Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(11-18-2016, 02:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title. Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in. The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22. This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030. Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?
The mood for the first turning is set in the preceding fourth turning. By the time the first turning rolls around, it's too late for it to change. Thus, discussion now is apropos.
If so, then why didn't S&H pick up the mood of the 4T in Generations?
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(11-18-2016, 08:41 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title. Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in. The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22. This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030. Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?
Many that use 2008 as the start of the 4T clearly ignore the fact that Katrina clearly demonstrated that the status quo wasn't working, in fact couldn't work. As such I've always placed the start at 2005-2006 meaning the turning is now 10 years old, and should be headed towards its climax now. After 8 years in January 2025 I would imagine that Pence or perhaps a Trumpist GOP will be taking over and that will be the face of the 1T.
Of course I view the Trump revolution as analogous to the Glorious Revolution. The liberals on this board have already said he's likely James II but I highly doubt that.
So you think Trump is a Russian tool? 
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(11-19-2016, 04:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And guess what The Donald is going to do...? Remove all checks...
Except for the one's with his name on them.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(11-20-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes she did which means she should have won. I do not understand the way the election process works over there. Sounds unusual. If she was more popular she should have won IMO.
No, that is wrong because you don't understand that the US is a federal system. I suggest that you listen to Tom Woods as usual he is a good source on historical matters. Consider this, if it was a simple popular vote then four or maybe five major urban centers would decide who the president would be. No one else would matter.
The idea behind the Electoral College was that the States, and not the People, would choose the President. In 1787 the States were close to being individual republics with hostile interests. and mass voting by isolated and barely-literate people was to be avoided. In 1787 even the state boundaries were ill-defined, with the States making claims far beyond their current borders. Virginia (which then included what would be West Virginia beginning 1863), basically drew a line due northwest from the border of West Virginia where the Ohio River meets the Pennsylvania state line and claimed everything to the south and west of that line but to the east of the Mississippi River and north of the current Kentucky-Tennessee state line. Virginia actually recognized an "Illinois County" as one of its own -- which coincides largely to the modern state of Illinois. In contrast, Connecticut made a claim to lands due west of its boundaries not already part of the state, which would have put such places as the eventual sites of Cleveland, South Bend, and Chicago in Connecticut had that claim persisted.
The original thirteen states already had distinct political and cultural character. The Fourteenth, Vermont, in fact seceded from New York as an independent republic and joined the Union upon giving up its independence. Kentucky (15) and Tennessee (16) got well-defined character early, being formed of mountaineers just beyond the reach of effective government by Virginia and North Carolina, respectively.
I can skip over Ohio (17), which has little defined character as a state because it straddles regions. Louisiana (18) really has some distinctive character because of the strong French colonial influence upon culture and institutions. It had to be its own state. After Louisiana, most of the states are very artificial creations. I've been on almost the whole of Interstate 80, and you can't tell me that you couldn't tell me what state you are in between about Lincoln, Nebraska and Cleveland, Ohio by simply looking out the window of your car unless you see an urban skyline. (That also applies to southern Michigan along Interstates 94 or 96) You would recognize the distinctive skylines of Cleveland, Toledo, South Bend, the greater Chicago metro area, the Quad Cities, Omaha, Lincoln... or for that matter, Detroit, Lansing, Kalamazoo, or Grand Rapids. Except for Texas, California, Alaska, and Hawaii all of the later states are themselves very artificial creations. If you don't believe me on this, then explain why Mississippi and Alabama and Arizona and New Mexico were both divided latitudinally instead of longitudinally before being admitted as states, and the rectangular shapes of Colorado and Wyoming and nearly-rectangular shapes of Kansas and Utah? We may have had elections decided because the six states admitted to the Union in 1890 were admitted with little obvious foresight of why they were so divided.
The Electoral College demonstrates a reality of 1787 that isn't quite true today: that the states are different enough that they must decide who becomes President, and great masses of isolated and ill-educated people beyond the control of state governments, are not so commonplace anymore.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
11-20-2016, 08:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2016, 08:17 AM by Mikebert.)
(11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era. Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century. If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale. Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.
This is an example of sloppy thinking. The Progressive Era end in 1920. This brand of Progressivism was spearheaded by Republicans. The Republican party then was a pro-business, free market party then just like now. They were also the Blue party.
The liberalism of the New Dealers was the product of the Democratic party, which was the Red party, but was less enthusiastic about business and free markets. The founder, Andrew Jackson famously disliked bankers. It was they who created the SEC and pass Glass-Steagall.
The Democrats got their brand of progressivism from their economic ideology; it ran counter to their red nature. Similarly the GOP got their progressivism from their blue nature, it ran counter to their economic ideology. The problem is blue (i.e. cultural) progressive solutions to don't resolve the cause of the perception of things going in the wrong direction. Hillary was offering another Progressive era with the sort of "Blue Republican" solutions proffered a century ago. They didn't work then and they wouldn't work now. Angry voters sensed this, so they voted for the other guy, thinking simplistically that if one side isn't offering what is needed the other side must be.
Neither side was offering any solutions. Movement conservatives labored half a century to expunge these solutions from the body politic. They completely succeeded in doing so from the Republican party and they were largely successful in the Democratic party as well. Both Obama and the Clintons have drunk the movement conservative kool-aid, which is why their approach to our problems so resemble those of a century earlier. Take Obamacare. Why not just expand Medicare to cover everybody not on a company plan, and put the bill on the nation's charge card. This is how Republicans fund their tax cuts. Let the Republicans run an a program of taking away Medicare in order to balance the budget. Good luck with that. As Dick Cheney said, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
But they didn't do that. That's because they are like the old Progressives who were all about "The Wisconsin Idea" (look it up). The New Dealers were still from the party of Jackson, so they were willing it to stick it to the Republican elites and "welcome their hatred". Trump can't be like the New Dealers because the problem is guys like him. He has to act in the interests of himself and his class, and so he will. The negative trends will continue and intensify. The best thing Trump would do for the country would be to preside over a complete collapse of the economy, which will finally force cosseted elites to deal with the problem. That is do we divide into teams an brawl it out (civil war) or all accept a proportionate haircut,reducing absolute wealth, but minimizing the changes in relative wealth (from whence status is derived).
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
11-20-2016, 10:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2016, 10:12 AM by Warren Dew.)
(11-20-2016, 01:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes she did which means she should have won. I do not understand the way the election process works over there. Sounds unusual. If she was more popular she should have won IMO.
One big difference between New Zealand and the U.S. is that the U.S. is bigger; the U.S. is large and geographically diverse. The electoral system, among other advantages, forces presidential candidates to maintain support across broad, diverse regions, rather than just running up the vote in friendly territory, minimizing the chances of geographic polarization. We'd have long since broken apart otherwise.
Imagine if the British Commonwealth elected an executive leader by direct popular vote. Do you think anyone would campaign in New Zealand? No, you wouldn't have enough votes to matter; your fate would be decided by people in population centers like London and Montreal, and those people wouldn't care a whit about what happened to New Zealand.
If it weren't for the electoral college, that's what would happen in the U.S., and eventually our equivalents of New Zealand would manage to secede. Then the U.S. wouldn't exist any more.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
11-20-2016, 10:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2016, 10:27 AM by Warren Dew.)
(11-20-2016, 01:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.
It could have been worse. We could have elected Clinton.
If you think the crowds of semi-literate people at Tea Party rallies unnerved us liberals, then wait until you see what our larger, more coherent rallies do to shatter your complacency.
Obviously you've never been to a Tea Party rally.
Quote:On foreign policy alone, Hillary Clinton would be far safer. As a conservative, do you really wish to cast off the Reagan-Bush foreign policy that became the default for Barack Obama?
First, there's no such thing as a Reagan-Bush foreign policy. Reagan intervened by the minimal amount needed to obtain the most favorable outcome possible for the U.S. Notice how he won the Cold War without any nukes actually being used, contrary to all expectations.
The Bush-Obama policy, in contrast, has emphasized heavy intervention, with mediocre outcomes and excessive loss of life on all sides.
Clinton's policy would be worse, though. Bush and Obama at least refrained from antagonizing other nuclear powers. The Cliinton-Clinton foreign policy emphasizes quixotic "humanitarian" interventions - the idea that the way to reduce tensions in flashpoints is to kill people - with no thought to the interests of other nuclear powers, in particular Russia. In the Pristina incident, the Clinton administration almost managed to "start World War III", in the words of the British general who defused things by refusing to obey an American order to attack Russian forces. The next time around, the Brits might not have been in a position to save us from the irresponsible Clinton foreign policy.
It's hard to imagine Trump being worse than the Clintons on foreign policy. It's easy to imagine a chance of his being better, given his belief that the U.S. should cut back on interventionism and nation building.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(11-20-2016, 07:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote: (11-18-2016, 02:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title. Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in. The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22. This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030. Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?
The mood for the first turning is set in the preceding fourth turning. By the time the first turning rolls around, it's too late for it to change. Thus, discussion now is apropos.
If so, then why didn't S&H pick up the mood of the 4T in Generations?
Generations was written in 1990, long before the fourth turning. That the mood of the first turning is set by the preceding fourth turning does not mean that the mood of the fourth turning is set by the preceding third turning.
That said, they did pick up the mood to a large extent. They correctly predicted the partisanship between an increasing number of groups - notice how we've got at least five clear politiical factions now - correctly predicted hostility toward existing institutions, correctly predicted antiimmigrant sentiments, etc.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(11-20-2016, 10:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.
It could have been worse. We could have elected Clinton.
If you think the crowds of semi-literate people at Tea Party rallies unnerved us liberals, then wait until you see what our larger, more coherent rallies do to shatter your complacency.
Obviously you've never been to a Tea Party rally.
Quote:On foreign policy alone, Hillary Clinton would be far safer. As a conservative, do you really wish to cast off the Reagan-Bush foreign policy that became the default for Barack Obama?
First, there's no such thing as a Reagan-Bush foreign policy. Reagan intervened by the minimal amount needed to obtain the most favorable outcome possible for the U.S. Notice how he won the Cold War without any nukes actually being used, contrary to all expectations.
My explanation: Maximal effectiveness with minimal destructiveness well explains Grenada. Eastern Europe? That looks more like the choice of Gorbachev. He preferred safety on his western flank, and got that. He gave what were satellite regimes real independence without any assurance of Soviet interference in any equivalents of Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968 unless people seeking change attacked the Soviet Union.
Anti-communism with some patience? That is Reagan and the elder Bush. Bill Clinton acceded to the results.
Quote:The Bush-Obama policy, in contrast, has emphasized heavy intervention, with mediocre outcomes and excessive loss of life on all sides.
The younger Bush bungled intelligence that warned of the danger of al-Qaeda showing interest in jetliners. From there, foreign policy deteriorated into revenge-taking. OK, so the Taliban was unwise to not oust Osama bin Laden? Invading Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden was lawful. Truth be told, the Chinese had no objection. Because he murdered Chinese citizens on 9/11 he would have been welcome to China -- as a guest first of the Chinese judicial system and in turn a firing squad. Russia? Much the same.
Iraq was of course the big disaster. I question whether Saddam Hussein or his successor sons would have survived an Arab Spring. Dubya bungled the invasion and occupation of Iraq and stuck his successor with the mess.
Quote:Clinton's policy would be worse, though. Bush and Obama at least refrained from antagonizing other nuclear powers. The Cliinton-Clinton foreign policy emphasizes quixotic "humanitarian" interventions - the idea that the way to reduce tensions in flashpoints is to kill people - with no thought to the interests of other nuclear powers, in particular Russia. In the Pristina incident, the Clinton administration almost managed to "start World War III", in the words of the British general who defused things by refusing to obey an American order to attack Russian forces. The next time around, the Brits might not have been in a position to save us from the irresponsible Clinton foreign policy.
How would you know? How could you know what Hillary Clinton would do? She would not face the same situations as her husband did in any obvious flashpoint.
Quote:It's hard to imagine Trump being worse than the Clintons on foreign policy. It's easy to imagine a chance of his being better, given his belief that the U.S. should cut back on interventionism and nation building.
Less intervention? I see him as an appeaser to Vladimir Putin. I see him as a right-wing version of George McGovern as Richard Nixon depicted McGovern. In view of what he has done to Ukraine, I can't trust Vladimir Putin. Elsewhere? This is the wrong time to call for regime change in Iran.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
(11-20-2016, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.
It could have been worse. We could have elected Clinton.
-- thank gawd we dodged that bullet. Not that l care for the Donald. Both of them suck in their own ways, which is why half the electorate didn't even bother to vote
 my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
11-20-2016, 11:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2016, 11:51 AM by Marypoza.)
(11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.
-- l am not judging you. You said you wanted to come here when you were a kid. Did you watch TV when you were a kid? Then you got a distorted view of America, trust me. Nobody lived like the Ewings ( Dallas & Knots Landing) or the Carringtons & the Colbys ( Dynasty). TV Families were a little too hunky dory ( Cosby & Family Ties, to name 2), except for the dysfuctional Bundys, but that was going extreme the other way. Maybe the Connor family on Rosanne came/comes closest to what life here is really like
my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
(11-20-2016, 10:24 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.
It could have been worse. We could have elected Clinton.
If you think the crowds of semi-literate people at Tea Party rallies unnerved us liberals, then wait until you see what our larger, more coherent rallies do to shatter your complacency.
Obviously you've never been to a Tea Party rally.
Quote:On foreign policy alone, Hillary Clinton would be far safer. As a conservative, do you really wish to cast off the Reagan-Bush foreign policy that became the default for Barack Obama?
First, there's no such thing as a Reagan-Bush foreign policy. Reagan intervened by the minimal amount needed to obtain the most favorable outcome possible for the U.S. Notice how he won the Cold War without any nukes actually being used, contrary to all expectations.
The Bush-Obama policy, in contrast, has emphasized heavy intervention, with mediocre outcomes and excessive loss of life on all sides.
Clinton's policy would be worse, though. Bush and Obama at least refrained from antagonizing other nuclear powers. The Cliinton-Clinton foreign policy emphasizes quixotic "humanitarian" interventions - the idea that the way to reduce tensions in flashpoints is to kill people - with no thought to the interests of other nuclear powers, in particular Russia. In the Pristina incident, the Clinton administration almost managed to "start World War III", in the words of the British general who defused things by refusing to obey an American order to attack Russian forces. The next time around, the Brits might not have been in a position to save us from the irresponsible Clinton foreign policy.
It's hard to imagine Trump being worse than the Clintons on foreign policy. It's easy to imagine a chance of his being better, given his belief that the U.S. should cut back on interventionism and nation building.
-- Hillary was also picking a fight with Russia- & just before the elections too (what moron does that?) l mean, we're talking Russia. Not some little piss pot on the other side of the world, but Russia- on the other side of the Bering Strait. lf you throw a bridge over that sukkah it would take less than an hr to get over there.. or for them to get over here. l dunno, mebbe ships can go just as fast. Anyhow all that warmongering sure scared the shit outta me, & l'll bet others too. They say flyover country elected the Donald. Guess where all the silos are.
my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(11-20-2016, 11:26 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- thank gawd we dodged that bullet. Not that l care for the Donald. Both of them suck in their own ways, which is why half the electorate didn't even bother to vote
Are you fucking serious? Clinton may have been a poor candidate, but she is 1000 times better then the Talking Yam. 
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(11-20-2016, 08:14 AM)Mikebert Wrote: (11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era. Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century. If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale. Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.
This is an example of sloppy thinking. The Progressive Era end in 1920. This brand of Progressivism was spearheaded by Republicans. The Republican party then was a pro-business, free market party then just like now. They were also the Blue party.
First I've heard that Wilson was a Republican.
Posts: 83
Threads: 10
Joined: Jul 2016
Predictions: Trumpers will win in the 4T and the 1T will start in 2024 to 2026. There will also be a major war that breaks out in the early 2020s, making the climax very intense.
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
11-20-2016, 07:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2016, 07:50 PM by Marypoza.)
(11-20-2016, 12:32 PM)Odin Wrote: (11-20-2016, 11:26 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- thank gawd we dodged that bullet. Not that l care for the Donald. Both of them suck in their own ways, which is why half the electorate didn't even bother to vote
Are you fucking serious? Clinton may have been a poor candidate, but she is 1000 times better then the Talking Yam.
-- the Talking Yam (luvvit! rofl) is against the TPP- infact it's already dead- wants to renegotiate NAFTA, is not picking a fight with Russia & wants to scale back our involvement in the Middle East. He wants to bring outsourced jobs back home. How successful he'll be, well we'll find out within the next 4 yrs
For me the biggest thing is no war with Russia. That bitch & her bellicose talk was scareing the shit outta me. Besides a vote for her condones election theft & fraud. l have scruples. Not many but l do have a few. Bitch has none
my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(11-20-2016, 02:54 PM)taramarie Wrote: (11-20-2016, 10:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes she did which means she should have won. I do not understand the way the election process works over there. Sounds unusual. If she was more popular she should have won IMO.
One big difference between New Zealand and the U.S. is that the U.S. is bigger; the U.S. is large and geographically diverse. The electoral system, among other advantages, forces presidential candidates to maintain support across broad, diverse regions, rather than just running up the vote in friendly territory, minimizing the chances of geographic polarization. We'd have long since broken apart otherwise.
Imagine if the British Commonwealth elected an executive leader by direct popular vote. Do you think anyone would campaign in New Zealand? No, you wouldn't have enough votes to matter; your fate would be decided by people in population centers like London and Montreal, and those people wouldn't care a whit about what happened to New Zealand.
If it weren't for the electoral college, that's what would happen in the U.S., and eventually our equivalents of New Zealand would manage to secede. Then the U.S. wouldn't exist any more.
hmm fascinating and different system. I learned something today. Thanks. Unfortunately it seems polarization is happening already though.
There's definitely polarization but it's not highly geographic. For example, here in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, about a third of voters still voted for Trump. That means that a Clinton supporter is likely to know some Trump supporters that they can go to if they want to understand what was going on.
In the 1850s, which was polarized geographically because the legality of slavery was decided on a geographic basis, you were likely not to know anyone on the other side. That was a recipe for civil war, which is what happened that time around.
Posts: 577
Threads: 9
Joined: May 2016
(11-20-2016, 08:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 02:54 PM)taramarie Wrote: (11-20-2016, 10:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes she did which means she should have won. I do not understand the way the election process works over there. Sounds unusual. If she was more popular she should have won IMO.
One big difference between New Zealand and the U.S. is that the U.S. is bigger; the U.S. is large and geographically diverse. The electoral system, among other advantages, forces presidential candidates to maintain support across broad, diverse regions, rather than just running up the vote in friendly territory, minimizing the chances of geographic polarization. We'd have long since broken apart otherwise.
Imagine if the British Commonwealth elected an executive leader by direct popular vote. Do you think anyone would campaign in New Zealand? No, you wouldn't have enough votes to matter; your fate would be decided by people in population centers like London and Montreal, and those people wouldn't care a whit about what happened to New Zealand.
If it weren't for the electoral college, that's what would happen in the U.S., and eventually our equivalents of New Zealand would manage to secede. Then the U.S. wouldn't exist any more.
hmm fascinating and different system. I learned something today. Thanks. Unfortunately it seems polarization is happening already though.
There's definitely polarization but it's not highly geographic. For example, here in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, about a third of voters still voted for Trump. That means that a Clinton supporter is likely to know some Trump supporters that they can go to if they want to understand what was going on.
In the 1850s, which was polarized geographically because the legality of slavery was decided on a geographic basis, you were likely not to know anyone on the other side. That was a recipe for civil war, which is what happened that time around.
And here in Missouri, a rural red "flyover" state, Clinton still received nearly 38% of the vote.
During the Civil War, Missouri was a sort of place in limbo. A slave state that was loyal to the Union (officially, at least); one in which slaves accounted for only 10% of the population (as opposed to say, 57% in South Carolina). It was also still something of a frontier. The population was diverse, you would have southern settlers in one town and in the next town you would have the strongly pro-Union, anti-slavery German immigrants. There were plantations in "Little Dixie" in the northern part of the state and recent, non-slave owning Irish immigrants in other areas. Here the Civil War became a horrible war of attrition of neighbor vs neighbor, which lasted years after the war officially ended.
I think that as far as ideological divisions go, much of the US today resembles Missouri during the Civil War. Some states are more red, some states are more blue, but if there ended up being another civil war, it would get pretty damn ugly.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(11-20-2016, 01:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 08:14 AM)Mikebert Wrote: (11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era. Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century. If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale. Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.
This is an example of sloppy thinking. The Progressive Era end in 1920. This brand of Progressivism was spearheaded by Republicans. The Republican party then was a pro-business, free market party then just like now. They were also the Blue party.
First I've heard that Wilson was a Republican.
He was. I suggest that you do a little research into the Progressives and then look at the twentieth century. I expect you will agree that Rothbard was right.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(11-21-2016, 05:54 AM)Galen Wrote: (11-20-2016, 01:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (11-20-2016, 08:14 AM)Mikebert Wrote: (11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment. The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era. Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century. If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale. Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.
This is an example of sloppy thinking. The Progressive Era end in 1920. This brand of Progressivism was spearheaded by Republicans. The Republican party then was a pro-business, free market party then just like now. They were also the Blue party.
First I've heard that Wilson was a Republican.
He was. I suggest that you do a little research into the Progressives and then look at the twentieth century. I expect you will agree that Rothbard was right.
I'm not disagreeing with Rothbard, but Wilson was a Democrat through his entire political career, as governor as well as as President. Indeed his accession to the Presidency occurred in an election where the Republicans rejected the progressive Theodore Roosevelt.
|
