08-17-2016, 04:49 PM
(08-17-2016, 02:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Bob, I can see the good in the message. However, I don't see much good or much character in your leaders.(08-17-2016, 12:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Classic Xer does sound more like Reagan than Coolidge (but not much more). But I see Reagan as well behind the times, not a man of his times. His goal was to rescue America from liberalism. I don't think the country needed to be rescued from it. He blamed the 60s for the recession of 1980. He was wrong; progress on civil rights and poverty was NOT the cause of the recession of 1980. Nor were high taxes, which had already been reduced. It was the Vietnam War, and the energy crisis, that caused that recession. Carter cured inflation and the recession it caused by appointing Paul Volcker, and by keeping us out of war. Reagan was the beneficiary. Also, economic cycles happen, and recovery follows recession. Lower taxes can be a stimulus. But Reagan made sure that the boom was severely restricted to the upper classes.
I Wrote:But I'll be stubborn about those 20 years. The GIs spent most of their lives living crisis era values. See problem, solve same. If S&H's theories are going to continue to have merit, we're due to get back to solving problems. This latest unraveling at least was dominated by Reagan's notion that the government trying to solve problems is the problem. I'll concede that crisis intensity problem solving can't and shouldn't be maintained indefinitely. By Reagan's time the GIs and to a lesser extent the other generations had earned a break.
I disagree, as you know. Reagan wasn't necessary at all, even if it's true that some level of compromise is needed with free enterprise values, and that people want a break from too much change. Reagan did not compromise; he was trying to roll back the Great Society (the PBS doc yesterday confirms that Reagan said this specifically), not provide a break or a vacation from further progress.
Unravellings happen, I admit, and the danger is there that they go too far toward individualist values. That does not mean they are merely a break when they go too far. They are a regression. Reagan was not a break-giver; he was a regressive; big time! So, Classic Xer is a follower of Reagan, who was a follower of Coolidge. So, Classic Xer is 5 turnings or more behind, not one.
Well, I consider you to be as partisan as X'er. You've bought fully into the Blue world view and see nothing good in the Red just as Classic goes the other way. There is a reason why Reagan was elected and became so highly revered. He did strike a chord with many Americans. An awful lot of folks still hear that chord to the extent of hearing nothing else. Just because you cannot comprehend why history unfolded as it did does not in any way imply that there are no reasons it unfolded as it did.
As I've been telling him, there are reasons why conflicting value systems can be popular, reasons why the tides of opinion turn periodically. Listening to partisans from either extreme, you can see each believes the other to be stupid, mistaken, evil, wrong, a threat to America, etc... The other side is seen to have few or no redeeming values. The only correct answer is to obliterate the other faction entirely. If this isn't done, America is Doomed! Doomed, I tell you! Doomed! The two of you are similarly blind in being totally unable to see or respect where the other is coming from.
Neither you nor Classic have all the answers or answers that are good all the time. If you really want to understand US history, you have to understand both conflicting sets of values and see where each has a proper place.
Not that I think either of you will be able to see this. The two of you pretty well represent the state of the United States today. Two people standing on opposite mountain tops, yelling at full volume, hands covering their ears.