The Maelstrom of Violence

[pbrower2a]

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.

Revised for coherence with objective reality:

2005: The bungled response to Hurricane Katrina shows that a government hostile to government in practice usually gets bad results.
2007-2009: Economic meltdown analogous to the first half of the three-year meltdown beginning in 1929 is amenable to Keynesian stimulus and rescues of critical businesses
2010-2016: establishment of an illiberal order based upon the worst Boomer ideology (all for the Noble Few, suffer for my holy greed you ungrateful proles or peons!)

Note that Barack Obama is a better analogy to Eisenhower than to any President since at least the beginning of the twentieth century.
2016: election of the populist fraud Donald Trump, a demagogue exploiting mass delusion, bigotry, anger, and impatience.

[pbrower2a]

(08-18-2017, 10:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 02:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground.  These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South.  Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW.  Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground.  If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken.  They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.

I can't speak for my entire race, but this black man agrees with you.  I oppose the destruction of monuments to the Confederacy, not because I support it, or slavery or even the racist institutions of the past.  Rather, I oppose their destruction out of the fear that it will not stop with them.  Already these imbeciles have moved from Lee and Stonewall Jackson to Lincoln, and they will move on to Jefferson and Washington too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ghborhood/

These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

Nonsense.  There is little to no historical value in these monuments, and I live in Monuments Central.  If you look around the South, there are no monuments (or very few) to any other war or its veterans.  It's all about the Lost Cause.  Sorry, but I have no sympathy on this issue.  The argument that Washington and Jefferson are next (and, presumably, Madison and Monroe as well) just doesn't hold up.

Maybe there is an occasional monument to Martin Luther King, Jr. in largely-black communities.

He is what the South must uphold, for he has done much to create the New South, the only relevant South for the next century or so.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-16-2017, 01:13 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

Interesting question. One that I am not going to quickly dismiss out of hand as being impossible.  Quoting from history.com

Quote:Brown was captured during the raid and later convicted of treason and hanged, but the raid inflamed white Southern fears of slave rebellions and increased the mounting tension between Northern and Southern states before the American Civil War (1861-65).

I will say that the defacing and desecration of historical monuments and the one sided rhetoric coming from most of the politicians, save a few such as Trump, is absolutely infuriating a subset of people, myself included.  I have seen comments in a regional forum state things like: demands to take down and destroy MLK monuments and street signs, calls to start flying flags of the confederacy, arming up and defending the monuments, buying dodge chargers and going bowling when the BLM bastards block a highway, giving these antifa assholes more violence than they bargained for, and talk of buying and placing lawn jockeys.  In short, this has the potential to escalate and when it does, it could get real ugly, very fast   So from this perspective, yes I would say it has that possibility, or at the very least is fomenting tensions, animosity, and hatred, but would note that the feelings aren't entirely race based as the objects  of ire include: BLM, snowflakes, regressives, Marxists, fascists, liberals, and other derogatory terms for "leftists".  

On the other hands, I would say that this, in and of itself, is not going to be a trigger element because the timing isn't right.  My feeling, which I think is backed by the 4T theory says that the climax will likely be around 2025.

Hahahahaha.    He said Snowflake. 


Damn warrior gene leads some so so astray.  

--- disheveled pot.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-18-2017, 10:44 AM)David Horn Wrote: Nonsense.  There is little to no historical value in these monuments, and I live in Monuments Central.  If you look around the South, there are no monuments (or very few) to any other war or its veterans.  It's all about the Lost Cause.  Sorry, but I have no sympathy on this issue.  The argument that Washington and Jefferson are next (and, presumably, Madison and Monroe as well) just doesn't hold up.

I'd add that the 'States Rights' justification for the Civil War is out of period.  If you look at the succession documents you will find lots of direct references to slavery, no attempts at a degree of indirection through states rights.  As far as I know, the States Rights arguments did not exist until after it became clear that the south had lost the war.

This isn't to say that the old agricultural elites were trying to prevent westward growth that would add new states and change the balance of power in Congress, while the soon to be robber barons wanted growth and industrialization.  The war wasn't entirely about slavery.  The elites were jockeying for power.

The statues are symbols that mean different things to different people.  At a deep values level, you are not going to find meaning on what a statue or its removal means.  The battle flag and other old symbols are much the same.  To a great degree, folks are speaking to each other in different symbolic languages, resulting in poor communication to say the least.

I'm still thinking it takes two to spiral.  Each side must come to believe that the next indecent has to be larger so the other side will back down.  I think that's why Harper's Ferry is so often nominated for trigger.  After that, it had become fairly clear that neither faction was going to back down.  Escalating to full scale open conflict will be hard to do with arguments over symbols while counting on lone nuts to execute the violence.  Still very much worth watching.  I'm waiting for violence to become more organized.  

I'm still seeing the flags cartoon moment as key.  For a long time the coasts had suppressed the old racism, then too much started to happen too fast.  The blue victories were too big and too annoying.  Suddenly it was possible to take that which had been hidden and flash it in the open again.  Racism and hatred run in waves.  You shift from overt slavery, to the reconstruction, to the Jim Crow era, to Martin Luther King's time, to today's alt right.  In the long term equality is winning, but this is not equality's finest hour.  At least they aren't trying to revisit lynchings, plumbing white only water fountains or refusing to serve certain people.  I think that after the alt right has its time in the sun racism will become something to be ashamed of again.  It seems to be starting.  There is a ways to go.

[gabrielle]

(08-17-2017, 01:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:02 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.

Even if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary.  At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.  
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter.  That's not fair, but it is reality.  The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole.  You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people.  If you don't win, you can't do anything.

Bernie Sanders supports Black Lives Matter.  You know, it is possible to care about "narrow interests," like whether black people are being unfairly and violently targeted by law enforcement, and many other things as well.

If the majority of white Americans think that the goals of racial justice and equality are exclusionary, that only goes to show how badly they are needed.

You can preach or govern: Your choice.  There is a large contingent of very disgruntled people out there, and it's easy to make them hate those advocating for the better treatment of everyone but them.  The GOP Dog Whistle Brigade is based on keeping that anger stoked, and it's served them well.  If you wish to break that stranglehold, you can't do it by doing the same failed things over and over.

It's down to this: break the narrative. I argued with Playwrite about this when he was still active here and on the old forum.  The liberals of the 1970s let the old narrative die, and this is the result.  I don't see the GOP doing the same.  Even Trump seems to be too little to turn the tide, so the task will not be easy.  And no, I don't have a magic bullet plan either.

I'm not sure the Trump voters could have been won over even if the Democrats had concentrated solely on equality and environmental issues.  I live in a red state, and I know that many of them don't really care about environmental issues, and when asked if they would have voted for Sanders if he had been the Dem candidate, my Trump-voting family members said no, because he was a "socialist."

Remember, though, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  If there was some way to make our election system more democratic I think progressive issues and candidates would win the day more often.

[gabrielle]

‘I hope Trump is assassinated’: A Missouri lawmaker faces mounting calls to resign after Facebook comment

I understand her anger and frustration but she should resign for that.

[Bob Butler 54]

Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response. I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored. Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change. Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly. Worthy of noting? Sure. A catalyst? I'm not sure. Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'? Perhaps.

[Kinser79]

(08-18-2017, 10:52 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.

For well over 40 years, the GOP has worked tirelessly to neuter the Federal government, and they've mostly succeeded.  It's disingenuous to bitch about an ineffective government your adopted party has created by intent.

Next, you'll be telling us that the guy who killed his parents needs to be given consideration for being an orphan.

The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

[Kinser79]

(08-19-2017, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response.  I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored.  Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change.  Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.  

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly.  Worthy of noting?  Sure.  A catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'?  Perhaps.

Or perhaps instead of focusing on electoral politics we could focus on the very thing that provides the basis of S&H theory, social mood.  As I said previously the see-saw of who is in the White House has been happening since 1948.  Let me provide the proof:

1948:  Truman (Democrat)
1952:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1956:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1960:  Kennedy (Democrat)
1964:  Johnson (Democrat)
1968:  Nixon (GOP)
1972:  Nixon (GOP)
1976:  Carter (Democrat)
1980:  Reagan (GOP)
1984:  Reagan (GOP)
1988:  Bush I (GOP)
1992:  Clinton (Democrat)
1996:  Clinton (Democrat)
2000:  Bush II (GOP)
2004:  Bush II (GOP)
2008:  Obama (Democrat)
2012:  Obama (Democrat)
2016:  Trump (GOP)

Assuming that pattern holds Trump will likely be re-elected baring some major snafu.  If Trump is assassinated I foresee Pence being re-elected in a landslide.  But what does this pattern tell us about social mood?  Nothing.

If we look at social mood, the "everything is fine, lets go shopping" mood shifted irrevocably, at least in the South in 2005 with Katrina.  9-11 couldn't have the same effect for New York because the city and the state responded effectively even if the federal government did not, or could not.

[Kinser79]

(08-19-2017, 08:37 AM)gabrielle Wrote:

(08-17-2017, 01:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:02 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.

Even if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary.  At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.  
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter.  That's not fair, but it is reality.  The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole.  You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people.  If you don't win, you can't do anything.

Bernie Sanders supports Black Lives Matter.  You know, it is possible to care about "narrow interests," like whether black people are being unfairly and violently targeted by law enforcement, and many other things as well.

If the majority of white Americans think that the goals of racial justice and equality are exclusionary, that only goes to show how badly they are needed.

You can preach or govern: Your choice.  There is a large contingent of very disgruntled people out there, and it's easy to make them hate those advocating for the better treatment of everyone but them.  The GOP Dog Whistle Brigade is based on keeping that anger stoked, and it's served them well.  If you wish to break that stranglehold, you can't do it by doing the same failed things over and over.

It's down to this: break the narrative. I argued with Playwrite about this when he was still active here and on the old forum.  The liberals of the 1970s let the old narrative die, and this is the result.  I don't see the GOP doing the same.  Even Trump seems to be too little to turn the tide, so the task will not be easy.  And no, I don't have a magic bullet plan either.

I'm not sure the Trump voters could have been won over even if the Democrats had concentrated solely on equality and environmental issues.  I live in a red state, and I know that many of them don't really care about environmental issues, and when asked if they would have voted for Sanders if he had been the Dem candidate, my Trump-voting family members said no, because he was a "socialist."

Remember, though, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  If there was some way to make our election system more democratic I think progressive issues and candidates would win the day more often.

I would argue that abolition of the electoral college would make our elections less democratic than more democratic.  HRC may or may not have won the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, we have never elected the president on who wins the most votes, but who wins the most states.

I explained it to my son as follows:  The presidential election is like the World Series.  It doesn't matter how many runs in a game you score (for example HRC's 3 Million more votes all come from CA and NY) in a particular game, what matters is how many games you win.

In a situation where the electoral college is absent, presidential candidates would focus on NYC, Chicago, LA, the large TX cities, Miami and maybe Atlanta.  The rest of the country would be completely ignored.

I would also say that those who voted for Trump are not monolithic.  A great many would not vote for Sanders, but Sanders voters did in fact vote for him.  Some of them because they were disgusted with the DNC (my boyfriend for example), some of them because they would NEVER vote for HRC (myself for example).

[Kinser79]

(08-18-2017, 08:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser came up with an interesting set of events, some of which could clearly be catalysts, but the spin he puts on them is extremely partisan.  I suppose mine might be considered so too.  Anyway... <snip>

You are right.  Your spin is very partisan.  As for Trump's people skills, if he lacks them then explain his real estate empire.  You don't succeed in business unless you can get people to do what you want when you want it.  His problem is he's not a professional politician.  But I think that is precisely what the country needs.

[Kinser79]

(08-18-2017, 09:50 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

I read a quote this morning that said something to the effect of people who have no history will likewise have no future.  I think that is worth pondering on.

In 1984 the world described by Orwell is one in which history is altered to fit the needs of the Party.  In the PRC and Albania and every other state which had a Cultural Revolution, the same thing happened.  Indeed in the USSR history was purposely destroyed or perverted to establish an ersatz soviet culture and history.

The destruction of historical monuments can only end badly.

[pbrower2a]

(08-20-2017, 01:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-19-2017, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response.  I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored.  Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change.  Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.  

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly.  Worthy of noting?  Sure.  A catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'?  Perhaps.

Or perhaps instead of focusing on electoral politics we could focus on the very thing that provides the basis of S&H theory, social mood.  As I said previously the see-saw of who is in the White House has been happening since 1948.  Let me provide the proof:

1948:  Truman (Democrat)
1952:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1956:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1960:  Kennedy (Democrat)
1964:  Johnson (Democrat)
1968:  Nixon (GOP)
1972:  Nixon (GOP)
1976:  Carter (Democrat)
1980:  Reagan (GOP)
1984:  Reagan (GOP)
1988:  Bush I (GOP)
1992:  Clinton (Democrat)
1996:  Clinton (Democrat)
2000:  Bush II (GOP)
2004:  Bush II (GOP)
2008:  Obama (Democrat)
2012:  Obama (Democrat)
2016:  Trump (GOP)

Assuming that pattern holds Trump will likely be re-elected baring some major snafu.  If Trump is assassinated I foresee Pence being re-elected in a landslide.  But what does this pattern tell us about social mood?  Nothing.

If we look at social mood, the "everything is fine, lets go shopping" mood shifted irrevocably, at least in the South in 2005 with Katrina.  9-11 couldn't have the same effect for New York because the city and the state responded effectively even if the federal government did not, or could not.

You can see any pattern that you wish after the fact. The normal pattern is two terms for a President's Party as a norm. The only gap of this pattern Is that Ronald Reagan won what should have reasonably been the second term of Jimmy Carter followed by the expected normal two by Republicans. (Go figure if you wish; that seems unlikely to make any sense in any theory).

So why does the pattern work? I'm guessing that any President who is at all successful or even simply gets away with his inadequacies and blunders gets a second term, and that after eight years the President's party has usually tun out of ideas. Thus the usual turn after eight years.

But is it so simple? The Republican Party dominated the Presidency from 1860 to 1912, with only the two terms (themselves split) of Grover Cleveland as President. Maybe the Democrats had some structural weakness. After Wilson, it was back to the triad of three sub-par presidents (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover in twelve years) who reverted America to a Gilded Age philosophy and got away with a reactionary, pro-business ideology until the Great Depression.

FDR was basically two Presidencies: the Depression Presidency and the War President. So that messes the theory up. Reality tends to mess up theories based solely on the timing of cycles. That it seems like 'time for something to happen' doesn't ensure that the event will happen.

As a Trump cultist you have been unable to see what many of us see: that Donald Trump is already one of the most incompetent and offensive figures to have ever been President. yes, Carter was awful, but he was largely rational, decent, and honest. Trump is awful, and he has none of Carter's virtues. At this point I see Trump losing every state that he lost and at a minimum the three states that he most barely won.

[Warren Dew]

(08-20-2017, 11:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: So why does the pattern work? I'm guessing that any President who is at all successful or even simply gets away with his inadequacies and blunders gets a second term, and that after eight years the President's party has usually tun out of ideas. Thus the usual turn after eight years.

I think the right way to think about those second terms is this:  the incumbent has a huge advantage in federal elections, whether it's the Presidency or congressional races.  That's why we now have term limits on Presidents.

The recent pattern of switching parties when the term limits are up is probably the same thing that causes the President's party to lose seats in midterms:  people who dislike the current incumbents tend to be more motivated than people who like them.  The effect is just not enough to overturn the advantages of incumbency in most cases.

Running out of ideas is what causes long periods of single party dominance.  Recently, the parties have figured out that they can always adopt the other party's ideas instead, though, as Clinton and the younger Bush did.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2017, 01:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-19-2017, 02:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just a thought falling out of Kineser's catalyst proposals and my response.  I lean towards catalysts being short sharp events that show government polices are on the wrong track, or that people feel strongly, or that a problem cannot be ignored.  Pearl Harbor, Harper's Ferry, Ruby Ridge and Katrina might all fit that pattern of the real world imposing sudden change.  Many of Kinser's proposals show a long term failure of an administration, with partisan spin placing the blame on the other guys.  

I'm not sure the slow failure of an administration resulting in the flipping of the see saw is a catalyst, exactly.  Worthy of noting?  Sure.  A catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Do we need a different word supplementing 'catalyst'?  Perhaps.

Or perhaps instead of focusing on electoral politics we could focus on the very thing that provides the basis of S&H theory, social mood.  As I said previously the see-saw of who is in the White House has been happening since 1948.  Let me provide the proof:

1948:  Truman (Democrat)
1952:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1956:  Eisenhower (GOP)
1960:  Kennedy (Democrat)
1964:  Johnson (Democrat)
1968:  Nixon (GOP)
1972:  Nixon (GOP)
1976:  Carter (Democrat)
1980:  Reagan (GOP)
1984:  Reagan (GOP)
1988:  Bush I (GOP)
1992:  Clinton (Democrat)
1996:  Clinton (Democrat)
2000:  Bush II (GOP)
2004:  Bush II (GOP)
2008:  Obama (Democrat)
2012:  Obama (Democrat)
2016:  Trump (GOP)

Assuming that pattern holds Trump will likely be re-elected baring some major snafu.  If Trump is assassinated I foresee Pence being re-elected in a landslide.  But what does this pattern tell us about social mood?  Nothing.

If we look at social mood, the "everything is fine, lets go shopping" mood shifted irrevocably, at least in the South in 2005 with Katrina.  9-11 couldn't have the same effect for New York because the city and the state responded effectively even if the federal government did not, or could not.

I would pull in S&H theory and include FDR in the string.  If so, the string starts with the New Deal in 1933.  You have a Crisis - High - Awakening period where the Democrats dominated Congress and Eisenhower was the only Republican exception in the White House.  This was the heyday of tax and spend liberalism, a time when the government more than usual worked for the working man, the time when America was great.  While Eisenhower was clearly a Republican exception, he did not attempt to break FDR’s pattern, tax and spend, or the readiness of the GI generation to work hard to solve problems.  I see a fairly persistent pattern and set of values working from the New Deal through Great Society eras.

Things go muddy in the Nixon Ford Carter time frame.  We had Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, the Southern Strategy, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis, Stagflation, all helping to form the National Malaise.  The optimism and energy of the earlier era was to a great extent lost here.  Here the see saw started.  Nixon got booted out of office for more than sufficient cause.  Ford pardoned Nixon and became anathema.  Carter…  was Carter.  The see saw started on people more than ideas.

But it was Reagan who was the defining president for the unraveling.  Carter recognized the National Malaise, but it was Reagan who shaped what came next.  Much of it is what I call the unraveling memes.  Borrow and spend, trickle down, cut domestic spending, increase the military and blame the government were the open keys.  The Southern Strategy was in play as well, but it was downplayed.  Racism didn’t come out in the open again until Trump.  

To a great degree Reagan became a saint, formed a solid base in the middle of the country, and the Republicans cashed in seeking to repeat Reagan’s popularity and success.  I know some don’t want to hear about the unraveling memes, but listen to what the Republican politicians promise the base.  Listen in particular to Trump’s promises.  Reagan understood and articulated where the middle of the country was at.  The Republicans since have tried to cash in on it.

Tried.  Alas, if the unraveling memes were ever good it was at the end of the long Democratic string of New Deal though Great Society.  Any party and government pushing a set of ideas is apt to take that set of ideas too far.  Any generation, even the energetic GIs, can have their energy drained by too much effort and too many failures.  As right, respected, worshiped and praised as Reagan was and remains, his heirs experienced failures.  Bush 41 fell to “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Bush 43 lost a war, destabilized the Middle East, and collapsed the economy, leaving the door to the White House wide open.  I didn’t think it possible, but Trump isn’t looking any better.  It isn’t that the pattern caused Republicans to lose the White House, but that the Republicans fully deserved to lose the White House.

From a partisan point of view, the Democrats have tried to pick up the pieces, but the middle of the country isn’t patient enough to accept the coastal efforts nor accepting of the hostile attitude of the coasts.  The Democrats can sneak in for a few terms trying to use memories of the time America was Great, trying to rekindle a shadow of the time when it was thought only Big Government could solve Big Problems.  They get stuffed by the ghosts of welfare queens and the notion that big government was never successful.  They often face a Republican Congress defending the unraveling memes.  This has resulted in an impatient middle of the country launching the eternal quest for someone who can make Saint Reagan’s ideas work when it’s way past their time.

Anyway, that’s my idea of why the pattern is there.  I don’t see the pattern breaking easily.

[pbrower2a]

Carter was ... Carter. I think that Carter ran on the cultural claims of the South to have solved the problems (largely Jim Crow practice) and did what no Democrat has even come close to doing as a Presidential nominee -- winning every former Confederate state except Virginia. It is ironic that the only former Confederate state that Hillary Clinton won was Virginia.

Carter may not have been particularly objectionable in the North and West, which he still lost. Because he could not rein inflation without bringing about another Great Depression or hurting key Democratic constituencies he got a malaise. Reagan was willing to needle Democratic special interests and got re-elected.

Trump is... well, Trump. He made promises that he could never keep because turning back the calendar on demographic change and well-received reforms is more destructive than effective. I see much getting worse. If you are not on the winning side of a partisan win, then you are irrelevant except as someone to follow orders and accept the personal consequences. I see a legislative branch in which unelected corporate lobbyists wield the real power. The Hard Right has decided to stoke old resentments, which is not good for social concord.

Dubya at least got away with his inadequacies long enough to get re-elected. Trump is an unmitigated disaster so far.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2017, 12:10 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Running out of ideas is what causes long periods of single party dominance.  Recently, the parties have figured out that they can always adopt the other party's ideas instead, though, as Clinton and the younger Bush did.

I'd watch also for dominant leaders setting a pattern.  Granted, Clinton and Bush 41 adjusted to a significant shift, but FDR and Reagan were the major players setting how things would run for a time.

[David Horn]

(08-20-2017, 01:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The government has been largely ineffective from the outset.  If one's goal is to address social issues then the state is the last place to change because the US is and has been for a long time an elective democratic republic.  This means that our so-called leaders do not actually lead but follow.  You must change the culture before you can change the politics.  Any other way of thinking is backwards.

If you like autocrats, then your argument holds.  Yes, democracy is messy and slow -- always late to the party.  I would prefer faster change too, but let's not forget that change is not universally for the good.

I lived my youth in the '50s and 60s.  Government worked then, though imperfectly, because public power is always opposed by private power that operates faster and is focused on the needs of the few.  Unless you can install a perfect government, you'll never have your ideal wish, regardless of the system you chose.

Kinser Wrote:As for the government itself, I've long looked forward to it being burnt to the ground.  I've long advocated razing the whole rotten structure to build something else in its place.  The only difference is I'm on the right now instead of the left.

First, you design a better replacement, then you tear down the old system.  So far, no one has taken any steps in that direction.

[David Horn]

(08-20-2017, 01:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would argue that abolition of the electoral college would make our elections less democratic than more democratic.  HRC may or may not have won the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, we have never elected the president on who wins the most votes, but who wins the most states.

The electoral college was created when we were "these united states", thinking that the states would continue to be quasi-independent.  It was also intended to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  Now, we are enjoying a tyranny of the minority -- certainly much worse.  

When something is rotten, it needs to replaced.  The electoral college certainly qualifies.

[David Horn]

(08-20-2017, 01:49 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 08:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser came up with an interesting set of events, some of which could clearly be catalysts, but the spin he puts on them is extremely partisan.  I suppose mine might be considered so too.  Anyway... <snip>

You are right.  Your spin is very partisan.  As for Trump's people skills, if he lacks them then explain his real estate empire.  You don't succeed in business unless you can get people to do what you want when you want it.  His problem is he's not a professional politician.  But I think that is precisely what the country needs.

That's the best you've got?  Trump was born rich, had connections from day one, and still managed to go bankrupt several times.  More the point, his funding is now down to one western bank (Deutsche Bank) and a bunch of oligarchs in bad places.  

Trump's success, such as it is, has always been predicated on intimidation.  He's looking less intimidating by the day.  Once that's gone, he's done.