Leading and trailing edge millenials

[Eric the Green]

(11-23-2017, 04:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-23-2017, 02:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Reagan, of course, was very dogmatic, although permissive about wealthy institutions and individuals pursuing their economic goals (which is part of the dogma, of course). But Carter did not push the liberal agenda of the sixties. I don't notice such political correctness among early millennials; where do you see it? If anything, the college students who have been more dogmatic recently had to have been born in the 1990s somewhere. Middle range millennials, perhaps.

If anything, though the Xers are in favor of individualism in politics, they have been the most dogmatic posters on this board over the years. Most of those whom I know in person here in CA though, are tolerant and easy-going. Exceptions apply to all these characterizations.

The Civic Presidents were Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.  Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were all about an active and growing federal government, though I agree "authoritarian" might be better than "dogmatic".  Carter in contrast attempted to reduce federal power and overreach with his "zero based budgeting" and Reagan actually succeeded at reducing federal regulatory power.  To put it another way, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were trying to extend the Truman-Eisenhower High, while Carter and Reagan ushered in the Unraveling.

Liberals like me do not agree that an active federal government = authoritarian. It depends on what the government does, and for what purpose and at who's direction. In the sixties, an active federal government was used in many cases to counteract authoritarian corporations and states. It is authoritarian for an industry to pollute your river and your air. It is authoritarian for Mississippi officials to deny your right to vote based on your race. It is authoritarian for your boss to pay substandard wages and fire you for speaking your mind. 

Laws are needed to counteract criminals and brigands. Just laws and regulations may be "authority," but they promote justice and peace, and thus represent the peoples' will. In that sense, they represent the authority of the people. Regulations are needed to counteract the abusive actions of authority. If regulations do not do this, and only add to paperwork and such, then they should be rescinded. Democrats in recent years have reduced these kinds of regulations. Republicans on the other hand take away the regulations that curb the power of abusive authority. Republicans think that laws and regulations that restrain their own abuse of power is authoritarian, but that laws to regulate your personal life are just fine.

I would say Carter and first term Reagan cut back on the liberal agenda or reversed it. I wouldn't say they ushered in the unravelling, but they paved the way for it by cutting back on the Awakening. I would say Kennedy and Johnson spurred the Awakening, and Nixon did some of both, paving the way for the unravelling, and extending the Awakening. The effects of JFK's Awakening rhetoric were mostly posthumous.

Good to discuss this with you. Best wishes for the holidays.