Is China in a 2T-ish era?

[JasonBlack]

I say "2T-ish", because I think they're too collectivistic and ideologically consistent to show the substantial tides and regularity of turnings seen in Western democracies (especially in the anglosphere). 

With that said, the reason I suspect they're entering a more 2T-ish era is that the previous decades showed many signs of 
- generation of "little emperors" from the 1 Child Policy, which took place from 1980 to 2016 (note: I don't necessarily think these indicate hard generational boundaries). Ironically, a bust rather than a boom, but with the similar effect of rearing a generation of pampered post-crisis children 
- decades of consistent economic growth
- high levels of strictly enforced conformity 
- strong cultural unity and optimism about the future 

now, for the last few years, the bulk of those only child babies are in rising adulthood and we're seeing things like 
- more individualistic consumption patterns 
- still reasonable economic growth, but of a more turbulent nature with more ups and downs
- for the first time in quite awhile, massive protests 
- renewed ideological fervor (in this case: reunification of Taiwan with China)

Of course, there are some differences. They're still a country of stifling conformity with ever-increasing surveillance and social credit scores, and their ideological thrusts seem to come from the old as much as the young, but by and large, I think the tide is turning for them just as it does for us.

[Eric the Green]

The bosses want Taiwan; I don't notice any fervor among the people for this. Any such fervor is just government programming. I don't see any massive protests. I just see consolidation of authority. I don't think this society is capable of turnings.

[JasonBlack]

(08-01-2022, 07:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The bosses want Taiwan; I don't notice any fervor among the people for this. Any such fervor is just government programming. I don't see any massive protests. I just see consolidation of authority. I don't think this society is capable of turnings.

Speaking impressionistically, Chinese generational cycles seem to go something more like 2T-->4T-->1T. Some sort of revolt/revolution (ex: Taiping Rebellion), followed by despots consolidating power (ex: Maoist Regime), then when the despot dies off, people rebuild things and the people experience growth and normalcy for a few decades (ex: Deng Xiaoping era). The masses of China have had neither the largess nor the personal freedom to have a 3T. 2Ts aggressively usher in eras of individualism, 3Ts are reliant on a preexisting mood of individualism, but the collectivist instincts of China typically crush this before it has a chance to do more than set off a few sparks.

[Eric the Green]

(08-01-2022, 08:54 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(08-01-2022, 07:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The bosses want Taiwan; I don't notice any fervor among the people for this. Any such fervor is just government programming. I don't see any massive protests. I just see consolidation of authority. I don't think this society is capable of turnings.

Speaking impressionistically, Chinese generational cycles seem to go something more like 2T-->4T-->1T. Some sort of revolt/revolution (ex: Taiping Rebellion), followed by despots consolidating power (ex: Maoist Regime), then when the despot dies off, people rebuild things and the people experience growth and normalcy for a few decades (ex: Deng Xiaoping era). The masses of China have had neither the largess nor the personal freedom to have a 3T. 2Ts aggressively usher in eras of individualism, 3Ts are reliant on a preexisting mood of individualism, but the collectivist instincts of China typically crush this before it has a chance to do more than set off a few sparks.

That's possible. David Kaiser mentioned that some ancient societies like Greece would put up leaders that could have seemed like either Awakening or Crisis leaders, and it was hard to tell the difference from Pericles' speeches whether he was a Prophet or a Civic. I think such primitive societies regarding governance and social order as China and Russia often move through history like a pendulum rather than a circle. That means just two stages: crisis, and stagnation. The latter is their version of a 1T. Maybe China is entering a crisis period, while Russia is definitely in a stagnation.

The USA will enter this pendulum pattern if Trump Republicans win any more elections, and if the Democrats don't keep control throughout the 4T, which will end sometime in 2029 if Democrats keep control and the 4T is thus successful. By the end of this century, if the Trump Republicans take control at any time in this 4T, even this pendulum could stop swinging. And the pendulum moves much more slowly than a saeculum in more-advanced countries does.

Perhaps a more moderate and sane version of a Republican presidency, with someone like the high-horoscope-scoring Spencer Cox (current Utah governor) at the helm, will take power during portions of a 1T, should we enter it-- which we will not do if any Republican wins the presidency before 2032.

I hear that Mr. Howe has suggested in an interview that this 4T could last until 2033. This may align with what I am suggesting here. The early years of a 1T normally see some lingering instability, and that to me looks like the early 2030s. But I think things will be settling in to a new consensus in those years, despite some appearances, if we achieve it. And if we do, it will essentially arrive in 2030, especially if Newsom is the new president by then.

[JasonBlack]

(08-01-2022, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's possible. David Kaiser mentioned that some ancient societies like Greece would put up leaders that could have seemed like either Awakening or Crisis leaders, and it was hard to tell the difference from Pericles' speeches whether he was a Prophet or a Civic. I think such primitive societies regarding governance and social order as China and Russia often move through history like a pendulum rather than a circle. That means just two stages: crisis, and stagnation. The latter is their version of a 1T. Maybe China is entering a crisis period, while Russia is definitely in a stagnation.

The USA will enter this pendulum pattern if Trump Republicans win any more elections, and if the Democrats don't keep control throughout the 4T, which will end sometime in 2029 if Democrats keep control and the 4T is thus successful. By the end of this century, if the Trump Republicans take control at any time in this 4T, even this pendulum could stop swinging. And the pendulum moves much more slowly than a saeculum in more-advanced countries does.

Perhaps a more moderate and sane version of a Republican presidency, with someone like the high-horoscope-scoring Spencer Cox (current Utah governor) at the helm, will take power during portions of a 1T, should we enter it-- which we will not do if any Republican wins the presidency before 2032.

I hear that Mr. Howe has suggested in an interview that this 4T could last until 2033. This may align with what I am suggesting here. The early years of a 1T normally see some lingering instability, and that to me looks like the early 2030s. But I think things will be settling in to a new consensus in those years, despite some appearances, if we achieve it. And if we do, it will essentially arrive in 2030, especially if Newsom is the new president by then.

I see a good 1T president being something like...Clinton's policies, Reagan's fatherly gravitas, Carter's general character and Eisenhower's logistical prowess. Maybe some kind of welfare reform where we combined welfare payments with volunteer work and/or training.

[David Horn]

(08-01-2022, 07:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The bosses want Taiwan; I don't notice any fervor among the people for this. Any such fervor is just government programming. I don't see any massive protests. I just see consolidation of authority. I don't think this society is capable of turnings.

Then again, this is China, with compliance and conformity being the norm.  It's hard to gauge what's just beliow the surface unless you live there.  Even then, a Western mind in the PRC won't see what a Chinese mind will notice intuitively.

[David Horn]

(08-01-2022, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hear that Mr. Howe has suggested in an interview that this 4T could last until 2033. This may align with what I am suggesting here. The early years of a 1T normally see some lingering instability, and that to me looks like the early 2030s. But I think things will be settling in to a new consensus in those years, despite some appearances, if we achieve it. And if we do, it will essentially arrive in 2030, especially if Newsom is the new president by then.

It's hard to accept a 25 year 4T. Crises tend to be shorter, if for no other reason than their intensity. We should be at an inflection point. Are we? If so, it's not noticable in any definitive way. The GOP move to fringe continues (is there more fringe available to their right?), and the Dems continue to fight among themselves. This all seems to be more of the same.

It's possible that the GOP moves too far, alienates enough of their own base and most Independents to create a true shift, but the hyper-woke Dems still have a spoiler role to play. Assuming they don't this time, the 4T may end on schedule. That's a lot of assuming.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2022, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-01-2022, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hear that Mr. Howe has suggested in an interview that this 4T could last until 2033. This may align with what I am suggesting here. The early years of a 1T normally see some lingering instability, and that to me looks like the early 2030s. But I think things will be settling in to a new consensus in those years, despite some appearances, if we achieve it. And if we do, it will essentially arrive in 2030, especially if Newsom is the new president by then.

It's hard to accept a 25 year 4T.  Crises tend to be shorter, if for no other reason than their intensity.  We should be at an inflection point.  Are we?  If so, it's not noticable in any definitive way.  The GOP move to fringe continues (is there more fringe available to their right?), and the Dems continue to fight among themselves.  This all seems to be more of the same.  

It's possible that the GOP moves too far, alienates enough of their own base and most Independents to create a true shift, but the hyper-woke Dems still have a spoiler role to play.  Assuming they don't this time, the 4T may end on schedule.  That's a lot of assuming.

I didn't mention a 25-year 4T, but that's what Howe seems to be suggesting. I think rather we could see a 1T starting in 2029-2030, but 1Ts still have some leftover instability or reactionism going on, like McCarthyism or the hate in the days of Reconstruction, or the Alien and Sedition Acts, but this does not disturb the overall consensus having been reached. Overall, the late 1940s were cheerful and relatively stable. That's what I see for the early 2030s, and Howe might be defining this as 4 extra years of the 4T.

It all depends on whether the Democrats can hold on now and extend their power a bit, and hold it through the rest of the 4T. Otherwise, I think what is more likely is not only a 4T lasting 25 years, but lasting 4000 years.

Right now, a new version of the BBBBB has been approved by Manchin. Unless some other block appears, it will pass next week and that could be a start toward some progress like I predicted. I think the midterms need to turn out well for this progress to continue, and right now the two Parties are in a dead heat.

The Democrats are not fighting among themselves. One or two senators blocking things is not a "fight among themselves". It is the result of not enough Democrats having been elected. But pundits and voters still see it as a "fight among themselves." It is NOT. It is a struggle between 48 Democrats and 2 phony Democrats.

[JasonBlack]

(08-02-2022, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-01-2022, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hear that Mr. Howe has suggested in an interview that this 4T could last until 2033. This may align with what I am suggesting here. The early years of a 1T normally see some lingering instability, and that to me looks like the early 2030s. But I think things will be settling in to a new consensus in those years, despite some appearances, if we achieve it. And if we do, it will essentially arrive in 2030, especially if Newsom is the new president by then.

It's hard to accept a 25 year 4T. Crises tend to be shorter, if for no other reason than their intensity. We should be at an inflection point. Are we? If so, it's not noticable in any definitive way. The GOP move to fringe continues (is there more fringe available to their right?), and the Dems continue to fight among themselves. This all seems to be more of the same.

It's possible that the GOP moves too far, alienates enough of their own base and most Independents to create a true shift, but the hyper-woke Dems still have a spoiler role to play. Assuming they don't this time, the 4T may end on schedule. That's a lot of assuming.

2033 is about where I see it ending too, for more or less the same reasons (with a different partisan slant of course). 4Ts can't resolve until you...actually do something about problems that created them. We aren't even close yet.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2022, 01:38 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-01-2022, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hear that Mr. Howe has suggested in an interview that this 4T could last until 2033. This may align with what I am suggesting here. The early years of a 1T normally see some lingering instability, and that to me looks like the early 2030s. But I think things will be settling in to a new consensus in those years, despite some appearances, if we achieve it. And if we do, it will essentially arrive in 2030, especially if Newsom is the new president by then.

It's hard to accept a 25 year 4T.  Crises tend to be shorter, if for no other reason than their intensity.  We should be at an inflection point.  Are we?  If so, it's not noticable in any definitive way.  The GOP move to fringe continues (is there more fringe available to their right?), and the Dems continue to fight among themselves.  This all seems to be more of the same.  

It's possible that the GOP moves too far, alienates enough of their own base and most Independents to create a true shift, but the hyper-woke Dems still have a spoiler role to play.  Assuming they don't this time, the 4T may end on schedule.  That's a lot of assuming.

2033 is about where I see it ending too, for more or less the same reasons (with a different partisan slant of course). 4Ts can't resolve until you...actually do something about problems that created them. We aren't even close yet.

Yes indeed, I agree, and from my side those problems are #1 climate breakdown, and #2 inequality, and #3 assaults on democracy and voting rights (including big money ownership of the process, and police abuse), and #4 gun massacres-- and not abuse of welfare programs.

And I might add that unless the rising power of tyranny abroad is not reversed, we may be fighting pig dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping too. And maybe a civil war against the Proud Boy types too.

[David Horn]

(08-02-2022, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I didn't mention a 25-year 4T, but that's what Howe seems to be suggesting. I think rather we could see a 1T starting in 2029-2030, but 1Ts still have some leftover instability or reactionism going on, like McCarthyism or the hate in the days of Reconstruction, or the Alien and Sedition Acts, but this does not disturb the overall consensus having been reached. Overall, the late 1940s were cheerful and relatively stable. That's what I see for the early 2030s, and Howe might be defining this as 4 extra years of the 4T.

I remember the early 50s as being highly communal but less than fully satisfying in a material sense. We had paper and metal drives, collected trading stamps and kept our belts a bit tight, because the war was still there in the near past. Korea didn't help either. That analogy is apt to today too.

Eric Wrote:It all depends on whether the Democrats can hold on now and extend their power a bit, and hold it through the rest of the 4T. Otherwise, I think what is more likely is not only a 4T lasting 25 years, but lasting 4000 years...

The Democrats are not fighting among themselves. One or two senators blocking things is not a "fight among themselves". It is the result of not enough Democrats having been elected. But pundits and voters still see it as a "fight among themselves." It is NOT. It is a struggle between 48 Democrats and 2 phony Democrats.

Manchin and Sinema aren't the real story. The in-fighting is more local: the woke versus average folks. Calling the pregnant "birthing people" raises the hair on the back of more heads than it soothes with its political correctness. That's the real fight, and it's alienating people who have good intentions, yet find the hyper-woke insulting and antagonistic -- not a good model for gaining support.

[David Horn]

(08-02-2022, 03:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 01:38 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-01-2022, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hear that Mr. Howe has suggested in an interview that this 4T could last until 2033. This may align with what I am suggesting here. The early years of a 1T normally see some lingering instability, and that to me looks like the early 2030s. But I think things will be settling in to a new consensus in those years, despite some appearances, if we achieve it. And if we do, it will essentially arrive in 2030, especially if Newsom is the new president by then.

It's hard to accept a 25 year 4T.  Crises tend to be shorter, if for no other reason than their intensity.  We should be at an inflection point.  Are we?  If so, it's not noticable in any definitive way.  The GOP move to fringe continues (is there more fringe available to their right?), and the Dems continue to fight among themselves.  This all seems to be more of the same.  

It's possible that the GOP moves too far, alienates enough of their own base and most Independents to create a true shift, but the hyper-woke Dems still have a spoiler role to play.  Assuming they don't this time, the 4T may end on schedule.  That's a lot of assuming.

2033 is about where I see it ending too, for more or less the same reasons (with a different partisan slant of course). 4Ts can't resolve until you...actually do something about problems that created them. We aren't even close yet.

Yes indeed, I agree, and from my side those problems are #1 climate breakdown, and #2 inequality, and #3 assaults on democracy and voting rights (including big money ownership of the process, and police abuse), and #4 gun massacres-- and not abuse of welfare programs.

And I might add that unless the rising power of tyranny abroad is not reversed, we may be fighting pig dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping too. And maybe a civil war against the Proud Boy types too.

When we agree, we agree!  If Jason wants to get overheated about "welfare abuse", start with the subsidies to the wealthy and large corporations.  It's stunning that we need to bribe (word chosen for full accuracy) Big Tech to make chips in the US by building them factories and training their workforce.  If you want to be head-slap stunned: Forbes has an article bewailing the fact that Big Tech can't send that money to China where wages are lower -- US taxpayer money!!!

The biggest welfare recipients are in the upper class and the corporate entities they own.  Yet, we need to make our own chips and the GOP is not going to force Big Tech to repay the favor in any way.  We did the same for many things, including oil and food, so it's not a new concept.

[JasonBlack]

(08-02-2022, 03:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes indeed, I agree, and from my side those problems are #1 climate breakdown, and #2 inequality, and #3 assaults on democracy and voting rights (including big money ownership of the process, and police abuse), and #4 gun massacres-- and not abuse of welfare programs.

And I might add that unless the rising power of tyranny abroad is not reversed, we may be fighting pig dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping too. And maybe a civil war against the Proud Boy types too.

The higher murder rate is a relatively recent phenomenon (like...well under a decade) in a much more stable downtrend, not a primary 4T crisis.

My thoughts on climate change are on the other end: people are simply not going to give a shit about climate change if they're poor. This is not an argument against dealing with climate change. It's not even an argument against levying heavier taxes on corporations who are the prime culprits (even Milton Friedman believed this was a good idea, as do many on the right). It's an argument against how it is being approached. Even the most impending and dramatic natural catastrophe will never be the first priority of someone contending with the risk of starvation or homelessness on a regular basis. That's just how Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs works. It's paramount that our main focus is on research and development, cost reduction and scalability. Unfortunately, climate change is a topic taken over by misanthropic luddites, rather than people who love their country and want to see it prosper in a sustainable manner.

Most importantly, regardless of who you think the "good guys" are, the 4Ts are overcome by leaders who are good at unifying, bringing people together and cooperating. Whether it's climate change activists, LGBT advocates, BLM supporters or the propagandistic, Hollywood-to-Washington state of the movie industry, Democrats have failed on all fronts. The vast majority of the population (everything from the various factions of the left, to libertarians, to moderate Republicans)...already agree with the basic ideas they're pushing. We shouldn't judge people by race, the police need to be reformed, we should leave gay people alone, women should have equality...but rather than working with any of these people, they insist on drilling down a continual purity spiral**, cannibalizing their own and pushing people over to the right.

**purity spiral: a situation in which members of an ideological group become increasingly zealous and intolerant, eventually turning on other members.

[JasonBlack]

(08-02-2022, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: When we agree, we agree!  If Jason wants to get overheated about "welfare abuse", start with the subsidies to the wealthy and large corporations.  It's stunning that we need to bribe (word chosen for full accuracy) Big Tech to make chips in the US by building them factories and training their workforce.  If you want to be head-slap stunned: Forbes has an article bewailing the fact that Big Tech can't send that money to China where wages are lower -- US taxpayer money!!!

The biggest welfare recipients are in the upper class and the corporate entities they own.  Yet, we need to make our own chips and the GOP is not going to force Big Tech to repay the favor in any way.  We did the same for many things, including oil and food, so it's not a new concept.

I want to take as much money out of politics as possible. Yes, that will involve some serious blows to corporations getting rich off of taxpayer contributions rather than payment for legitimate products and services rendered. It will also involve mass arrests for welfare fraud and gangs crawling the inner city streets once we empty prisons of those who have committed victimless crimes (ex: weed charges).

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2022, 05:31 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 03:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes indeed, I agree, and from my side those problems are #1 climate breakdown, and #2 inequality, and #3 assaults on democracy and voting rights (including big money ownership of the process, and police abuse), and #4 gun massacres-- and not abuse of welfare programs.

And I might add that unless the rising power of tyranny abroad is not reversed, we may be fighting pig dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping too. And maybe a civil war against the Proud Boy types too.

The higher murder rate is a relatively recent phenomenon (like...well under a decade) in a much more stable downtrend, not a primary 4T crisis.

My thoughts on climate change are on the other end: people are simply not going to give a shit about climate change if they're poor. This is not an argument against dealing with climate change. It's not even an argument against levying heavier taxes on corporations who are the prime culprits (even Milton Friedman believed this was a good idea, as do many on the right). It's an argument against how it is being approached. Even the most impending and dramatic natural catastrophe will never be the first priority of someone contending with the risk of starvation or homelessness on a regular basis. That's just how Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs works. It's paramount that our main focus is on research and development, cost reduction and scalability. Unfortunately, climate change is a topic taken over by misanthropic luddites, rather than people who love their country and want to see it prosper in a sustainable manner.

Most importantly, regardless of who you think the "good guys" are, the 4Ts are overcome by leaders who are good at unifying, bringing people together and cooperating. Whether it's climate change activists, LGBT advocates, BLM supporters or the propagandistic, Hollywood-to-Washington state of the movie industry, Democrats have failed on all fronts. The vast majority of the population (everything from the various factions of the left, to libertarians, to moderate Republicans)...already agree with the basic ideas they're pushing. We shouldn't judge people by race, the police need to be reformed, we should leave gay people alone, women should have equality...but rather than working with any of these people, they insist on drilling down a continual purity spiral**, cannibalizing their own and pushing people over to the right.

**purity spiral: a situation in which members of an ideological group become increasingly zealous and intolerant, eventually turning on other members.

I dunno. It seems to me that if the center-left proposals that the Democrats have made during the Biden presidency, and which have been blocked only by the Republican filibuster upheld by 2 Democratic senators, or from reconciliation by one senator, is caving in to extremists, then anyone "pushed to the right" by these proposals was already well to the right anyway.

You can't compare the overall murder rate with gun massacres. These are innocent people mowed down by assault rifles which no-one has any business owning, and they are making the entire country unsafe. ONE death in such a massacre is too many. Human lives are not statistics.

I don't see that the need to regulate greenhouse gases and close coal plants is a luddite proposal. Regulation has been closed down by a reactionary Supreme Court in which the majority of the country has no confidence, and which was appointed by presidents and a congress not elected by majority vote. Of course we need research and development, but primarily we need the building of renewable energy, and shifting agricultural methods. I don't see how any of that is luddite. 

I don't see that carbon taxes on rich fossil fuel companies or paid-for subsidies to new clean energies would be a burden to the poor. I don't know how the needs of the poor are hurt by current climate change proposals. I don't see that the 48 real Democrats and Biden are not cooperating with each other, or caving in to extremists and luddites. Current proposals simply mean overcoming Republican intransigence and climate science denial and their protection of fossil fuel profits, which is all they do, and bypassing a few or even just one phony Democrat. The Republicans are the luddites, since they insist that fossil fuels continue to be the main energy source for the foreseeable future, and since they continue to deny the climate issue. 

And they are the ones who oppose more taxes on the wealthy, without which all our costs are just being passed on to everyone of all income levels in the future, and without which the poor receive no government assistance. It's hard to see how you are concerned with "the first priority of someone contending with the risk of starvation or homelessness on a regular basis" when you want to cut back on government services for them, paid for by taxes on those who can afford to pay them, including financial help and tax breaks for buying renewable energy. Just telling people to be masculine and self-reliant does not help them. Generally, the same politicians who favor help to the poor are the same ones who favor action on climate. And vice versa for those who don't. I don't know what you are talking about with your statement. If we had enough electric cars on the road, demand for more-expensive gasoline would decrease, and prices for it would come down.

The pared-down climate proposal that Manchin has just agreed to includes 60 billion focused on restoring and protecting underserved and impoverished communities from climate and pollution harm. Ecology and economy, and climate and poverty, are not disconnected. It is the poor who are hurt the most by the current and future climate breakdown. It is not the poor who vote against climate proposals, but the wealthy who support Republican policies to keep themselves from having to pay what they should be paying.

[Eric the Green]

(08-02-2022, 04:46 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I didn't mention a 25-year 4T, but that's what Howe seems to be suggesting. I think rather we could see a 1T starting in 2029-2030, but 1Ts still have some leftover instability or reactionism going on, like McCarthyism or the hate in the days of Reconstruction, or the Alien and Sedition Acts, but this does not disturb the overall consensus having been reached. Overall, the late 1940s were cheerful and relatively stable. That's what I see for the early 2030s, and Howe might be defining this as 4 extra years of the 4T.

I remember the early 50s as being highly communal but less than fully satisfying in a material sense.  We had paper and metal drives, collected trading stamps and kept our belts a bit tight, because the war was still there in the near past.  Korea didn't help either.  That analogy is apt to today too.

Eric Wrote:It all depends on whether the Democrats can hold on now and extend their power a bit, and hold it through the rest of the 4T. Otherwise, I think what is more likely is not only a 4T lasting 25 years, but lasting 4000 years...

The Democrats are not fighting among themselves. One or two senators blocking things is not a "fight among themselves". It is the result of not enough Democrats having been elected. But pundits and voters still see it as a "fight among themselves." It is NOT. It is a struggle between 48 Democrats and 2 phony Democrats.

Manchin and Sinema aren't the real story.  The in-fighting is more local: the woke versus average folks.  Calling the pregnant "birthing people" raises the hair on the back of more heads than it soothes with its political correctness.  That's the real fight, and it's alienating people who have good intentions, yet find the hyper-woke insulting and antagonistic -- not a good model for gaining support.

I say that if some people are upset with some "woke" loudmouth people who make extreme statements or insist on "correct" language, that is their OWN fault. These hyperwoke politically-correct folks don't win elections, and it's elections that decide policy. Maybe there are a few hyper-woke representatives in congress, and they sound extreme sometimes too, but they have to cooperate with the rest of their Party to get anything done. And they do.

Manchin and Sinema ARE the real story. There are 48 center-left and left Democrats in the Senate who cooperate and make good proposals and vote for them, and about 217 in the House who do the same, and 2 senators who seriously water down the proposals or block them entirely by upholding the filibuster. Given that, there is no basis for saying that there is infighting in the Democratic Party. What counts is what comes out of the government and what the voters do, not what some extreme big mouths say who have no say.

The problem thus is in the middle of the spectrum, not on the left.

And the problem is anyone in the middle who is horrified by political correctness to the extent that they don't support real Democratic candidates, and fall to the propaganda like antifa and black lives matter causing riots and open borders and pronouns and critical race theory and welfare cheats and all that jazz.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Interesting concepts, that some societies experience cycles different than our own. Yes, a two-phase pendulum would constitute a cycle. Perhaps one could even speak of distinct generations, though they probably wouldn't into the 4-archetype model.

[David Horn]

(08-02-2022, 06:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 04:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: Manchin and Sinema aren't the real story.  The in-fighting is more local: the woke versus average folks.  Calling the pregnant "birthing people" raises the hair on the back of more heads than it soothes with its political correctness.  That's the real fight, and it's alienating people who have good intentions, yet find the hyper-woke insulting and antagonistic -- not a good model for gaining support.

]I say that if some people are upset with some "woke" loudmouth people who make extreme statements or insist on "correct" language, that is their OWN fault. These hyperwoke politically-correct folks don't win elections, and it's elections that decide policy. Maybe there are a few hyper-woke representatives in congress, and they sound extreme sometimes too, but they have to cooperate with the rest of their Party to get anything done. And they do.

That's not what makes the WOKE so irritating. They act like spoiled brats, then the RW media turn their brattishness into propaganda. DeSantis is the real pro at making them the negative story -- their lack of consequence not to the contrary. It's theater and it works.

Eric Wrote:Manchin and Sinema ARE the real story. There are 48 center-left and left Democrats in the Senate who cooperate and make good proposals and vote for them, and about 217 in the House who do the same, and 2 senators who seriously water down the proposals or block them entirely by upholding the filibuster. Given that, there is no basis for saying that there is infighting in the Democratic Party. What counts is what comes out of the government and what the voters do, not what some extreme big mouths say who have no say.

The problem thus is in the middle of the spectrum, not on the left.

And the problem is anyone in the middle who is horrified by political correctness to the extent that they don't support real Democratic candidates, and fall to the propaganda like antifa and black lives matter causing riots and open borders and pronouns and critical race theory and welfare cheats and all that jazz.

You're talking policy and they're talking emotion. The theater aspect sticks, and the Right is really good at it. It's impossible to refute some video of a group of WOKE people protesting the use by others of the wrong pronouns. They are their ownb parody. It's silly, and it has major impact.

[Eric the Green]

(08-03-2022, 02:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 06:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-02-2022, 04:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: Manchin and Sinema aren't the real story.  The in-fighting is more local: the woke versus average folks.  Calling the pregnant "birthing people" raises the hair on the back of more heads than it soothes with its political correctness.  That's the real fight, and it's alienating people who have good intentions, yet find the hyper-woke insulting and antagonistic -- not a good model for gaining support.

I say that if some people are upset with some "woke" loudmouth people who make extreme statements or insist on "correct" language, that is their OWN fault. These hyperwoke politically-correct folks don't win elections, and it's elections that decide policy. Maybe there are a few hyper-woke representatives in congress, and they sound extreme sometimes too, but they have to cooperate with the rest of their Party to get anything done. And they do.

That's not what makes the WOKE so irritating.  They act like spoiled brats, then the RW media turn their brattishness into propaganda.  DeSantis is the real pro at making them the negative story -- their lack of consequence not to the contrary.  It's theater and it works.

Eric Wrote:Manchin and Sinema ARE the real story. There are 48 center-left and left Democrats in the Senate who cooperate and make good proposals and vote for them, and about 217 in the House who do the same, and 2 senators who seriously water down the proposals or block them entirely by upholding the filibuster. Given that, there is no basis for saying that there is infighting in the Democratic Party. What counts is what comes out of the government and what the voters do, not what some extreme big mouths say who have no say.

The problem thus is in the middle of the spectrum, not on the left.

And the problem is anyone in the middle who is horrified by political correctness to the extent that they don't support real Democratic candidates, and fall to the propaganda like antifa and black lives matter causing riots and open borders and pronouns and critical race theory and welfare cheats and all that jazz.

You're talking policy and they're talking emotion.  The theater aspect sticks, and the Right is really good at it.  It's impossible to refute some video of a group of WOKE people protesting the use by others of the wrong pronouns.  They are their own parody.  It's silly, and it has major impact.

I'm just wondering what the electoral effect is. Knocking the woke people might raise the Republican vote, since that's all they have to offer: sensations, symbols, slogans. Make people upset about a few "woke" fanatics on the other side; blame them for everything; make black lives matter responsible for riots, denounce the caravans of criminal immigrants streaming across open borders, etc. There are always going to be angry people around across the political spectrum, and there always have been. I don't always like them either. Trump and his Republicans are focusing on them because they have nothing else to offer. Just arouse fear and point fingers at a few extremists who have no power and who sound mean. These Republicans are just like Nazis pointing their fingers of blame at Jews and Communists and exaggerating their threats.

So the Republicans are able to get power this way, because in this era of neoliberal cynical social breakdown, people mindlessly fall for these anti-woke slogans and symbols of fear and hatred, but I don't blame the leftist fanatics for this; I blame those like DeSantis making hay about them, and the voters who fall for the hay. But the result is what we've got, a stalemate between those who fall for the emotions and the slogans (and the Republicans voted into office by them), and those honestly interested in policy and solving problems (Democrats), both currently dominated by Manchin and Sinema.

George Monbiot describes the situation well:
https://youtu.be/jOuzABjrAo4?t=516

[David Horn]

(08-03-2022, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm just wondering what the electoral effect is. Knocking the woke people might raise the Republican vote, since that's all they have to offer: sensations, symbols, slogans. Make people upset about a few "woke" fanatics on the other side; blame them for everything; make black lives matter responsible for riots, denounce the caravans of criminal immigrants streaming across open borders, etc. There are always going to be angry people around across the political spectrum, and there always have been. I don't always like them either. Trump and his Republicans are focusing on them because they have nothing else to offer. Just arouse fear and point fingers at a few extremists who have no power and who sound mean. These Republicans are just like Nazis pointing their fingers of blame at Jews and Communists and exaggerating their threats.

So the Republicans are able to get power this way, because in this era of neoliberal cynical social breakdown, people mindlessly fall for these anti-woke slogans and symbols of fear and hatred, but I don't blame the leftist fanatics for this; I blame those like DeSantis making hay about them, and the voters who fall for the hay. But the result is what we've got, a stalemate between those who fall for the emotions and the slogans (and the Republicans voted into office by them), and those honestly interested in policy and solving problems (Democrats), both currently dominated by Manchin and Sinema.

George Monbiot describes the situation well:
https://youtu.be/jOuzABjrAo4?t=516

What we have here is the political equivalent of the old lawyers adage about focusing on things that can win.  In short, the GOP policy basket benefits their chosen few and disadvantages everyone else.  They can't focus on that!  Instead, like the lawyers with no where else to go, they are pounding on the table -- in fact, that's been their modus operandi for decaeds.  They've prefected it.  One of the authors, Lee Atwater, regretted his part in this just before he died in 1991.

Why the Dems can't see this is amazing to me.