Election 2018

[Eric the Green]

(10-29-2018, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-28-2018, 11:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: FDR did not offer unity to the Nazis.
Lincoln did not offer unity to the confederates.
Washington did not offer unity to the King.
William did not offer unity to the Stewarts and Louis XIV
Elizabeth I did not offer unity to the Spanish or the Catholics.
Henry VII did not offer unity to Richard III.

One side won, the other lost. After that, a greater degree of unity was able to be created.

Most of the above people are clearly Industrial Age.  Thus, using violence as a solution would be expected.  FDR is the cusp figure, who faced a double crisis.  He indeed used violence against Hitler and company, and was likely correct that this was the only solution.  He did not use violence against the pending communist revolution of the Great Depression, but rather presided over a compromise between progressives and conservatives that was settled by Congress.

You are changing the subject again. That seems to b a favorite tactic of yours.

The subject was "unity," not "violence." We may be able to get through this 4T with less violence than previous ones, but the track record is poor. Still, as FDR showed, his tactic in dealing with his determined opposition during the 4T was not your suggested "let's just all get together and listen to each other and discuss things and find unity," as you saw in the video. He declared his intention to master his opponents. That's what Democrats need to do now again, not live under the delusion that we can talk and listen to them and just all get along and divisions can be healed. There's big money forces and entrenched ideologies and values behind the regressive forces today, just as there was then. They must be defeated politically--- and violently if they rebel violently, as they have threatened to do.

There is no evidence at all that an Information Age would be peaceful and an Industrial Age is violent, or as we were discussing, willing to "listen to each other." Maybe if the Green Meme were to attain power, which might be associated with the Information Age, that might be possible. But it takes a while for new memes to become dominant powers.

Quote:I have also looked at Europe of Lincoln's time for similar compromises.  Victoria and Bismarck were fairly conservative figures, but even they saw the point of giving the people more of the benefits of the Industrial Revolution to avoid the disruption of a communist revolution.  This was a win, actually, for the lords and robber barons, who got to retain their considerable power.  Slavery was also abandoned in Europe with far less violence.  A great deal of this was an ability to listen to the new morals and compromise.  A good many lives were saved.  A good deal of violence and autocratic rule was avoided.

None of that happened in a 4T. And you are talking about conservatives being willing to listen. The vast majority of conservatives today refuse to listen to anything any liberals say. You are insinuating that liberals today like me refuse to listen. I say instead that I know all about the opposition, all too well.

Quote:While you can certainly call the civil rights movement, the way the US government handled the domino theory and the feminist movement not crisis movements as they did nor occur in a crisis, they might be something unusual in that they caused a crisis sized values shift in the 2T and relatively quickly.  None of the classic declaring the new ideals in the 2T, but waiting for the 4T to see the values shifted by violence.  Major civilization changing bills were passed by Congress right away.  I anticipate that this is the wave of the future, that 2Ts will continue to show great changes and 4Ts will not.  Nukes and a faith that democracy can cause large shifts may have changed things.

It is too soon to be sure of the new age.  I have to limit myself to saying maybe my observations will hold for a while.  But at least the old Industrial Age patterns are failing.

And, oh yes, Lincoln did offer unity to the confederates... at gunpoint.  That was a major point, to preserve the Union.  Individual equality was another major point.  The man, and the times, were complicated.  Given time he would have offered unity, the equivalent of the Marshall Plan.  Instead, in the wake of his death, we saw the sort of hatred and intolerance you are advocating.

Hmm.  Come to think of it, FDR and his heirs did offer unity to the former Nazis in the form of the Marshall Plan and NATO.  Pursuing the sort of hatred you advocate would have invited disaster.  How did Churchill put it?

Winston Churchill Wrote:In War: Resolution,
In Defeat: Defiance,
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will.

I am advocating what? Again, you are the one preaching unity while introducing insults into discussions. I am merely relating facts.

The Marshall Plan was 1T; what are you talking about? The 4T victories had been achieved by then, at home and abroad. You just don't want to face the fact that I am right on this point. 4Ts are not settled by compromise and listening to each other.

Quote:And Elizabeth I did allow considerable religious freedom, at least much more that occurred in the religiously intolerant immediate past.  Retaining sovereignty was another point.  Then again, the woman, and the times, were complicated.

But maybe Churchill had a point.  Well, we can't all be grey champions.  Maybe a few haters are necessary.

Elizabeth I was a brutal queen who imprisoned and killed dissenters. She won the battle against the Catholics at home and abroad.