largely due to the hesitation of civics to trust Wall Street with their money.I think the economy will speed up, and generally-speaking prosperity will last through the late 4T, 1T and early 2T (through 2050). I doubt it will be like the booms of the past though. Adjustments to our mismanagement in so many ways will put a damper on growth, but the depression due to depopulation that Kepi expects will not happen. That's an interesting idea about Wall Street and millies. I don't know if that will happen or not. Civics usually end up trusting the institutions of their time. If reforms and changes keep happening though, that will keep the economy fresh. Millies will probably keep this reform agenda going-- certainly during the late 4T (the 2020s), supported by the young new-silent Sensitives, though held back at times by old fogey Xers and some ancient red Boomer reactionaries (though other blue Boomer prophets like me will still be pushing for the reforms and radical changes). The reformers and activists I expect will have the upper hand, and reactionary parties will be more moderate.2035-2040: Music and fashion culture increasingly defined by young adults who have no personal memory of the 4T. Artists moving in to management and executive production roles.An upheaval in China is likely in this period, and resource or trade wars and confrontations. New energy policies will be propagated. Confrontations and cold wars between the world powers of the time will happen.2045-2050: Equity values overshoot the target, creating a brief but significant echo of the 4T's valuation of speculative paper over real stuff. Equities stumble, but at this point, it is increasingly clear that wages and worker retirement/investment portfolios are relatively overvalued. Right-wing economics becomes a thing again.Quite the opposite. This will be a period of Awakening and Revolution; the sixties revisited in great degree. The Green mindset comes into its own, and corporate institutions will be questioned and often overturned. At the same time, another Great Society will be extended throughout the world by liberal governments. No doubt some movements of this time will seem outrageously optimistic and audacious, and extremists of all kinds could proliferate. Libertarian economics is the opposite of all that. It could experience a revival; I would say it will be looked upon as a fringe extremist idea like Goldwater's campaign was, and will fail to stop the new Great Society, in this period at least. So it might happen, but there will be no Reagan this time to institute it in a coming 3T. Still, there are always trends of cyclic reversal. Labor could become over-valued by this period, if the previous cycle repeats. That could happen if the reforms we need are put in place by then, regulating working hours and wages. If so, it will be the 2050s before we see a reversed trend. If anything, labor will be more active and powerful during the era of revolution itself and shortly afterward. Speculative paper booms seem a little premature for this period too. If there are economic strains and stagnations, they are more likely to happen in the following decade, which will resemble the 1970s cyclically. I also see a strong revival of green economics in the 2040s (first enunciated in the previous 2T), which is locally-based and cooperative. Strong movements to live in harmony with the earth, and organic and sensitive romantic art styles, will propagate. Before the 2045-50 period, in the early 40s, however, its possible that corporate power could concentrate, and their power could be revived. Secret cabals and combinations of wealth could gain power and manipulate the economy to their advantage. This will be reacted to in the decade's 2nd half, which begins the 2T. I also see the power of Europe and especially France reviving in this decade. Another change in French government is certainly likely in the early 2040s, as their Uranus 84-year return cycle comes around. Just as our Uranus cycle came around in the mid-2020s.Last edited by Eric the Green; 08-24-2014 at 12:30 PM."I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin BieberKeep the spirit alive,Eric A. Meece


JDFP 
Senior Member

Join DateJul 2010LocationKnoxville, TN.Posts1,200

 Originally Posted by Kepi I still think Hillary is unelectable, and won't make it out of the primary if she decides to actually run (I suspect she's a flak target, out there making money while absorbing all the negative attention the conservative media can throw at her so the short list of hopefuls can escape character assassination). If the economy tanks again, I strongly expect that neither parties traditional candidates will fare well.This. Hillary might get the nomination but would be defeated. The woman is too polarizing as a person (an unethical and crudely disgusting human being at that) even if her politics are far more moderate and 'baby blue' regarding most issues. With that said, I despise her as an individual but as a politician she's shrewd, highly intelligent, (so was Emperor Palpatine) and would find ways to compromise (unlike the current regime) with others to actually do something other than posturing/pouting of how she has a pen and a cell phone and refusing to work with others. The one bright side regarding a Hillary nomination is that it would all but guarantee a Conservative White House come 2020. As far as the rest of it, inferences based on current trajectories are interesting and there may be some merit to some of your "predictions" - but even the best predictions is only educated guess-work. And I don't have time for any astrological nonsense as others prefer to spew forth.j.p."And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so? I did. And what did you want? To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth.‎" -- Raymond Carver"A page of good prose remains invincible." -- John CheeverReply With Quote
8-24-2014, 04:

JohnMc82 
Senior Member
Join DateJan 2011LocationBack in JaxPosts1,962

Hillary's lame-duck presidency is the controversial claim? Hm.You guys should check out RCP. When Fox News polls say Hillary can beat Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or JEB by double digits, I don't think the GOP stands a 
chance.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...l...nt/They've even got her winning Florida & North Carolina, two states the GOP can't really win without. Hillary could even beat JEB in his home state, forget about the double-digit leads she has here against other potential Republicans.I don't like Hillary either, but, unless some really unexpected contender pops up, or someone manages to beat her in the primary....The Congressional map is a little different, because despite a generic vote favoring Democrats, the Republicans have been more aggressive in securing representation through gerrymandered districts. As a midterm, 2014 will lean conservative, and then 2016 will be another election where the populace votes blue but ends up with a red Congress.Last edited by JohnMc82; 08-24-2014 at 04:54 PM.Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.'82 - Once & always independent

Brian Beecher 

Join DateSep 2001LocationDowners Grove, ILPosts2,937


Originally Posted by JDFP This. Hillary might get the nomination but would be defeated. The woman is too polarizing as a person (an unethical and crudely disgusting human being at that) even if her politics are far more moderate and 'baby blue' regarding most issues. With that said, I despise her as an individual but as a politician she's shrewd, highly intelligent, (so was Emperor Palpatine) and would find ways to compromise (unlike the current regime) with others to actually do something other than posturing/pouting of how she has a pen and a cell phone and refusing to work with others. The one bright side regarding a Hillary nomination is that it would all but guarantee a Conservative White House come 2020. As far as the rest of it, inferences based on current trajectories are interesting and there may be some merit to some of your "predictions" - but even the best predictions is only educated guess-work. And I don't have time for any astrological nonsense as others prefer to spew forth.j.p.What you are saying about Hillary is so exactly spot on as to what was, and often still is, said about Richard Nixon. He also was very shrewd and sometimes brilliant, especially on foreign issues, yet despised by so many , even sans Watergate.



Brian Beecher 
Senior Member

Originally Posted by JohnMc82 Hillary's lame-duck presidency is the controversial claim? Hm.You guys should check out RCP. When Fox News polls say Hillary can beat Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or JEB by double digits, I don't think the GOP stands a chance.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/They've even got her winning Florida & North Carolina, two states the GOP can't really win without. Hillary could even beat JEB in his home state, forget about the double-digit leads she has here against other potential Republicans.I don't like Hillary either, but, unless some really unexpected contender pops up, or someone manages to beat her in the primary....The Congressional map is a little different, because despite a generic vote favoring Democrats, the Republicans have been more aggressive in securing representation through gerrymandered districts. As a midterm, 2014 will lean conservative, and then 2016 will be another election where the populace votes blue but ends up with a red Congress.If Hillary indeed is the Dems nominee, expect to see more folks voting for "none of the above".





JDFP 
Senior Member

Join DateJul 2010LocationKnoxville, TN.Posts1,200
Originally Posted by Brian Beecher What you are saying about Hillary is so exactly spot on as to what was, and often still is, said about Richard Nixon. He also was very shrewd and sometimes brilliant, especially on foreign issues, yet despised by so many , even sans Watergate.Good catch there. And you're absolutely right. I didn't think about it but going back and thinking about Tricky Dicky with that I could definitely see some major similarities between Hillary and Nixon. Hopefully Hillary won't be a vicious and unpredictable alcoholic who wants to nuke Putin when she gets upset and has to be talked out of it by her closest advisers ("No, no, don't launch an attack on Russia, the president's just drunk again"). I will have to say Nixon was an incredibly fascinating man though. j.p."And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so? I did. And what did you want? To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth.‎" -- Raymond Carver"A page of good prose remains invincible." -- John CheeverReply With Quote



Kepi 
Senior Member

Join DateNov 2012LocationNorthern, VAPosts3,664

Originally Posted by JohnMc82 Hillary's lame-duck presidency is the controversial claim? Hm.You guys should check out RCP. When Fox News polls say Hillary can beat Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or JEB by double digits, I don't think the GOP stands a chance.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/They've even got her winning Florida & North Carolina, two states the GOP can't really win without. Hillary could even beat JEB in his home state, forget about the double-digit leads she has here against other potential Republicans.I don't like Hillary either, but, unless some really unexpected contender pops up, or someone manages to beat her in the primary....The Congressional map is a little different, because despite a generic vote favoring Democrats, the Republicans have been more aggressive in securing representation through gerrymandered districts. As a midterm, 2014 will lean conservative, and then 2016 will be another election where the populace votes blue but ends up with a red Congress.It's not republican candidates I'd worry about, it's any given democratic one. Even a mildly competent candidate could take her out in the primary. JDFP kinda nodded towards the problem, but as a red side fan he doesn't get the problem. Hillary is "light blue", sure, but she's sky blue, not electric blue. She's out of season. If anyone comes in with a shade that's closer to something seasonally appropriate, Hillary is out. In 2008, Hillary was a touch out of season and she lost. Next time, she may as well come out in clown paint and select Ben Bernanke as her running mate. I don't think that she's not smart, but she's not good at shutting her mouth when she should. In 2016, her hawking will definitely come back to haunt her, because even the middle east degenerating, even with Russia & Ukraine, we're really not that interested in another war, and this time I don't know if anything would really make us want to enter one and I don't know that anyone is crazy enough to pick that level of fight with us this time. We're not the country that mopped up the mess in World War I, but is still on the verge of being deemed unsophisticated savages anymore. We're the Evil Empire. We crush low power nations, demand people do what we say... Likely nobody wants to involve us in their war this time

JDFP 
Senior Member



 Originally Posted by Kepi It's not republican candidates I'd worry about, it's any given democratic one. Even a mildly competent candidate could take her out in the primary. JDFP kinda nodded towards the problem, but as a red side fan he doesn't get the problem. Hillary is "light blue", sure, but she's sky blue, not electric blue. She's out of season. If anyone comes in with a shade that's closer to something seasonally appropriate, Hillary is out. In 2008, Hillary was a touch out of season and she lost. Next time, she may as well come out in clown paint and select Ben Bernanke as her running mate. I don't think that she's not smart, but she's not good at shutting her mouth when she should. In 2016, her hawking will definitely come back to haunt her, because even the middle east degenerating, even with Russia & Ukraine, we're really not that interested in another war, and this time I don't know if anything would really make us want to enter one and I don't know that anyone is crazy enough to pick that level of fight with us this time. We're not the country that mopped up the mess in World War I, but is still on the verge of being deemed unsophisticated savages anymore. We're the Evil Empire. We crush low power nations, demand people do what we say... Likely nobody wants to involve us in their war this time.Well, a quick tidbit from this "red side fan":How interesting it would be to see a Democratic nominee (Hillary) vs. a Republican nominee (let's say Rand Paul for the sake of argument) and the Democratic nominee being the hawkish figure this time around with the Republican nominee being the one who says: "Hell no; we won't go." - now that would certainly be one for the history books in seeing that unfold! Definitely popcorn worthy there!j.p."And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so? I did. And what did you want? To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth.‎" -- Raymond Carver"A page of good prose remains invincible." -- John CheeverReply With Quote





Bronco80 
Senior Member


 Originally Posted by JohnMc82 Fall 2020: Hillary declines to seek re-election, citing age, health, and inability to work with reactionaries stuck in the past.This is the only part that strikes me as off on first glance. Hillary has wanted the presidency so bad, for so long, that if she wins in 2016 I can't imagine her willingly give it up. If she serves from 2017-24 she'd be the same age as Ronald Reagan during that period, and I don't know of any health issues that she might have. And she's had plenty of experience tangling with the vast right wing conspiracy.Reply With Quote


Eric the Green 
Senior Member



 Originally Posted by JDFP Well, a quick tidbit from this "red side fan":How interesting it would be to see a Democratic nominee (Hillary) vs. a Republican nominee (let's say Rand Paul for the sake of argument) and the Democratic nominee being the hawkish figure this time around with the Republican nominee being the one who says: "Hell no; we won't go." - now that would certainly be one for the history books in seeing that unfold! Definitely popcorn worthy there!j.p.That's true, that would be interesting. Rand Paul would not win, mostly because he won't be nominated, but he does better in polls than most Republican prospects against her. No-one should over-estimate Hillary's propensity to get us into a war, though. She may be more hawkish, but that 's just around the edges. She may be more likely to do things like give aid to Syria, impose tough sanctions, make some bombing raids; etc. But she's in the new liberal Democrat Clinton/Carter/Obama tradition, and as former Secretary of State is also a diplomat, and a good one. I understand the criticism; just don't get carried away if you want to be correct in your crystal ball "I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin BieberKeep the spirit alive,Eric A. Meece


Kepi 
Senior Member

 Originally Posted by JDFP Well, a quick tidbit from this "red side fan":How interesting it would be to see a Democratic nominee (Hillary) vs. a Republican nominee (let's say Rand Paul for the sake of argument) and the Democratic nominee being the hawkish figure this time around with the Republican nominee being the one who says: "Hell no; we won't go." - now that would certainly be one for the history books in seeing that unfold! Definitely popcorn worthy there!j.p.It would be interesting, but I don't think a staunchly anti-war republican can actually make up enough of a majority to get through the primaries either. While we are war weary, there's still a lot of voters who definitely believe that a strong America means an America that never backs down and immediately takes every opportunity to make a fight happen. It's not all or even most republicans, but it's a large enough contingent that they have to be appeased with more than just lip service to make the coalition work.Now where I think things get interesting is in the economy. If anything spirals, it's not like you have replacing the Fed chair even as a distant possibility. Meanwhile law suits for misbehavior isn't an option, because we've been doing that. Stimulus isn't an option, because we've been doing that. So what are you left with as options? The republican's traditional "do nothing, reduce taxes, deregulate" won't fly, but neither will the democrat's traditional safety net approach. If John is right and there's a crash in early 15 (I think that it'll be either October this year or next, maybe we can hold or until 16, but I doubt it... October is just a good month to get slammed), it's going to be an ugly, domestically centered quagmire for any candidate.


TimWalker 
Senior Member


If Boomer retirement is in jeopardy, how can they afford a new condo? I expect that Boomers' best option would be an austere life in some sort of communal living arrangement.As I posted to another thread, many Boomers may find themselves in a nomadic lifestyle, working temp jobs in their Golden Years. Until their health fails.Last edited by TimWalker; 08-24-2014 at 09:09 PM.Reply With Quote





TimWalker 
Senior Member

In general, yes, we are war weary. And isolationist sentiment has reappeared in some groupings. No other nation will want to get into a war with us, but we could stumble into one if they think we are blocking/undermining their interests.Reply With Quote



Kepi 
Senior Member



 Originally Posted by TimWalker If Boomer retirement is in jeopardy, how can they afford a new condo? I expect that Boomers' best option would be an austere life in some sort of communal living arrangement.As I posted to another thread, many Boomers may find themselves in a nomadic lifestyle, working temp jobs in their Golden Years. Until their health fails.By selling their houses and liquidating some other assets. Basically, they're going to have to sell off a lot of stuff and but something they can actually afford.Reply With Quote






Mikebert 
Senior Member


1st post very optimistic. Business cycle been banished. This is the same "it's different this time" stuff that folks were peddling in the 1990's.Reply With Quote



Mikebert 
Senior Member

 Originally Posted by JDFP Well, a quick tidbit from this "red side fan":How interesting it would be to see a Democratic nominee (Hillary) vs. a Republican nominee (let's say Rand Paul for the sake of argument) and the Democratic nominee being the hawkish figure this time around with the Republican nominee being the one who says: "Hell no; we won't go." - now that would certainly be one for the history books in seeing that unfold! Definitely popcorn worthy there!j.p.I would be very interesting. I can't see Paul getting the nomination.Reply With Quote


Mikebert 
Senior Member

Join DateJul 2001LocationKalamazoo MIPosts4,501



 Originally Posted by Kepi If John is right and there's a crash in early 15What crash? he mentions a sharp correction, that's all. I don't call 1998 a crash. You don't get a big drop in the market without a recession. And that means years of high unemployment in the current environment. But his forecast has essentially eliminated the business cycle. It's the same thing as they were talking about in the 1990's, that somehow "the internet" or electric cars or insert your favorite technology here "changes everything".Reply With Quote





JohnMc82 
Senior Member


 Originally Posted by Mikebert What crash? he mentions a sharp correction, that's all. I don't call 1998 a crash. You don't get a big drop in the market without a recession. And that means years of high unemployment in the current environment. But his forecast has essentially eliminated the business cycle. It's the same thing as they were talking about in the 1990's, that somehow "the internet" or electric cars or insert your favorite technology here "changes everything".We're already 15 years in to a long-term trend of weak and falling employment.Labor force participation is dropping like a rock, and it has been since it peaked in late '99 or early 2000. The next correction should only intensify that trend that has already been going on for almost fifteen years, and I don't think it will "turn" in the other direction until at least the early 2020s. Even then, it's more likely to be flat for a turning before there's any real employment growth.The related secular metric to watch is corporate profits as a percentage of GDP. The last time we were at these levels we were fighting WW2, and it wasn't until the 1T had started that this number started to come back down to the more stable 5-7% range.Corporate profits may not even peak until 2024, and there won't be a strong trend in favor of growing wages until after that peak. Between now and then, workers may have a little bit more wiggle room than they had in the prior fifteen years, but it is still an employer's market - probably until the labor force participation rate bottoms out in the low 50%s.The essential technology of the economic 1T is cheap, renewable energy. When we stop thinking about fossil fuels as the essential ingredient to growth, growth will be possible again. When cars run off renewable electricity instead of oil, this directly impacts major themes of the 4T: foreign policy designed to secure access to oil in the Middle East; environmental policy that is struggling to keep up with our fossil-fuel footprint or demand; and corporate policy that is shaped by fear of resource shortages and rapidly rising energy costs.Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.'82 - Once & always independent


Eric the Green 
Senior Member

 Originally Posted by JDFP As far as the rest of it, inferences based on current trajectories are interesting and there may be some merit to some of your "predictions" - but even the best predictions is only educated guess-work. And I don't have time for any astrological nonsense as others prefer to spew forth.j.p.I understand. But there is a record that is empirically verifiable; not foolproof by any means, but significant enough that some might see it as trumping peoples' beliefsystem that says astrology can't be true just because."I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin BieberKeep the spirit alive,Eric A. MeeceReply With Quote


Eric the Green 
Senior Member

Originally Posted by TimWalker In a depressed economy, who will be in a position to buy the Boomers' stuff?Well, if Kepi is right, that could bring down housing prices. If it's not a crash, that could be good. We'll see in about 2019."I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin BieberKeep the spirit alive,Eric A. Meece




Kepi 
Senior Member


 Originally Posted by TimWalker In a depressed economy, who will be in a position to buy the Boomers' stuff?It's more a matter how low Boomers are willing to cash out. It's going to be that way anyway if you're talking about a cash out for retirement. There's going to be price decline for investments because it's going have to be bought by generations who have not had the ability to amass wealth.Reply With Quote






Mikebert 
Senior Member


 Originally Posted by JohnMc82 We're already 15 years in to a long-term trend of weak and falling employment.Labor force participation is dropping like a rock, and it has been since it peaked in late '99 or early 2000. The next correction should only intensify that trend that has already been going on for almost fifteen years, and I don't think it will "turn" in the other direction until at least the early 2020s. Even then, it's more likely to be flat for a turning before there's any real employment growth.The related secular metric to watch is corporate profits as a percentage of GDP. The last time we were at these levels we were fighting WW2, and it wasn't until the 1T had started that this number started to come back down to the more stable 5-7% range.Corporate profits may not even peak until 2024, and there won't be a strong trend in favor of growing wages until after that peak. Between now and then, workers may have a little bit more wiggle room than they had in the prior fifteen years, but it is still an employer's market - probably until the labor force participation rate bottoms out in the low 50%s.The essential technology of the economic 1T is cheap, renewable energy. When we stop thinking about fossil fuels as the essential ingredient to growth, growth will be possible again. When cars run off renewable electricity instead of oil, this directly impacts major themes of the 4T: foreign policy designed to secure access to oil in the Middle East; environmental policy that is struggling to keep up with our fossil-fuel footprint or demand; and corporate policy that is shaped by fear of resource shortages and rapidly rising energy costs.OK. Your first post was all sunshine. I don't think we are in for sunshine over the next ten years. Your call for a boom is apparently based on what happened last time. What happened last time happened for a *reason*. It didn't happen because some effect of the turning cycle. It happened because the *details* of the policy response were a certain way. They could have just as easily been a different way, and then it wouldn't have happened.Last edited by Mikebert; 08-25-2014 at 03:01 PM.




JohnMc82 
Senior Member

Join DateJan 2011LocationBack in JaxPosts1,962


Like has been pointed out, a Rand Paul vs. Hillary matchup almost puts Hillary in the awkward position of being the conservative with regards to foreign policy and too-big-to-fail corporate policy. Total turnout would probably be pretty low, but the polls so far show Hillary easily defeating any Democratic primary challenger, as well as any potential Republican nominee who has any sort of name recognition.But I do think, that it wouldn't take long for the populace to remember why Hillary is such a divisive character, either. She will blame age or Republicans or whatever when she doesn't run for a second term, but the reality is that her popularity is going to be suffering from the day she steps into office. Knowing that she won't be able to go out with a rich policy legacy, she'll make herself in to a media martyr for her cause (that cause of course, being herself).Knowing she won't be able to pull off too many shady dealings with the right-wing ready to destroy her, she'll bow out of the job in a way that keeps her in the spotlight and collecting bigger-than-ever speaking & consulting fees.

Print this item

  Authoritarianism and American politics
Posted by: pbrower2a - 05-08-2016, 09:11 PM - Forum: Theory Related Political Discussions - Replies (72)

Political values include general attitudes toward humanity -- whether and whom to trust, and whether to obey or rebel.

from 538.com

Note -- originally posted in 2009, but it still seems relevant.

Quote:by Tom Schaller @ 12:35 PM


I'm reading a compelling new book, Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics, co-written by Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler. (Disclosure: Jon is a longtime friend; we were in grad school together at Univ. of North Carolina.) The book is an examination of how authoritarian tendencies among American citizens inform and explain attitudes toward government, public policies and their fellow citizens. It is impossible to summarize the book properly in a blog post, but I wanted to hit on some of the points that struck me, many of which were unsurprising and yet startling to see demonstrated empirically.

The first point Hetherington and Weiler make is that authoritarianism is really about order--achieving it, maintaining it, and affirming it--and especially when citizens are uncertain or fearful. This, they say, is why authoritarians seek out and elevate, well, authorities--because authorities impose order on an otherwise disordered world. They provide a useful review the existing literature on authoritarian traits, which have been connected to negative racist stereotyping, a belief in biblical inerrancy, a preference for simple rather than complex problem-solving, and low levels of political information.

Hetherington and Weiler expand and update the authoritarian literature by applying it to contemporary controversies. For example, what they measure and define as "maximum authoritarian" types show much lower support for gay marriage and gay adoption (19 percent, 28 percent) than do "minimum authoritarians" (71 percent, 89 percent). Maximums are three times more likely than minimums to support the government use of wiretaps without a warrant in the war on terror (60 percent to 19 percent), and four times more likely to say it is unacceptable to criticize the president about fighting terrorism (33 percent to 8 percent).

And what do authoritarians look like? The table above--which I have reproduced from Table 3.2 (p. 39) of their book--shows average levels of authoritarianism by descriptive characteristics that, taken together, produce a composite image: rural, southern, under-educated, evangelical Protestant churchgoers. Is it any wonder that when George W. Bush was down to his bottom 30 percent of public support during his second term so much of that support derived from people fitting this profile? And although there is a strong connection between authoritarianism and conservatism (and thus Republicanism), as Hetherington and Weiler caution, authoritarianism is not bounded by party: Among 2008 Democratic primary voters there were significant splits on issues of race and immigration, smacking of authoritarian impulses, that played a role in support for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. "There is strong suggestive evidence that authoritarianism was a core reason for the voting behavior of nonblacks" in the Democratic primary, they conclude.

As for the current debate over health care, some of the same cleavages exist. In a recent piece for the Huffington Post, Weiler talks about race and authoritarianism in the context of the health reform debate: "In sum, there is reason to think that beneath the arguments about government intrusion into the health care market, death panels, and such, a much more visceral dynamic is at work. To be perfectly clear, it is far from the case that every opponent or skeptic of significant health-care reform is a racist or racially motivated in her or his thinking. But there is, at the least, very strong circumstantial evidence that views of race and beliefs about health care reform are linked significantly among many Americans, which probably explains why the debate on health care reform has caused a much stronger uproar in 2009 than it did in 1994."

Reading the book, I kept hearing echoes of Glenn Greenwalds's book, A Tragic Legacy. Greenwald's book is a character study of Bush43 and the Bush White House, its Manichean worldview, and what that meant for public policy. But an us-v-them, good-v-evil governing mentality is only possible in a democracy where authoritarian currents run deep enough to sustain (and re-elect) such leadership. The governing atmosphere Greenwald describes makes even more sense after reading Hetherington and Weiler.

Average Authoritarianism by groups:

Religion

Evangelical Protestant .709
Catholic .571
Mainline Protestant .530
Secular .481
Jewish .383

Church attendance

Weekly or more .689
Less than weekly .549

Region

South .657
Non-South .457

Population area

Rural .603
Small town .584
Suburb .524
Large city .502
Inner city .549

Education

Less than HS diploma .749
HS diploma .590
College degree .510
Graduate degree .370

It's not for any of us to decide "which" authoritarianism is good and which is bad. Nobody is choosing between Stalinism and Nazism or the Klan.

One cornerstone of authoritarianism is an adherence to a supposedly-superior culture and its traditions. Some traditions and cultures are less hostile in their attitudes toward outsiders: such peoples as Orthodox Jews and Old-Order Amish well recognize that their ways of life aren't for everyone and that outsiders must be judged on universal principles instead of similarities to themselves. They would tell outsiders to live according to the highest ethical standards of their groups and when we meet we will get along. Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians would see anyone not like themselves not as quaint, but instead as "sinful'.

Some of the divides beg explanation. I suspect that authoritarianism implies insularity -- less likelihood of meeting people of dissimilar backgrounds under conditions that preclude judgment of others. People in insular environments may be in such places by choice -- out of fear of meeting people dissimilar to themselves or likely to show hostility toward "exotic" types. Outsiders, one learns early, are the untrustworthy people who do things to one instead of collaborating with one.

Education is obvious: people with little formal education are less likely to show social mobility and are likely to be stuck in rural areas and inner cities. Their interactions with outsiders is likely to be unpleasant because of the economic realities among the undereducated, and they are likely to think inside some rigid box because anything else is not accepted. Behavioral standards are rigid, and punishments for violations of the norms are severe. Undereducated people often have poor impulse control, learning disabilities, and proclivity toward violence, none of which fits well into bureaucratic environments (including schools). At the other end, graduate students are likely to meet people of widely-diverse cultural heritages even at the undergraduate schools that feed graduate and professional schools. First-rate schools attract international students who don't have the same ethnicity, ideology, or culture. You can only imagine what attitudes form among graduate students toward homosexuality, interfaith and interracial relationships, and big government (one likely depends upon government grants at the least for research). Rational, flexible thought is a necessity, and part of it entails the ability to deny impulses when appropriate.

A college degree is not enough to shatter authoritarian tendencies; lots of mediocrities now get college degrees (blatant example in politics:the former Governor of Alaska). Someone who attends a second-rate or worse college is likely to be around cultural peers and see little diversity, and if there is any, likely to separate from it. Many college graduates have seen college entirely as a backdoor to Corporate America, a way of having a chance to go into management training in a box store after six months as a store clerk instead of twenty if at all. Big Business is extremely hierarchical, and authoritarian types might fit in far better than might more open-minded people. The drop-off between "college degree" and "high school diploma" isn't so sharp as the one between "college degree" and "graduate degree" or between "high school diploma" and "less than high-school diploma".

The political consequences of authoritarianism include the inability to see political solutions outside a "comfortable" list of "normal" politicians. People who had difficulty voting for Barack Obama would have had difficulty voting for not only a half-African product of miscegenation, but also an Asian, Jewish, Latino, or LGBT candidate for the Presidency.

Some people need rigid direction. It's obvious enough with scoundrels; they need it imposed from above (as in a prison) because they merit no trust from others or from a bigger and more powerful scoundrel (like a higher-ranking Crime Boss like Al Capone or Adolf Hitler). Some impose it because such allows them to get what they want from people whom they have few incentives to offer. Those are the sorts who must make others feel so insecure about themselves that they would never abandon an exploitative environment for something better. Fear remains one of the most powerful tools of control. Maybe you have had some boss who warns you frequently that if you quit that organization you would fail anywhere else.

Poorly-educated people often find themselves under the harshest conditions of employment. Some carry the sorts of educational pathologies -- poor impulse control, inability to defer gratification, a low threshold of frustration, laziness, and rebelliousness. People with those traits need intense supervision just to achieve even the barest of objectives, They might get accustomed to it and accept it as the norm of human existence. People without such traits can get along quite well without such supervision and thus reject authoritarianism.

Print this item

  Trump and the minimum wage
Posted by: Odin - 05-08-2016, 06:14 PM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (41)

Trump said he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage. Wow, such a champion of the working class. Rolleyes

Print this item

  Technology
Posted by: pbrower2a - 05-08-2016, 06:09 PM - Forum: Forum feedback - Replies (7)

How about a thread for technology?

Print this item