Some Help?

[pbrower2a]

(01-10-2019, 04:58 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Looking for raw data information, anecdotal with or without sources (generalities for research later), what is the 'mirror' to the government chaos and division of right now 2019?

No politics, no leanings, no agreements or disagreements on what exactly is happening.

Fine. I am tempted to believe that the generational theory has its basis in the predictable appearance (birth), rise (childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood), peak, decline (late midlife and elderhood), and fall (disappearance through debility and death, followed by death), as has been true of all generations and will be true so long as Humanity is relevant (that is, until our species goes extinct, itself a certainty). As a biological reality, we are an evolutionary dead end because a larger brain necessary for further intellectual advancement would make childbirth impossible. If you want a pick of what animal will follow us -- pigs will replace us as the technological and cultural creators, and dogs will be even more dominant as top predators than they are. Don't fool yourself about the abilities of your beloved pooch; the Doberman or Rottweiler that you trust is a man-eater except for good human behavior and its own. The only advancement that we can have is cultural or technological, and in view of the horrible setbacks that Humanity has inflicted upon itself, we cannot depend upon either.

Quote:If we are entering the final Crisis phase of the saeculum, has this behavior been seen in the past, at either the WWII era, the Civil War, the Revolution (well, I can already see it in the Revolution, that was raw).

Nomenclature of similar things of gridlock to the extreme at past Crisis Turnings.

Lastly and Separately Please (please parse your response appropriately)

Is this the peak of the Crisis of this Saeculum?  Is this a Crisis of a soft nature?  A mild winter?  How many more years can this last, will a similar mind really replace the mind currently in office at the top?  It seems if there is to be a replacement, it will be swaying the opposite if what is now there.

**This** -- as in -- the notion Washington is utterly spent broken, it no longer works and the only way to go is up (as is the terminology of the text)

We are at the beginning of the end phase. I see the Millennial Generation approaching midlife, which is about where GIs were in the late 1930s. Yup, eighty years ago. I see a tendency toward a homogenization of an omnibus mass culture much like that of the late 1930s, even as reflected as cinema (if anyone thought a parallel possible) as in the late 1930s in what was long considered the apex of the American cinema. We are sorting out the different threads of American cultural heritage and developing a synthesis. All that is needed is a 2020-era equivalent of the Big Band era in popular culture that fused the cabaret song, jazz, and even Western classical music into the greatest pop music ever (except for perhaps the classical era of Haydn and Mozart, who in their own day were the equivalent of rock stars).

I'm going to try to avoid current pols and partisan politics, but the Millennial Generation has no stake in 3T politics any more than GIs had a stake in the Last Hurrah of the Glided Era in the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover Presidencies. To put it bluntly, Civic generations dislike Devil-take-the-Hindmost politics as no other generations can despise such politics. They see such as exploitative, destructive, wasteful, and dehumanizing. Such, they see, "is harmful to children  and other living things", to appropriate a Boomer stock phrase.

Things move quickly as the end of a Crisis Era approaches. A consensus develops with unexpected speed and with little regard for the input of people who have a stake in the failing Old Order (and old ordure, to put it more crudely). What happens in the next four or so years will make little sense then  but will all seem inevitable as the 1T emerges with a new and rigid social order almost certainly better than what preceded. Trying to give both sides of the contemporary debate an equal chance of success, we may end up with either some Christian and Corporate State (in which life is safe and secure, if impoverished economically for most people and repressive of any dissent at plutocracy and Protestant fundamentalism, so long as one accepts its strictures and demands) or something parallel to America in the 1950s in which one had better not align with some alien form of collectivism in  place of the rational and conformist culture of the High. The difference might be between Francisco Franco (in which case I can imagine Americans with creative talent and intellect too powerful to fit into the repressive climate of America going elsewhere), and Dwight Eisenhower.

We already have a portent of X style of politics of a post-Crisis Era (the mature, mellowed Reactive). That is Obama, whose temperament is enough like that of Eisenhower to suggest the relevance of this overlay:

Quote:One of my favorite ways to show the similarities of two Presidents is to show similarities in states in voting for one or the other. It is hardly surprising that Hoover in 1928 and Eisenhower in 1952 should win mostly the same states. Hoover promised peace and prosperity, and got only peace right; Ike could deliver. What is truly eerie is when the two presidents are from opposite Parties, as between Eisenhower and Obama. Partisan affiliations have changed dramatically  since the 1950s, but while much of the Democratic vote of the 1950s has since gone Republican and vice-versa, the similarities between Eisenhower and Obama present themselves in an odd way.

It is telling that Eisenhower won three states  (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) that no Republican nominee has ever won together since 1924 -- and Ike did it twice. I'm guessing that Ike did best in the states with the highest levels of formal education -- which is much the same in the 2010s as in the 1950s.  Eisenhower and Obama both won Virginia after long dry spells for Republican Presidential nominees in that state for their respective Parties' nominees for President.  
..........................

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

You can ignore the numbers which  indicate electoral votes from 2012.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index....msg6069983

(The site to which I link and on which I created this map uses the old convention of red for Democrats and blue for Republicans normal before 1980, and I don't argue with that convention on that site. The numbers are electoral votes as of 2008, and they are irrelevant to the Presidential elections of 2012 and of course the 1950s).

.................

I have told conservatives that I see Donald Trump as a catastrophic failure as President in part because he violates so many canons of conservatism in the time of Ronald Reagan, and I have told them that the next successful conservative President will combine the political skill-set of Reagan and the temperament of Eisenhower. That combination suggests Obama, whom conservatives find objectionable because he is a liberal. A conservative mirror image of Obama on ideology but with similar probity would be a huge improvement over Trump. My swipes at Trump are on character and conduct than on his political stances except to the extent that those reflect personal character.