12-20-2019, 08:29 PM
Trying to use six neutral colors:
orange for a reformer
green for a consolidator
indigo for a consensual
magenta for an accomplisher
brown for a precursor
[b][b]black[/b] for a [/b]disaster
T. Roosevelt
[b]Taft[/b]
Wilson
[b]Harding/Coolidge[/b]
Hoover
[b]FDR[/b]
[b][b]Truman[/b][/b]
[b][b][b]Eisenhower[/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b]JFK/LBJ[/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b]Nixon/Ford[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b]Carter[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Reagan[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]George Bush the Elder[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Clinton[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]George Bush the Younger[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Obama[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Trump[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
Interesting theory. One might expect six phases between Presidential types, although two Presidents might fit fit one phase. I'd like to go back to Teddy Roosevelt, but what would I call Taft? A consolidator? I am going to call Harding and Coolidge accomplishers for promoting an eight-year time of corporate-driven reforms, with government clearly following the lead of Big Business. Flaws of Harding/Coolidge vision may have stuck America in a disaster mode due to a speculative boom that went bust without the then-President (Hoover) having obvious solutions.
Maybe the theory is not so well defined before 1900. Is McKinley a disaster, and how could I treat the split Presidency of Cleveland with that of Benjamin Harrison? Maybe technology drives the cycle.
Now, is Trump the new Hoover? Hardly. Hoover was a promise of more of the same of Harding/Coolidge with a bit more polish. Hoover was squeaky-clean and process-oriented. Trump may have gotten his reputation, as did Hoover, as a businessman... but Hoover played up his intellectual achievements and asserted the value of intellectual achievements in others... and Trump is the most anti-intellectual President in a long time. Hoover got caught in an economic meltdown because of the support for a speculative boom. Trump has been stuck with the Obama recovery even if he loathes Obama. Above all, Hoover won in a landslide to the extent of winning states such as Florida, Texas, and Virginia that did not ordinarily go Republican at the time, and would not do so for another 24 years. Trump got elected with a strong negative margin in the popular vote, winning by winning the "right" votes. Trump is a monstrously cruel, corrupt, abrasive, dissolute person. Is he the new Carter? Carter ran into some bad luck, most likely because he got caught in a bad time for American foreign relations in the Cold War. As bad as the collapse of America's ally in South Vietnam was, the consolidation of Marxist-Leninist regimes in Ethiopia and the former Portuguese colonial empire did not help him. Then came the fall of a once-strong ally in Reza Shah Pahlavi II and the hostage situation... and Carter had no easy cure for stagflation, but Reagan offered one in compelling millions of young adults to lower their expectations to working harder for less and giving up any reasonable chance of economic improvement.
Things can get really bad for Trump. Let the economy tank, and the sole credibility that he has with political moderates disappears. Like a typical demagogue of other democracies that go bad, Trump has promised to hurt people. At that he has delivered, and people who despised him in 2016 will continue to despise him.
Donald Trump is the most important person in America, if for all the wrong reasons. so why do we elect what looks like a disaster? Maybe there are phases in history in which Americans must either support more of the same when such brings calamity. That explains Hoover; people did not recognize that the speculative boom was but illusory prosperity because it meant great gains for a few and hardships for many. If you are of a certain age (probably 60+), you can probably ask yourself whether you remember any people who waxed nostalgic about the 1920's. Not the farm family I was from! Not factory workers and store clerks of the time!
OK, Trump is not more of the same of Obama; Hillary Clinton was likely to be that. But Obama didn't have disasters awaiting her. The economy would have hummed along as under Trump, and her foreign policy would have been a recent standard. On the other hand she might be less successful than Trump on foreign policy because she would not go along with the winners (such as Putin). She could have easily become the "new Jimmy Carter" at worst, perhaps setting America up for someone who might 'reform' America into a Christian and Corporate State. Just think of how that would be -- only 2% of the people really matter, their gain, indulgence, and power (yes, I admit being a broken record on that) as the sole legitimate objects of life for 95% of Americans -- except to receive delights in Heaven for compliance and damnation for any failure to comply.
Maybe we need at times to have our myths shattered and learn the hard way the raw realities about life while we sti8lll have some chance to effect change through electoral politics.
orange for a reformer
green for a consolidator
indigo for a consensual
magenta for an accomplisher
brown for a precursor
[b][b]black[/b] for a [/b]disaster
T. Roosevelt
[b]Taft[/b]
Wilson
[b]Harding/Coolidge[/b]
Hoover
[b]FDR[/b]
[b][b]Truman[/b][/b]
[b][b][b]Eisenhower[/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b]JFK/LBJ[/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b]Nixon/Ford[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b]Carter[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Reagan[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]George Bush the Elder[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Clinton[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]George Bush the Younger[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Obama[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b][b]Trump[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]
Interesting theory. One might expect six phases between Presidential types, although two Presidents might fit fit one phase. I'd like to go back to Teddy Roosevelt, but what would I call Taft? A consolidator? I am going to call Harding and Coolidge accomplishers for promoting an eight-year time of corporate-driven reforms, with government clearly following the lead of Big Business. Flaws of Harding/Coolidge vision may have stuck America in a disaster mode due to a speculative boom that went bust without the then-President (Hoover) having obvious solutions.
Maybe the theory is not so well defined before 1900. Is McKinley a disaster, and how could I treat the split Presidency of Cleveland with that of Benjamin Harrison? Maybe technology drives the cycle.
Now, is Trump the new Hoover? Hardly. Hoover was a promise of more of the same of Harding/Coolidge with a bit more polish. Hoover was squeaky-clean and process-oriented. Trump may have gotten his reputation, as did Hoover, as a businessman... but Hoover played up his intellectual achievements and asserted the value of intellectual achievements in others... and Trump is the most anti-intellectual President in a long time. Hoover got caught in an economic meltdown because of the support for a speculative boom. Trump has been stuck with the Obama recovery even if he loathes Obama. Above all, Hoover won in a landslide to the extent of winning states such as Florida, Texas, and Virginia that did not ordinarily go Republican at the time, and would not do so for another 24 years. Trump got elected with a strong negative margin in the popular vote, winning by winning the "right" votes. Trump is a monstrously cruel, corrupt, abrasive, dissolute person. Is he the new Carter? Carter ran into some bad luck, most likely because he got caught in a bad time for American foreign relations in the Cold War. As bad as the collapse of America's ally in South Vietnam was, the consolidation of Marxist-Leninist regimes in Ethiopia and the former Portuguese colonial empire did not help him. Then came the fall of a once-strong ally in Reza Shah Pahlavi II and the hostage situation... and Carter had no easy cure for stagflation, but Reagan offered one in compelling millions of young adults to lower their expectations to working harder for less and giving up any reasonable chance of economic improvement.
Things can get really bad for Trump. Let the economy tank, and the sole credibility that he has with political moderates disappears. Like a typical demagogue of other democracies that go bad, Trump has promised to hurt people. At that he has delivered, and people who despised him in 2016 will continue to despise him.
Donald Trump is the most important person in America, if for all the wrong reasons. so why do we elect what looks like a disaster? Maybe there are phases in history in which Americans must either support more of the same when such brings calamity. That explains Hoover; people did not recognize that the speculative boom was but illusory prosperity because it meant great gains for a few and hardships for many. If you are of a certain age (probably 60+), you can probably ask yourself whether you remember any people who waxed nostalgic about the 1920's. Not the farm family I was from! Not factory workers and store clerks of the time!
OK, Trump is not more of the same of Obama; Hillary Clinton was likely to be that. But Obama didn't have disasters awaiting her. The economy would have hummed along as under Trump, and her foreign policy would have been a recent standard. On the other hand she might be less successful than Trump on foreign policy because she would not go along with the winners (such as Putin). She could have easily become the "new Jimmy Carter" at worst, perhaps setting America up for someone who might 'reform' America into a Christian and Corporate State. Just think of how that would be -- only 2% of the people really matter, their gain, indulgence, and power (yes, I admit being a broken record on that) as the sole legitimate objects of life for 95% of Americans -- except to receive delights in Heaven for compliance and damnation for any failure to comply.
Maybe we need at times to have our myths shattered and learn the hard way the raw realities about life while we sti8lll have some chance to effect change through electoral politics.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.