Neither of the current major party candidates is the "Grey Champion".

[Eric the Green]

(09-25-2016, 11:00 AM)Einzige Wrote: Part of the problem with this mode of analysis is that the pre-New Deal period is pretty muddled.

Theodore Roosevelt does look like a Prophet, and Taft looks like a Bureaucrat. On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson seems in a lot of ways to have been closer ideologically to Roosevelt than either Harding or Coolidge - who we are supposing were the Disaster to Teddy's Prophet - were. And while Herbert Hoover was a Roosevelt-supporting Progressive in the nineteen tens and his governance vaguely reflected that, supposing that Hoover alone was the Disaster leaves us without a place for Harding/Coolidge in the equation.

Moreover, the New Deal was in a lot of ways a continuation of Theodore Roosevelt's political system. We don't have the benefit of the new Prophet rejecting the legacy of the preceding one here, as we do with Reagan rejecting FDR.


Further, I have a bit of a problem with Marc Lamb's analysis of 9/11. If it were a direct analogue to the wave of anarchist terrorism in 1919/1920, we should have expected there to be some sort of equivalent to World War I under Clinton in the 1990s. But of course there was nothing of the sort.

I think this particular cyclical model works pretty well for 1932 to the present, and also looks vaguely applicable to the Jacksonian period. But I have a very hard time squaring it with the Civil War and the Gilded and Progressive Ages.

World War I is an example where a larger cycle has to be considered. WWI was the collapse of Western Civilization as it had been known. It was "the decline of The West" as Spengler put it. This was the key event in the beginning of a new cycle of civilization. This 500-year cycle is more significant than an 80-90 year saeculum. People here might tend to forget this, but historians agree with this. WWI was an epochal event on a scale of once in a millennium.

[Mikebert]

(09-25-2016, 11:00 AM)Einzige Wrote: Part of the problem with this mode of analysis is that the pre-New Deal period is pretty muddled.

Theodore Roosevelt does look like a Prophet, and Taft looks like a Bureaucrat. On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson seems in a lot of ways to have been closer ideologically to Roosevelt than either Harding or Coolidge - who we are supposing were the Disaster to Teddy's Prophet - were. And while Herbert Hoover was a Roosevelt-supporting Progressive in the nineteen tens and his governance vaguely reflected that, supposing that Hoover alone was the Disaster leaves us without a place for Harding/Coolidge in the equation.

Moreover, the New Deal was in a lot of ways a continuation of Theodore Roosevelt's political system. We don't have the benefit of the new Prophet rejecting the legacy of the preceding one here, as we do with Reagan rejecting FDR.

Further, I have a bit of a problem with Marc Lamb's analysis of 9/11. If it were a direct analogue to the wave of anarchist terrorism in 1919/1920, we should have expected there to be some sort of equivalent to World War I under Clinton in the 1990s. But of course there was nothing of the sort.

Was Wilson really ideologically close to Teddy Roosevelt?  They were from opposing parties.  Roosevelt invited Booker Washington to the White House, Wilson segregated the Federal government. Roosevelt was no friend of labor, Wilson began a trend in which labor made gains during Democratic administrations that were halted or partially rolled back during intervening Republican administrations that lasted sixty years. T. Roosevelt favored breaking up business monopolies to allow the free market to work; Wilson nationalized the railroads.

I see little continuity between TR's and FDR's polices aside from their use of the word "Deal" in how they named their programs.  I would say FDR rejected Teddy's libertarian approach to economics in favor of a more statist approach.

Harding and Coolidge belong with Hoover in the disaster.  You must consider exactly what was the nature of the disaster?  It was the response the 1929-1932 crisis.  This crisis was economic.  Which political actor was most responsible for economic policy making?  Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon who was appointed by Harding in 1921 and served until early 1932.  Mellon's policy in 1929-1932 reflected his free market beliefs, that had led him to successfully manage the post-war economy giving rise to the stellar economy of the Twenties.  Mellon recommended policy following the 1929 crash that was based on his successful management of the Depression over 1920-21 that in its initial stages was more severe than after 1929.  The seeds of the policy failure over 1929-32 were sown in 1921.

I think Marc was simply saying 911 was like the anarchist terror in that both occurred at a similar point in the generational constellation. Remember, he was posting only 4 years after T4T was published. People still discussed S&H's generational cycle seriously then.

[Einzige]

Points one and two conceded (Roosevelt and Wilson were both 'Progressives', but of very different kinds). My point is that, generally Disaster Presidents seem to be radicalized versions of the Prophets of their cycles - LBJ as a radicalized FDR and Bush II as a radicalized Reagan.

Harding and Coolidge, however, seem to have rejected Teddy Roosevelt's 'Progressivism' in favor of a laissez-faire approach to economics. Certainly Hoover was more like T.R. than his two immediate Republican predecessors.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-26-2016, 10:45 PM)Einzige Wrote: Points one and two conceded (Roosevelt and Wilson were both 'Progressives', but of very different kinds). My point is that, generally Disaster Presidents seem to be radicalized versions of the Prophets of their cycles - LBJ as a radicalized FDR and Bush II as a radicalized Reagan.

Harding and Coolidge, however, seem to have rejected Teddy Roosevelt's 'Progressivism' in favor of a laissez-faire approach to economics. Certainly Hoover was more like T.R. than his two immediate Republican predecessors.

I'm not sure of the word 'radicalized'.  To me, 'radical' implies something extreme and new.  I see LBJ and Bush 43 as taking the FDR and Reagan values beyond the point of reason.  This can get you elected.  A politician pushing an approach that worked big time a short time ago can get into power.  Problem is, many ideas can be taken past a point of no return.  Many times, the conservative and progressive factions are both pushing valid ideas that work in one time, but can be over done and fail when applied to an absurd degree.  There was much positive in both Morning America and the New Deal, in their correct times, but to a great extent the two sets of values oppose one another.  Leave one party in power too long and they are apt to over extend their policies beyond the point of failure.  Disaster presidents are often heirs of great presidents, but are unable to recognize changing circumstances.  If it worked for FDR or Reagan, why shouldn't it still work?  If an idea worked in moderation, why not take it past the point of absurdity?

This is a trap many fall into when they commit to partisan thinking.  If you get locked into 'my party's ideas good, other party's ideas bad' thinking, one cannot understand dynamics where there is a proper balance between conflicting ideas or when there are natural cycles where one set of ideas resonates during part of the cycle, while another resonates at another time.

I also don't view TR the same way.  TR's 'Square Deal' was a warm up to FDR's 'New Deal'.  TR was a progressive.  Harding and Coolidge indeed leaned laissez faire, but I don't see TR as cut from the same cloth.  Harding, Coolidge and Hoover were more the heirs of Taft.

[Odin]

I think the "disaster" aspect of JFK/LBJ has to do with how much of the Great Society was based on sociologically and anthropologically ignorant social engineering with its roots in 1930s techno-utopian thinking, like bulldozing black neighborhoods and forcing the people there into "projects" with sub-par access to jobs.

[Mikebert]

I am not sure whether there is any factual basis for a "disaster" stemming from LBJ's Great Society policies.  Seems to me the Vietnam War did him in.

[disasterzone]

Maybe we'll see another unknown person step in for the 2020 elections that will make everything better.

[Mikebert]

(09-26-2016, 10:45 PM)Einzige Wrote: Points one and two conceded (Roosevelt and Wilson were both 'Progressives', but of very different kinds). My point is that, generally Disaster Presidents seem to be radicalized versions of the Prophets of their cycles - LBJ as a radicalized FDR and Bush II as a radicalized Reagan.

Harding and Coolidge, however, seem to have rejected Teddy Roosevelt's 'Progressivism' in favor of a laissez-faire approach to economics. Certainly Hoover was more like T.R. than his two immediate Republican predecessors.

I don't see LBJ as a radical FDR.  FDR was by far the more radical.  Radical means "root".  A radical seeks to make fundamental change. Using his power as commander in chief, FDR, with the help of people like Eccles and Davis , engineered a fundamental restructuring of the political economy of the U.S. so as to produce greatly reduced economic inequality and a prosperity shared by all income quintiles.

LBJ mostly wanted to extend the New Deal to people who had been deliberately left out (African-Americans) and to complete the last portion (universal health care) that had been blocked by racist Democrats.  These are basically reforms, not radical.  In fact LBJ neglected to counter the anti-working class policy trends that had begun under his predecessor.

Bush II was a continuation of Reagan, much as LBJ was for FDR. Where Bush was radical was in his attempt at colonizing new political territory with his pioneering of conservative social programs like the Medicare Drug Benefit and No Child Left Behind.  At the time I interpreted this as an attempt to sell the Republican party to minorities (particularly Latinos) which demographics suggested was going to be necessary within not too many decades.  In this he was continuing the base-expanding strategies of Nixon-Reagan (Southern strategy) and Eisenhower (big government conservativism).  Base-expansion is radical (as it changes the fundamental ideology of the party) but Bush's radicalism was also a continuation of previous radicalism.

You are right that Hoover was more progressive than Coolidge or Harding.  I don't see Coolidge's actions as being less economically progressive than TR actions (not talking beliefs here).  What exactly did Roosevelt do on the economic front?  Most of the progressive economic policy was done at the state level. 

He is best known as a trust buster, which is a policy that actually promotes free market competition.  Trusts are a form of economic regulation.  Laissez-faire refers to an absence of regulation, which gives entrepreneurs a lot of room to do their thing.  Cutting back monopolists is reasonably consistent with a laissez-faire preference. Certainly more than the tariffs Republicans had always favored.

The pure food and drug act was passed under Roosevelt and that was regulatory in nature.  On the other hand, Coolidge largely shut down immigration, a policy unfavorable to entrepreneurs, who benefitted from cheap labor.  Both men sought to maintain the dominance of the corporate establishment.  In that sense Roosevelt, as well as Harding, Coolidge & Hoover sought to keep the world safe for capitalism in its current form by implementing policies designed to stabilize the political environment and suppress political unrest that could lead to undesirable (from a business pov) changes in the political economy.

[Einzige]

Well?

[pbrower2a]

Assuming that Donald Trump gets elected and we end up with a single-Party regime, he will be the antithesis of a Grey Champion. Was Hitler, Mussolini, Milosevich, Mugabe, or (Hugo) Chavez a Grey Champion?

The closest analogue that I see to Donald Trump is Slobodan Milosevich, the sort who sees a mandate to use one democratic election as the excuse to shut out the other side indefinitely and enrich himself as a corrupt kleptocrat. Donald Trump is already a corrupt kleptocrat, so he will simply be a corrupt kleptocrat on a bigger scale. Mark my words: if you didn't vote for Donald Trump you are going to curse the results of this election for as long as his new dictatorial, plutocratic order remains.

The Grey Champion of this Crisis Era need not be an America any more than the ultimate Grey Champion for Germany and Japan in the last Crisis -- the American and British leaders who became the arch-enemies of the gangster orders in Germany and Japan and established or re-established democracy. Will the Redeemer this time be perhaps the Prime Minister of India or Japan? Or the President of Brazil?

I expect living standards to plummet. People who vote for a corrupt kleptocrat all but beg for that. People will get jobs, all right -- but they will work harder and longer for less under brutal management.

Maybe we will have a Great Depression. Maybe the people that the system forgets beginning in January will have riots that make those of the 1960s look like garden parties. Economic failure will chastise America and force it to contemplate the gross errors of its ways on one of the darkest days in American history -- April 14, 1865 and November 22, 1963 being darker. But we Americans, especially white Americans, did it to ourselves. We have elected politicians who believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns, enforces, or indulges elite gain.

I now hate the American political process. And in view of what white Americans have voted for -- to do nasty things to people unlike themselves -- I feel shame at being a white American.

[2Legit2Quit]

(11-09-2016, 02:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Assuming that Donald Trump gets elected and we end up with a single-Party regime, he will be the antithesis of a Grey Champion. Was Hitler, Mussolini, Milosevich, Mugabe, or (Hugo) Chavez a Grey Champion?

The closest analogue that I see to Donald Trump is Slobodan Milosevich, the sort who sees a mandate to use one democratic election as the excuse to shut out the other side indefinitely and enrich himself as a corrupt kleptocrat. Donald Trump is already a corrupt kleptocrat, so he will simply be a corrupt kleptocrat on a bigger scale.  Mark my words: if you didn't vote for Donald Trump you are going to curse the results of this election for as long as his new dictatorial, plutocratic order remains.  

The Grey Champion of this Crisis Era need not be an America any more than the ultimate Grey Champion for Germany and Japan in the last Crisis -- the American and British leaders who became the arch-enemies of the gangster orders in  Germany and Japan and established or re-established democracy. Will the Redeemer this time be perhaps the Prime Minister of India or Japan? Or the President of Brazil?

I expect living standards to plummet. People who vote for a corrupt kleptocrat all but beg for that. People will get jobs, all right -- but they will work harder and longer for less under brutal management.

Maybe we will  have a Great Depression. Maybe the people that the system forgets beginning in January will have riots that make those of the 1960s look like garden parties. Economic failure will chastise America and force it to contemplate the gross errors of its ways on one of the darkest days in American history -- April 14, 1865 and November 22, 1963 being darker. But we Americans, especially white Americans, did it to ourselves. We have elected politicians who believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns, enforces, or indulges elite gain.  

I now hate the American political process. And in view of what white Americans have voted for -- to do nasty things to people unlike themselves -- I feel shame at being a white American.

I do not see things this way. 

Trump is an outsider, and he is unpredictable. Yes, he is stoking the unprocessed hopes and fears of the electorate, but he himself is not a racist. 

People voted for Trump as a vote to "drain the swamp", to vote against Clinton, or as a move away from neoliberalism. 

Cinton, by the way, is hardly a Democrat. She's a Republican in policy, and has only recently taken on socially liberal views when forced to. Furthermore, Clinton is firmly sided with the Oligarchy, she has no interest in improving the lives of the middle class or the lower class. 

I think Bernie may be the GC, if there will be one at all. 

The division in the USA is not new its been brewing for decades. This 4T is about resolution of those divides. How can we connect to one another? 

We must move past identity politics and find common causes.