Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-27-2016, 04:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 03:15 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Bob on the other hand may give lip service to the "both sides are problematic" meme, but in fact, he never criticizes his own side.  In this case, both PBrower and Classic Xer are engaging in similar levels of invective, but Bob criticizes only Classic Xer, implying agreement with PBrower's level of invective.  Of the three, Bob's posting pattern is if anything the most hypocritical; the other two are at least honest about their partisanship.

I have never claimed to be a non-partisan. I've informed Bob that I'm not a rural partisan or a religious partisan and informed that I'm a suburban partisan. The suburban partisan view is different and can be more critical because we actually see how the Democrats run things. Plus, we the ones who are expected to help them pay their bills. Bob should learn to incorporate some respect when speaking to a partisan of equal or greater financial stature who has already paid his fair share of taxes. Bob has been making some progress. He no longer supports the extremist views associated with control.

At this point, I'm seeing the partisanship as the greater issue than the specific issues.  I see both partisan positions being justified by history, culture and different environments, but understanding where two groups of people are coming from doesn't make the problem go away.

The thing I'm caring most about is extreme partisanship and vile stereotyping, where both groups will cling to bad parodies of the other guy's motivations, spend a lot of time explaining the other side's motivations to the other side, which is seldom enlightening and causes neither side to listen.

There are issues where I'm firmly aligned one way or another and will take a firm stand.  Borrow and spend trickle down was a disaster for both Bush administrations, especially 43's.  Global warming is real.  Historically, the recent individual rights interpretations and the rest of the 'Standard Model' position on the 2nd Amendment has a ton more merit than a lot of Democrats are willing to acknowledge.  Of these three, the global warming and 2nd Amendment questions are receiving a lots less attention here than they did on the old board several years or decades past.

On a lot of other issues, the two factions are going at each other with enough vigor that I often don't feel jumping in helps a lot.  Neither group needs a lot of help from me in articulating the partisan positions.  Yes, I'd like to push the progressives away from their attempts to force their culture on the conservatives, but with the Trump victory I'm seeing conservatives pushing to expand their culture in a similar enough way.  Each faction will take a narrow victory, interpret it as a mandate, and try to destroy everything the other has built.

I've been thinking a bit on American crises.  They all resulted in progressive transformation.  Democracy triumphed over the king.  The slaves were freed.  The boom and bust disastrous Gilded Age economic policies were tamed somewhat by the New Deal's emphasis on the working classes.  Fascism was defeated.  From this angle, one might understand Eric's progressives good, conservatives bad, conservatives won't change thus conservatives must be suppressed by whatever means necessary perspective.

But why haven't we had a regeneracy this time around?  Why isn't the country uniting behind obvious and grave problems and crushing those who don't want to solve the problem?

Are any of today's problems as severe as colonial imperialism, slavery, the Great Depression or Fascism?

The Revolution was to a great degree an external conflict.  The bulk of the conservative fighting troops and political control came from overseas.  Fighting for democracy and against colonial imperialism, it was possible to build a unifying progressive movement.  There were royalist loyalists in the colonies, but they were few enough that they couldn't stop dominance by the rebels in the Continental Congress.

The Civil War cleanly divided the country.  There were two governments, each having a strong decisive majority, each creating a unifying movement out to defeat the other unifying movement.  

The Great Depression presented a clear failure of the old system.  Early on, labor, management and both political parties all agreed that something radically different had to be done.  Clear and present problems can create a unifying movement.

Fascism also created a clear unifying threat, an external one.

Today, I propose, there is no clear unifying threat.  The country is divided enough that modern interpretations and uses of the filibuster prevent transforming change.  Attempts to pretend one has a majority capable of transforming change only enrage the opposition base into turning control over to the other party.

I have long suspected that the S&H notion of periodic crisis, that from time to time the country can be changed big time, will attract to these forum partisans who want to see the country changed big time.  A lot of us see large problems and are encouraged by the notion that roughly every four score and seven years one can ride a major movement that will address such problems.

But if there is no hope of a sustainable filibuster proof control of congress, if none of the spirals of violence are building towards a military resolution, should any of us expect a regeneracy and culture transforming unifying movement?

And if we can't expect it, should we be looking for it, working for it?  

I just don't believe enough in The Theory to assume a successful likely progressive crisis transformation is inevitable.  Yes, in the United States we saw three of them appear at regular intervals, and you can trace that further back on the other side of the pond.  However, while this pattern works well enough for the Industrial Age and Anglo-American civilization, you have to squint and go cockeyed to apply it elsewhere.  With the Agricultural Age elites and patterns that drove most of the early crises long gone, have we any reason to be dead set sure another crisis transformation is inevitable?

I would like to see a political party trying to make the whole country happy, striving keep the bulk of their current base happy without going out of the way to tick off the other half.  I don't see the Republicans abandoning borrow and spend trickle down or climate science denial.  One might hope, but one certainly should not hold one's breath.  Thus, this hypothetical party for all of the United States seems more likely to grow out of the Democrats.

But whichever side abandons a crisis transformation that bashes the other half of the country into submission would have to stop demonizing the other half of the country and attempting to beat them into submission.  The problem might be less about economics, climate, guns or cultural arm twisting, more about a country paralyzed by extreme partisanship.