Thoughts On Where We Are, and Where We're Going

[Eric the Green]

(09-18-2018, 09:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-17-2018, 10:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-15-2018, 11:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-13-2018, 07:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am not seeing the immediate triumph of my political values.  In that I seem to be different from many who post here.  Progress, maybe, but progress that can be blocked by autocratic dictators controlling a people with autocratic ideas.  There are limits to what can be achieved, and it might well be good to recognize them.

I do find the military progress more easily influences values than non military.  What could have helped or hurt the Consciousness Revolution?  Some say the Manson killings hurt the hippie movement, but they occurred well after the Summer of Love.  Some note the legend of Woodstock in promoting the best of Hippie values, but that the next rock concert featured Hells Angels as security, and pulled rock festivals away from the hippie ideal.  Was that inevitable?  Was sustaining the Woodstock ideal impossible?

The Consciousness Revolution was not a Liberal-Conservative axis movement.  It was much more Authoritarian-Libertarian, and extremely libertarian at that.  It was all about telling the man to take a hike, living the way you want to live, be it Buddhist commune dweller or rebel biker.  Most of that energy went to the right, as the hyper-liberty nonsense began in earnest, and still resides there.  The remnant on the communitarian side is small in comparison.  

On the other hand, the liberty-lovers are not ideal allies of the Christian Right either, though they have made a pact to oppose the PTB.  Both see coastal liberals as adversaries or even enemies.  It's an uneasy alliance, and can be broken if the right ideas are presented by the right people in the right way: a lot of 'rights' there.  This alliance of convenience is the result of 45 years of conservative effort to circle every wagon they can find.

The main hope for the fading away or defeat of the libertarian right, seems at the moment not the hippie libertarian left--- although it still exists, and the social aspects of the libertarian left are still powerful, as demonstrated in the legalization of marijuana in some blue states and the gay rights advances. The main hope lies in the fact that younger people don't relate either socially/culturally or economically to the libertarian economic (and gun-rights) right, because it has not worked out for them, and also in the increasing demographic diversity of the people.

The 'hippie libertarian Left' is facing the same problem as the Boomer (often fundamentalist or evangelical) Right: it is getting old... and it will die off at roughly the same time. The rise of the 'hippie Libertarian Right' will be among people to be born at the earliest in the 2020s after the Crisis of 2020 is nearly over and for about a score of years afterward. That generation will be about as separate in time from the Boom Generation as the Boom Generation was from the Missionary Generation.  The earliest-born Boomers (1943) were born sixty years and a day after the last Missionaries (1882). That people sixty years older can have influence upon children is more possible today than when life expectancy was shorter... but it is safe to say that anyone who tries to push the agenda of the Boom Awakening upon children will be one sort of adult that parents do not want as an influence. This agenda was never good for children (ask Generation X about that, and it will have more influence upon children born in the 2030s than Boomers will).

An Awakening era is always tough on children; that's exactly what makes a self-reliant nomad generation. That will happen again if the cycle holds, regardless of any specific Boomer influence that may be left. There was no such thing as a Boomer Awakening, but the legacy of the Consciousness Revolution will be around for anyone who cares to look for it. I imagine that won't even be much needed or desired, until the next Awakening actually gets going. A new prophet generation will just face a similar social situation to what the Boomers faced, and will move in similar directions on their own initiative, just owing to the nature of the cycles and the needs of the time. There will be no such thing as a new hippie libertarian right. But the new prophets born starting in 2025 will have their left and right components, as previous prophets have had, I imagine; though conditions won't be exactly the same of course.

Quote:The fault with the Boomer Right is its narrow ethnic and cultural base. Middle-class minorities might have some shared interest with the Right about taxes, but not with the anti-intellectualism of the Right. People who share its anti-intellectualism go nowhere vocationally; they are well-suited perhaps to be clerks, servants, or laborers. If we once needed a healthy criticism of wayward professors, experts, and advocates capable of as much crankiness as proles, the crass anti-intellectualism of the Hard Right attacks science and valid inquiry. Diverse as Asian groups are, they seem to share a respect for formal learning. The black bourgeoisie certainly does not want its progeny to revert to ways of poverty that arises from intellectual laziness. The fast-growing Hispanic component of the middle class may admire parents who did horrible jobs for survival and to allow them to stay in school... and does not want its  children to endure much the same hardship.

Let's not forget that the middle class includes white people with similar attitudes toward education. Such might promote ethnic assimilation, but only within the middle class.

This anti-intellectualism could return, if another religious right movement returns, and even if the new hippie left returns too. It might not, but I wouldn't bet against it. A traditional religious movement is always likely during any 2nd Turning, but the possibility of human social evolution might take us beyond this at some point, so that all spiritual awakenings are of the new age type. We already saw a substantial new age component in the last three 2Ts. It should be the dominant 2T expression from now onward.

Quote:The 'gun-rights' clique  has allowed itself to believe that liberal 'gun-grabbers' are out to take away their right to sport hunting or target shooting. But note that liberals generally have no qualms about sport hunting or its culture. Liberal concern is with people who have no appropriate use for firearms.

Generally speaking, yes. The problem on the right is their fanatical interpretation of gun control as gun confiscation and 2nd amendment repeal. If gun control when instituted sometime after 2020 is allowed to stand, and not resisted too fiercely or violently, a backlash against this fanaticism may not materialize, and the 2nd amendment will be safe. As things stand now though, the fanatics are quite numerous and militant, so they could rebel as this 4T climaxes, and drive a backlash that takes away the very rights that they cherish.

Quote:I see an even better result. I see support for Donald Trump cratering in polls. I see him as an amoral fanatic, a hazard to us all. He hurts the sensibilities of people who should never be targets of bigotry. This man mocks the handicapped, which has long been a taboo in American life. I see quadraplegia, and I see myself one vehicle crash, fall, or industrial accident away from being in the same situation. I see a white cane and I see 'there but for the Grace of God go I'. Americans have much more empathy for the handicapped or disabled than they do for the poor in general, let alone for addicts and alcoholics.

I do not predict polling trends (I let polls tell the story), but so far I have seen President Trump doing little to attract new supporters... although the polarization that we have in American life has tended to allow him to unload different offenses against the same people who were never going to vote to re-elect him in 2020. Such is bad, but not incompetent politics. Tariffs and the trade war that ensues can hurt more people, and that is how 46% of the electorate voting for him can go to 40%. That already looks bad and incompetent. Nominating for the Supreme Court someone who is under accusation of rape (even if as a juvenile) is also bad and incompetent. Trump started much closer to getting 40% in the next election than did Carter (50% in 1976), let alone Hoover (58%). Not only did he get a smaller share of the popular vote than did Hillary Clinton, he also got less than Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, or Kerry in 2004... he got little more than Dukakis in 1988.

Yes, miracles can happen even if they are disasters for America. Dubya seemed likely to be a one-time hack before 9/11, and he managed to lose the good will that he had gained from that -- but not before getting re-elected, if barely. The people around Trump are far less competent (as if anyone could see that coming) than those around Dubya.

The Trump base really existed before Trump; he just coalesced and aroused it. So it is likely to be around for a decade or two, with or without Trump, but declining in power and influence. And if the Democrats don't nominate a candidate which my horoscope score system says can beat him, I am not optimistic about Trump's defeat in 2020. Beto will not win! (his score is even worse than I thought in my first scoring attempt!). Trump would smother him to bits if he ran against him in 2020. It does appear that Trump has lost the Rust Belt for now, which gave him the office he now holds. But Trump is a gifted demagogue, and should never be underestimated, no matter how badly he performs as president. Many people like his sarcastic humor and his ability to engage and arouse their misguided feelings. Sad, but true. Only another even-more gifted politician can beat an incumbent with those talents. None of the current candidates in CNN's top 10 can beat him. Only McAuliffe, Landrieu or Sherrod Brown have the stuff to win. Note that these three are all still boomer candidates; Xer leaders don't have the candidate skills to get elected.