(08-02-2016, 01:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 12:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dialogue is not a prominent feature of fourth turnings. There is some kind of war, and one side wins. Then consensus develops around the winning side. As you say, what you call the "secular side" or the liberal side will win, and a consensus will develop around it. During the consensus time, some dialogue is possible, but it does not go deep. In the second turning, and to some extent in the late first turning, deeper experiences and conversations occur, and new visions for our future are developed. On the other hand, a new polarization also begins.

Yes and no.  Prior to the regeneracy it is much as you say.  Extreme folk are trying to make the conflict start, to trigger the unravelling.  You get people like Sam Adams, Thomas Paine and William Lloyd Garrison speaking extreme values with intensity, trying to get things going.

But the crisis is also a time to build a new society, to get things right.  It is a time of trial and error.  You have to do some experiments before you have a new pattern that can be set in cement come the 1T.  Crisis leaders like Lincoln and FDR have to be coalition builders, have to be inclusive, have to bring in as many factions into the consensus as possible.  While they can't forget or relax in their vision of new ideals, they aren't as narrow and extreme as the Sam Adams type of voice crying in the wilderness.

In FDRs Hundred Days, there was dialogue.  Everybody knew they had a disaster, Democrat, Republican, labor leader, robber baron, farmer...  everybody.  The transforming legislation of the Hundred Days didn't pop out of FDR's head whole.  He had many diverse enemies and rivals in and out of the White House trying to find something everyone could respect that would work.  Lincoln's cabinet was famously a team of rivals, with people holding diverse views, pulling in different directions, with Lincoln pulling it all together and making it work somehow.  If the stories of Hillary pushed at the Democratic Convention are true, she might well be good at that sort of thing...  listening to folks with different viewpoints and putting together a workable solution that takes all views into account.  While she doesn't have the presence and charisma one might want in a transforming politician, she just might have other tools just as important in getting things done.

Quote:Now, you are correct that we still have to calf the iceberg.  Right now we're still stuck to the glacier.  We're not moving anywhere.  We need to crack the ice and get floating.  We need Sam Adams types, Thomas Paines, and William Lloyd Garrisons.  While none of us are going to be that famous, a lot of us are partisan propagandists in a similar mode.

Trump might provide a wonderful opportunity to calf the iceberg.  We might end up with a bunch of diverse people sitting at the table because they could not stomach Trump.  To take a regeneracy and turn it into a transforming culture you'll have to still listen to and acknowledge valid points from as many people around the table as possible.

Quote:We, of course, are a bunch of nobodies, far from the White House, not at all comparable to the Lincoln cabinet or the ad-hoc committees of the Hundred Days.  It might not matter if we are listening to each other or not.

But I for one am more interested in exchanging posts with people who are actually listening and responding civilly with cogent points.  Yes, there are sometimes extreme partisans repeating flawed positions that disregard conflicting viewpoints and reality.  If an obstinate partisan is being particularly blind and stubborn, I'lll rebut.  That's not overly satisfying though.  There is more to be done than that.

(08-02-2016, 01:10 PM)playwrite Wrote: That doesn't mean we can't have fun in the interim!

Back on topic - 

(08-04-2016, 02:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Some folks on here have stated an opinion that Millies are going for Trump.

Not these ones:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/8/5/republican-club-not-support-trump/

(08-03-2016, 05:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Pinsky noted, however, Trump's apparent narcissism.

"People want to label him with a narcissistic personality disorder — and that is a pretty tough, tough thing to do at a distance," he told Lemon.

"But let me just talk to you. Narcissism, generally, can be a good thing: If you’re a fighter pilot, we want you to be narcissist, not to have fear in extreme circumstances.

"Most political leaders have some degree of narcissism, what motivates them to go into these areas," Pinsky said. "We’ve done research on this — and it bears that out."

(08-02-2016, 02:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And Lincoln still had to press hard to get slavery outlawed. The battle is joined till the end.

(08-06-2016, 11:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-02-2016, 02:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And Lincoln still had to press hard to get slavery outlawed. The battle is joined till the end.

Back in Britain prior to immigration to the New World and in America with the Revolution and Civil War, the battle was indeed joined.  In the old times, crisis spirals of violence generally escalated into all out military conflict.  As democracy became more established, more crises were handled short of violence.  The Great Depression and Martin Luther King's non-4T push didn't go full military.

Quote:Today, I've been mentioning three issues, but would be open to considering more...  We have economic inequality, racial inequality in the justice system and global warming.  Of the three, only racial inequality's spiral of rhetoric and violence seems to be escalating into violence thus far, and it is no where near the military conflict level.

Quote:In Europe, Queen Victoria and Bismarck were also able to defuse incipient economic crises well short of crisis scale violence.  I'd note that neither Queen Victoria and Bismarck are generally thought of as progressive advocates for the common man, but they could see a potential threat to the ruling class and give enough ground to avert it.

Quote:As Kinser seems fixed to the idea that crises involve destroying the privileged elite class, (Eric seems) attached to the notion of all out confrontation to the point of destruction.  In some crises, yes, both things can happen.  The further back in time you go, the more likely you are to see them.  As democracy takes better hold, it is less certain they will happen, more possible that the problems will be solved without taking things over the edge.

I'm not Victoria, Bismarck or FDR, but I like the way they got things done.  If an economic and class problem can be solved as they did, let's do it.  The French and Russian revolutions got things done too, but things got ugly.  The sort of folks that are good at organizing mob violence don't necessarily have the right skill set for running a government that is beneficial to the People.  They are more obsessed with protecting themselves from mob violence than helping the People they are ruling.  The People are in their eyes potential enemies, a risk to their hold on power, not the ones they are there to serve.

Quote:I'd prefer to go the Victoria / Bismarck / FDR route, though, yes, FDR went full military with Hitler.  Don't see that there was a choice with Hitler.

Quote:Thus, I'd as son invite lots of people to the table and listen.  I know this is hard on you, but we need John Adams types too.  I'll tell you what.  I'll put some really tough glass in the windows of my table room.  You can stand outside the room and throw rocks if you like.  Might provide some possible incentive.  

(08-01-2016, 06:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-01-2016, 03:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future  unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.

If one buys into the Reagan memes, that the government is so flawed and corrupt that all it does is failure, that low tax small government is the way to go, you can see how Trump's projections might seem meaningful and potentially accurate.

Those buying into the progressive ideas are echoing the New Deal notions that coming together from the common good is beneficial.  They want a return to the rewarding policies of the 1950s and 1960s when the crisis values of working together for the common man made America great.

I see you locked into the Reagan Memes.  Not surprising.  They've been hammered home for decades now, and voting for tax cuts gives such an immediate return that it's tempting.  Thus, you're going to stick with the Reagan Memes and project the future as if they were true.

But the Reagan Memes have been driven way way beyond the point of diminishing return.  There can be governments that try to do too much, and governments that try to do to little, and we've been pushing way too far in the too little direction during this extended unravelling.  Time to move back to the center.  I expect that if we do start moving back to an effective engaged government, we will move too far.  Any time a party takes control it will push it's memes to far and too long.  While its a concern, it might take us a decade plus to reach that point.  Believe it or not, I half expect to start pushing the Reagan memes myself many years in the future.  Leave any party in power too long and they will take their ideas too far.  If the S&H cycles or something like them continues, another unravelling will eventually come, and Reagan's time may return.  For the moment, though, we have unravelled quite enough, thank you.

Meanwhile, Republican borrow and spend economics has been discredited.  Bush 41's career died with 'It's the economy, stupid', and Bush 43 drove the economy into collapse.  Republican Bush 43 neo-con serial unilateral preemptive nation building has been discredited as a foreign policy.  The troops are home and won't be going abroad in numbers at any time soon.  Nixon's southern strategy's success has been diminishing.  With an ever more diverse electorate and increasing tolerance, playing the race card in Nixon's vicious hateful way has become a more desperate and risky ploy.  Trump is giving it one more go.  We'll see where it takes him.  Obama Care has shown that big government projects can benefit the common man.  The Republican projections that it would fail proved false.  Obama Care has been a positive for Hillary.

If one has one's eyes open, recent history says a lot to suggest Trump is playing to a diminished remnant who are still clinging to the unravelling world view and values.  That diminished remnant is still mighty.  It is not to be ignored.  It is, however, diminished and diminishing.  

We look at the world through different lenses.  To me it seems like you are living in an echo chamber.  You can't see the blatantly obvious.  I suspect you see me exactly the same way.  This is human nature.  It is easy to see what reaffirms one's values and hard to see reality when it conflicts with one's values.  Thus, meaningful conversations between partisans on opposite extremes are rare to impossible.  It seems easier for a human to pull out a gun and a bomb to fight for one's principles than it is to honestly reevaluate one's principles.  Destruction is often embraced sooner than Truth.

In 2008 and 2012 on these forums, as the elections approached, the partisans on both sides got ever more partisan.  Most were projecting victory for their own values and party and heaped scorn on the other guys.  We seem to be falling into that rut again.  In the last few months since the new forums opened I've gotten drawn into pushing the Blue partisan points.  I'm not sure how necessary this is.  There are enough Blue partisans about without one more.  Still, I like to think I put a different if still left handed spin on things.

But I don't know how much more is left to be said this side of November.  November will bring a reality check that even the most partisan can't ignore.

(08-07-2016, 02:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's fine to strike a different note within our liberal echo chamber, Classic. I do think you are emotionally tied to some of the basic Republican ideas, however, but if you consider yourself untied, I'm on board with that; let's see where it leads you.

The working class is diminishing, that's true, which means it's not a solid course of votes for either party. The Democrats have gone more techie and yuppie, as the economy shifts from drudgery to smarts. But the workers will vote liberal if they know what's good for them. Getting the wealthy to pay more taxes will help deal with the charity cases indeed, and what's more, help them to get out of poverty; whereas the trickle-down favor-the-powerful policies of the Republicans have diminished the middle class and expanded poverty for 35 years and counting. The conservative policies are those that have proven they can't hold up, as wealthy has been more and more concentrated due to their policies, while the middle class finds fewer opportunities.

Trump can pose as their champion and their voice, but he would lead them into the ditch so that his own class can continue to corner the market on power and wealth. That's what he's always done, and that's what he'll do despite his claims. And despite their claims, the favor-the-rich policies of the conservatives have never worked. Liberal mixed-economy policies always work, if administered properly, and not taken to extremes by a different leftist "communist" elite. But, that can't happen here, and never has.

(08-07-2016, 10:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 02:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's fine to strike a different note within our liberal echo chamber, Classic. I do think you are emotionally tied to some of the basic Republican ideas, however, but if you consider yourself untied, I'm on board with that; let's see where it leads you.

The working class is diminishing, that's true, which means it's not a solid source of votes for either party. The Democrats have gone more techie and yuppie, as the economy shifts from drudgery to smarts. But the workers will vote liberal if they know what's good for them. Getting the wealthy to pay more taxes will help deal with the charity cases indeed, and what's more, help them to get out of poverty; whereas the trickle-down favor-the-powerful policies of the Republicans have diminished the middle class and expanded poverty for 35 years and counting. The conservative policies are those that have proven they can't hold up, as wealthy has been more and more concentrated due to their policies, while the middle class finds fewer opportunities.

Trump can pose as their champion and their voice, but he would lead them into the ditch so that his own class can continue to corner the market on power and wealth. That's what he's always done, and that's what he'll do despite his claims. And despite their claims, the favor-the-rich policies of the conservatives have never worked. Liberal mixed-economy policies always work, if administered properly, and not taken to extremes by a different leftist "communist" elite. But, that can't happen here, and never has.

I consider myself untied and free to roam politically. Plus, I don't live in an echo chamber or view myself as being associated with one. As you have seen, I'm quite capable of operating alone and messing up a liberal echo chamber with very limited support. To me, Bob is a liberal fool who doesn't realize that he lives in a echo chamber and actively participates within an echo chamber and receives the bulk of his knowledge and information from an echo chamber. Me, I prefer to get my knowledge and information first hand. To me, you're a fool. A fool supports a party and a candidate who is more interested in associating itself with Hollywood glamor and glitz, yuppies and techies and other upper end income sorts who represent the money that need for support of their political campaigns and social programs that they claim is being used to lift the poor.

(08-07-2016, 11:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 10:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 02:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's fine to strike a different note within our liberal echo chamber, Classic. I do think you are emotionally tied to some of the basic Republican ideas, however, but if you consider yourself untied, I'm on board with that; let's see where it leads you.

The working class is diminishing, that's true, which means it's not a solid source of votes for either party. The Democrats have gone more techie and yuppie, as the economy shifts from drudgery to smarts. But the workers will vote liberal if they know what's good for them. Getting the wealthy to pay more taxes will help deal with the charity cases indeed, and what's more, help them to get out of poverty; whereas the trickle-down favor-the-powerful policies of the Republicans have diminished the middle class and expanded poverty for 35 years and counting. The conservative policies are those that have proven they can't hold up, as wealthy has been more and more concentrated due to their policies, while the middle class finds fewer opportunities.

Trump can pose as their champion and their voice, but he would lead them into the ditch so that his own class can continue to corner the market on power and wealth. That's what he's always done, and that's what he'll do despite his claims. And despite their claims, the favor-the-rich policies of the conservatives have never worked. Liberal mixed-economy policies always work, if administered properly, and not taken to extremes by a different leftist "communist" elite. But, that can't happen here, and never has.

I consider myself untied and free to roam politically. Plus, I don't live in an echo chamber or view myself as being associated with one. As you have seen, I'm quite capable of operating  alone and messing up a liberal echo chamber with very limited support. To me, Bob is a liberal fool who doesn't realize that he lives in a echo chamber and actively participates within an echo chamber and receives the bulk of his knowledge and information from an echo chamber. Me, I prefer to get my knowledge and  information first hand. To me, you're a fool. A fool supports a party and a candidate who is more interested in associating itself with Hollywood glamor and glitz, yuppies and techies and other upper end income sorts who represent the money that need for support of their political campaigns and social programs that they claim is being used to lift the poor.

Right; except what's got you fooled and confused, is that those social programs REALLY DO lift the poor! Kick in the head, ain't it? To realize that what you thought was the truth, growing up in Reagan meme land, really isn't? Or at least it WILL be a kick in the head, when and IF you finally DO realize it. Not that programs are the answer to everything, but in fact without them we are all in shit creek. And it's OUR candidates, not yours, who want to reform the system so that big money and glamour does not rule our politics. But little facts like that don't seem to bother you too much. You can continue to float along in YOUR echo chamber and sorta just let those little details go unnoticed. But that's OK; we need some fools like you around to help keep us wise guys on the ball