(11-11-2022, 06:35 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: On a less personal basis, when I look at history....the traits that make someone a strong, heroic leader and the traits that make someone a strong, despotic dictator have a disturbing amount of overlap, so the choice is between two options
1) an impotent leader who won't take the reigns of power or curb civil rights, but who is flaccid with regards to dealing with opposition or instigating real change
2) a leader with power and charisma who can rally people to solve problems...but whom you must take a leap of faith to support, because the chance that he'll become corrupt is always looming in the background. 
 

So tell me....who is exactly do we have to lead us? ...

I have claimed to be a moderate on several occasions, but applies more to the policies that I want, not the personality I would like to see in a leader. Make no mistake, I want someone with balls, and at present, I see very few contenders, whether we're talking young heroes, middle aged family leaders or elder sages.

PS: I'm not necessarily asking for a single grey champion. Feel free to list potential leadership figures for a range of positions.

(11-11-2022, 06:41 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: The only two people I can think of who remotely embody this are Ron DeSantis and Tulsi Gabbard, and they're different enough that I think they could compliment each other nicely and appeal to a fairly wide audience if they ran on the same ticket.

(11-11-2022, 06:35 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: With support for government at an all time low among both Republicans and Democrats, and two presidents in a row with exceedingly low approval ratings, who is eventually going to fill the leadership vacuum? At present, we have the party that is supposed to be the steady hand of authority trying to play rebel, and the party which is supposed to be the rebel trying to play the hand of authority.

Quote:If I'm being honest, I hate that I have to ask this question. Ideally, people would be adults with their own life missions, motivations and ability to make rational decisions, but realistically, most people need leaders to get them through crises. The "facts don't care about your feelings" angle most conservatives have taken is just not going to work for most people, especially not in a 4T. You can't solve political problems by only thinking about the perspective of people you like. 

Quote:On a less personal basis, when I look at history....the traits that make someone a strong, heroic leader and the traits that make someone a strong, despotic dictator have a disturbing amount of overlap, so the choice is between two options
1) an impotent leader who won't take the reigns of power or curb civil rights, but who is flaccid with regards to dealing with opposition or instigating real change
2) a leader with power and charisma who can rally people to solve problems...but whom you must take a leap of faith to support, because the chance that he'll become corrupt is always looming in the background. 

Quote:So tell me....who is exactly do we have to lead us? Trump? No. Biden? Hell no? Bitch McConnell or Pansy Pelosi? nope. Ben Shapiro or AOC? lmao. The mainstream cultures of the two political parties remind me of teenagers. The right are like rebellious teenage boys, the left like nagging, bratty and histrionic teenage girls. Do we have anyone truly inspiring? Someone who makes us feel mighty, powerful and motivated? Someone with vision that can bring together large factions from both wings of the political eagle? 

Quote:I have claimed to be a moderate on several occasions, but applies more to the policies that I want, not the personality I would like to see in a leader. Make no mistake, I want someone with balls, and at present, I see very few contenders, whether we're talking young heroes, middle aged family leaders or elder sages.

Quote:PS: I'm not necessarily asking for a single grey champion. Feel free to list potential leadership figures for a range of positions.

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

(11-13-2022, 01:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The big change that America needs is one of culture. We are best off with one that is rational  yet adequately permissive, and tolerant of benign and unavoidable differences. Crisis eras redefine the material and intellectual world.

Neoliberal economics were good for stopping inflation (if at great cost to younger workers who needed opportunity and adequate pay if they were to fulfill even the desire for starting families and were denied that). They were pushed to their limit in staleness, effectiveness, and harm.

I look at the Siena poll of historians, and I notice that two Presidents have slipped greatly from once-high perches. Andrew Johnson was a political hero until Americans started judging the removal of First Peoples in part to allow the expansion of chattel slavery. (America would pay a high price for that in the Civil War). Reagan has also slipped some. Jackson has lost standing in recent years, and the assessment of Reagan is theoretically reversible. Taking Reagan's ideology to the logical conclusion leads to Donald Trump.  

Here's one of the paradoxes: Trump is a lousy President for his gross immorality (including cruelty, which is one of the worst expressions of immorality), a paucity of lasting achievements, debasement of political discourse, and his tendencies toward despotism. He demanded unqualified loyalty from Republicans even to the extent of endorsing the Capitol Putsch soon after it was over as a test of loyalty. He tried to rule as a dictator, and the Constitution got in the way. The President may have great powers in the event of a major war, and economic calamity, or a natural disaster to the extent that Congress authorizes such power.  

Had Trump won a smashing electoral victory in 2020, getting re-elected with firm majorities of lackeys in both Houses of Congress, then he might be #1 because dissent would be driven underground and flooded with macabre cynicism. Everyone would be obliged to praise His Undeniable Greatness if they want to keep teaching, preaching, or doing journalism. Maybe Democrats would be old-whale figures in giant cities (think of "Red Budapest" in Horthy's Hungary), but outside of such sanctuaries for liberals, getting along in life would depend on holding the sort of values consistent with the GOP/MAGA/John Birch Society. Kiss up, and always be thankful that no matter how harsh reality is, it at least isn't as bad for one as someone who grumbled or even failed to show a big-enough smile. Even the mass culture would be corrupted, as movies, TV shows, and pop tunes espousing Trump-era values would get advantages over others. Want to attend a public college if one doesn't have a million dollars for attending a private one that still exercises academic freedom*. Then make sure as a high-school student to praise Trump and unbridled plutocracy in high-school essays -- and be sure to join the politicized youth movement, the Trump equivalent of Soviet Pioneers or Mussolini's Balilla (I could name another, the female equivalent being the Bund deutscher Madel), instead of the Catholic Youth League, Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, 4H, Y's, Future Farmers of America, Junior Achievement, Campfire Girls, or Boys' Clubs -- unless those are taken over and corrupted.  

Trump, MAGA, and Q-Anon have failed to win enough to stop the slow erosion of support that is now sure to make the current Hard Right increasingly weak in electoral contests. Young adults are the future in American politics, as Boomers are going to lose their constituencies unless they can make solid appeals outside their generation. Millennial adults will increasingly find themselves in high public office and will be able to reshape the debate into one consistent with Millennial rationality and insistence upon equity. Conspiracy theories are not their style. Other generations have had a difficult time in fending of the garbage appeals of the Hard Right.  

The 1T is nigh, and it seems much closer now than it did even a week ago. Just look at 1T values that form in a 4T and supplant those of a 3T because the hard struggles wring out failed ideas and practices. The late 1940's looked little like the Roaring Twenties even if multitudes of the had participated exuberantly in that giddy time. Bathtub gin or GI Bill? Slum housing or Suburbia? Burlesque halls or sanitized entertainment? Labor unions that give workers a stake in the economic order or being at the mercy of a boss who could always demand unpaid overtime if there were a  large order to complete? A world in which one nearly had to be a WASP to get ahead in life or one in which anyone white had a chance (rights for blacks did improve in the 1T outside the South, but at a glacial pace).  

I can't imagine a huge technological revolution, and I can't imagine huge new rings of suburbs in which blue-collar workers get to live up to middle-class standards. I can't see an equivalent of Interstate Highways or television reshaping  American life this time. I can see MAGA stuff becoming objects of ridicule instead of fearful reverence.

*From what I hear one country offers an outlet: Finland, which welcomes foreigners who can learn one of the most difficult languages in a Latin script. You will effectively become a Finn, which is part of the idea.  Finland has "Russian winters".

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Quote:Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Quote:Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

(11-13-2022, 02:04 AM)nguyenivy Wrote:

(11-13-2022, 01:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The big change that America needs is one of culture. We are best off with one that is rational  yet adequately permissive, and tolerant of benign and unavoidable differences. Crisis eras redefine the material and intellectual world.

Neoliberal economics were good for stopping inflation (if at great cost to younger workers who needed opportunity and adequate pay if they were to fulfill even the desire for starting families and were denied that). They were pushed to their limit in staleness, effectiveness, and harm.

I look at the Siena poll of historians, and I notice that two Presidents have slipped greatly from once-high perches. Andrew Johnson was a political hero until Americans started judging the removal of First Peoples in part to allow the expansion of chattel slavery. (America would pay a high price for that in the Civil War). Reagan has also slipped some. Jackson has lost standing in recent years, and the assessment of Reagan is theoretically reversible. Taking Reagan's ideology to the logical conclusion leads to Donald Trump.  

Here's one of the paradoxes: Trump is a lousy President for his gross immorality (including cruelty, which is one of the worst expressions of immorality), a paucity of lasting achievements, debasement of political discourse, and his tendencies toward despotism. He demanded unqualified loyalty from Republicans even to the extent of endorsing the Capitol Putsch soon after it was over as a test of loyalty. He tried to rule as a dictator, and the Constitution got in the way. The President may have great powers in the event of a major war, and economic calamity, or a natural disaster to the extent that Congress authorizes such power.  

Had Trump won a smashing electoral victory in 2020, getting re-elected with firm majorities of lackeys in both Houses of Congress, then he might be #1 because dissent would be driven underground and flooded with macabre cynicism. Everyone would be obliged to praise His Undeniable Greatness if they want to keep teaching, preaching, or doing journalism. Maybe Democrats would be old-whale figures in giant cities (think of "Red Budapest" in Horthy's Hungary), but outside of such sanctuaries for liberals, getting along in life would depend on holding the sort of values consistent with the GOP/MAGA/John Birch Society. Kiss up, and always be thankful that no matter how harsh reality is, it at least isn't as bad for one as someone who grumbled or even failed to show a big-enough smile. Even the mass culture would be corrupted, as movies, TV shows, and pop tunes espousing Trump-era values would get advantages over others. Want to attend a public college if one doesn't have a million dollars for attending a private one that still exercises academic freedom*. Then make sure as a high-school student to praise Trump and unbridled plutocracy in high-school essays -- and be sure to join the politicized youth movement, the Trump equivalent of Soviet Pioneers or Mussolini's Balilla (I could name another, the female equivalent being the Bund deutscher Madel), instead of the Catholic Youth League, Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, 4H, Y's, Future Farmers of America, Junior Achievement, Campfire Girls, or Boys' Clubs -- unless those are taken over and corrupted.  

Trump, MAGA, and Q-Anon have failed to win enough to stop the slow erosion of support that is now sure to make the current Hard Right increasingly weak in electoral contests. Young adults are the future in American politics, as Boomers are going to lose their constituencies unless they can make solid appeals outside their generation. Millennial adults will increasingly find themselves in high public office and will be able to reshape the debate into one consistent with Millennial rationality and insistence upon equity. Conspiracy theories are not their style. Other generations have had a difficult time in fending of the garbage appeals of the Hard Right.  

The 1T is nigh, and it seems much closer now than it did even a week ago. Just look at 1T values that form in a 4T and supplant those of a 3T because the hard struggles wring out failed ideas and practices. The late 1940's looked little like the Roaring Twenties even if multitudes of the had participated exuberantly in that giddy time. Bathtub gin or GI Bill? Slum housing or Suburbia? Burlesque halls or sanitized entertainment? Labor unions that give workers a stake in the economic order or being at the mercy of a boss who could always demand unpaid overtime if there were a  large order to complete? A world in which one nearly had to be a WASP to get ahead in life or one in which anyone white had a chance (rights for blacks did improve in the 1T outside the South, but at a glacial pace).  

I can't imagine a huge technological revolution, and I can't imagine huge new rings of suburbs in which blue-collar workers get to live up to middle-class standards. I can't see an equivalent of Interstate Highways or television reshaping  American life this time. I can see MAGA stuff becoming objects of ridicule instead of fearful reverence.

*From what I hear one country offers an outlet: Finland, which welcomes foreigners who can learn one of the most difficult languages in a Latin script. You will effectively become a Finn, which is part of the idea.  Finland has "Russian winters".

So we may be at the point where the 3T values are starting to be rejected more, but I am not confident the new 1T values have been established yet.  What even are the new values?  Unions appear to be finally coming back but we have a long ways to go.

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

(11-14-2022, 03:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

corrected post...

As I see it, yes we need strength, and our culture has, yes, become weak, and other countries do laugh at us.

The mainstream of US American (and I always avoid simply referring to the US or its people as "Americans" since the term applies to two continents and all their people) culture is weak in virtue and sensitivity. It is driven by money-dominated commercial interests and not by the highest cultural aspirations and traditions. The opening to something better in the 1960s has been largely forgotten in favor of mass-produced fare of all kinds and media, and by horrific "alternative" screeching and screaming sounds. 

But being "guilt-ridden" is our strength, such as it is; our strength is found among those who resist the culture warriors' scam to hide our history and its still-unlearned lessons in the name of children learning to love their country. Such rot is indeed making our culture weak. The 1960s featured the cry of youth "don't trust anyone over 30". I still hold to the ideal of looking and sounding young (maybe not THAT young). But not because of what commercials or peers say, but because of what I want. What is making our culture weak is not so much the traditions lost from before the 60s, but also in-part the traditions lost that were created since then. Other countries do indeed laugh at our culture war and our needless and deadly ammosexuality.

Patriarchy and other traditions outdated since the "woke" 1960s do not hold society together; they are used by culture warriors like DeSantis to tear our country apart. Other developed countries are not so held back (although superstitious countries in the Middle East are) by these outdated suppressions of human growth and development.

(11-16-2022, 10:04 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: I agree we are seeing a rise in toxic masculinity in the United States...however, we're only reaping what we have sewn. A society which does nothing to cultivate and celebrate healthy masculinity deserves the ravages of toxic masculinity.

(11-16-2022, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2022, 03:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

corrected post...

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

As I see it, yes we need strength, and our culture has, yes, become weak, and other countries do laugh at us.

The mainstream of US American (and I always avoid simply referring to the US or its people as "Americans" since the term applies to two continents and all their people) culture is weak in virtue and sensitivity. It is driven by money-dominated commercial interests and not by the highest cultural aspirations and traditions. The opening to something better in the 1960s has been largely forgotten in favor of mass-produced fare of all kinds and media, and by horrific "alternative" screeching and screaming sounds. 

But being "guilt-ridden" is our strength, such as it is; our strength is found among those who resist the culture warriors' scam to hide our history and its still-unlearned lessons in the name of children learning to love their country. Such rot is indeed making our culture weak. The 1960s featured the cry of youth "don't trust anyone over 30". I still hold to the ideal of looking and sounding young (maybe not THAT young). But not because of what commercials or peers say, but because of what I want. What is making our culture weak is not so much the traditions lost from before the 60s, but also in-part the traditions lost that were created since then. Other countries do indeed laugh at our culture war and our needless and deadly ammosexuality.

Patriarchy and other traditions outdated since the "woke" 1960s do not hold society together; they are used by culture warriors like DeSantis to tear our country apart. Other developed countries are not so held back (although superstitious countries in the Middle East are) by these outdated suppressions of human growth and development.

(11-16-2022, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Why not a society that cultivates and celebrates healthy people?