Dave Horn Wrote:The death of Roger Ailes and the post-mortem analysis of his contribution to modern political life, makes a strong counterpoint here. Ailes is quoted as saying that people don't want to be informed, they want to feel informed. In other words, propaganda is preferred to facts. He started that mission in 1968 when he worked for Nixon, and built it into a juggernaut at Fox News.
So how much impact does the success of one propagandist have on the nation as a whole? Other than the Brits, who have their own relationship with the Murdocks and their media empire, we seem to be alone in this mental state. Even Hari Seldon failed to predict the Mule.
Kennedy and Johnson decided that we could pass a new health care benefit, start a war and cut taxes at the same time. Nixon won, the Democratic party split into mainstream New Deal liberals and the cultural left. Democratic-controlled Congress refused to cut spending or raise taxes and ended up destroying their New Deal brand by igniting what was called stagflation in the late 1970’s. Under stagflation, the 150-year rising trend in working class real wages ground to a halt. With stagflation Democratic invincibility on economics was shattered. When a panicking Carter installed Paul Volcker, that was the end. Volcker crushed inflation in 1981, making it look like Reaganomics had restored the economy. The combination of what looked like abject failure under Carter and apparent success under Reagan restored the Republican economic brand that Hoover had lost.
Ailes did not make Democrats do any of this, but guys like him took advantage of it to undermine the Democratic establishment. Republican propagandists like Ailes used the rising social left as a foil to fan support for Republicans amongst disaffected Democratic social conservatives and racists. They also dreamed up the economic voodoo that became Reaganomics. Carter could not counter the Republican charge that they were economic incompetents and failed to win a second term.
Quote:In the current case, it seems to be delaying the 4T fight-to-the-finish. As you know, I'm of the opinion that this 4T will be muted, leaving the causative issues unresolved. I guess you could argue that this is typical of a 2T: all talk and no action.That’s my point.
There are things that could happen that would make this era seem like a conventional 4T. Suppose a recession begins at the end of this year, 10 years after the last one started. Assume the stock market is as overvalued as I think it is and the Dow falls to 8000 or lower. Finally assume just a large decline in asset values produces another financial crisis ten years after the last one. Will Democrats provide the majority of the votes for another Wall street bailout to help Donald Trump politically? Suppose they don’t? This gives you a 4T, just like that.
None of the things I propose here are all that implausible. We are overdue for a recession and many observers think the market is overvalued. We had financial crises in 1857, 1866, 1873, 1884, 1893 and 1907 with an average spacing of a decade, so such a spacing today is not totally crazy. And I find it hard to believe that Democrats will do the heavy lifting on a bill to help Trump. I’m not saying this is likely, but it’s not all that unlikely either.
Besides another civil war, I cannot think of any other way one can get a conventional 4T outcome to an era beginning in 2008. So does this mean that the theory predicts this? I don’t think I would go so far as to predict that. But if wielding S&H allows us to say nothing about what is to come, is there anything to it?
