Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-15-2016, 04:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: By your line of argument then we should have been in a 3T for far longer than a turning should last, even if you take the late date of 1984 as the end of the 2T like I do.  This of course breaks the theory--not to mention doesn't conform to history.

Let us face it, there are only two extreme plans out there, and then there is the status quo.  Since Sanders won't win the Dem Nomination his plan (Democratic Socialism) won't come to the front without HRC swinging massively to the left, which is about as likely to happen as the earth being hit by an asteroid 1000km across tomorrow.  The other extreme plan is Nationalism, Protectionism and Isolationism offered by Trump (which isn't that extreme historically).

Given that it seems that Trump's message is catching on I foresee him becoming President quite handily and implmenting that plan.  The rest of the GOP has already fallen in line minus a few #NeverTrump clowns most of whom are RINOs anyway according to RW press.

As such I see no evidence at all that we're in a 3T, furthermore much evidence we have been in a 4T for quite some time, of course I also subscribe to the theory that S&H made the CivWarSaec 4T far too short and it really should have started in the 1850s (with the compromise of 1850 being the catalyst).

If we add to that the Mega-saeculum theory that the MillSaec itself is a Mega Unraveling then it becomes apparent that the whole saeculum has been dominated by at least two extreme positions dukeing it out since the end of WW2.  As such it is only natural for this 4T to have a 3T like feel.  I imagine that the next saeculum will be a saeculum long crisis on many fronts.

To start, I don't see clockwork regularity in the turnings.  The classic S&H 4 stroke pattern works well enough for Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age.  Force fitting it anywhere else hasn't worked very well.  This means the 4 stroke pattern is not, repeat, not inevitable.  I also see computers, nuclear weapons and a need for renewable energy as arguably marking the end of the Industrial Age pattern, the beginning of something else.  (The Information Age?)  Thus, while I find the language of S&H very useful if you use it consistently, if there is a conflict between history as it is unfolding and The Theory, I am more inclined to question the theory than to cross my eyes and stand on my head to make the theory in its most simplistic form work.  Take it in the same was as I say the language of Marx is very useful, but you can't anticipate that history will rigidly follow his outline and time table.

As I've said many times, I see September 11th as a Trigger for a failed regeneracy and crisis.  Bush 43 attempted to implement a new set of values including neocolonialism and spreading western values at gunpoint.  His time in office was a referendum on 'stay the course' against 'cut and run'.  This was by far the dominant aspect of his two terms.  The resolution was 'peace with honor', a pull out of the conflict without quite admitting defeat coupled with a better understanding of how very difficult it is to achieve much of anything in the Middle East.  An awful lot of people do not want to acknowledge that a critical values issue was decided on the battlefield.  The left over post Vietnam tensions between hawks claiming they could have 'won' while the doves asserted there was no way to avoid quagmire was revisited in another environment.  The post Bush 43 result is more nuanced than either of the conflicting dogmatic hawk and dove dogmatic certainties.  Cultures can be changed at gunpoint, but doing so is very expensive in gold, iron and blood.  The general conclusion was bring the boys home and avoid foreign entanglements without a very long hard look at Powell's Questions.

I understand the base aspects of a 3T is stagnation, endless debate and inaction, as no one having the power or influence to significantly change the status quo.  After Bush 43's failed crisis, I see the US as waddling like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking like a duck.  Obama may have wanted to push a progressive agenda, but he spent all his political capitol on health care.  After that, pure 3T.

I see a regeneracy as an enabling of one of the systems of values created with fanfare in the prior 2T and debated the duration of the preceding 3T.  Traditionally it is the progressive values that are enabled by the regeneracy, while the conservatives attempt to maintain the status quo.  If someone like Bernie Sanders could get the presidency with a working majority in Congress, this sort of pattern could repeat.  

I do not see this as inevitable any more than I see the four stroke S&H pattern as inevitable.  The GIs attacked problems with everything they had, willing to bear any burden, pay any price, etc...  They achieved ever so much, and in doing so created Future Shock.  We haven't recovered from the GIs shaking up our culture yet.  The GIs arguably solved some problems that according to T4T theory ought to have been solved in the following crisis, but were solved 2 generations ahead of schedule in the awakening.  As a result, the 3T unraveling has had an element of 1T dogmatism.  All is well, so there is no need to change.  The core of it is the Reagan memes.  The government is the problem not the solution.  Any attempt by the government to fix things makes it worse.  The best solution to most problems is to cut taxes, reduce regulation and let the private sector handle it.  The Reagan Memes are the antithesis of the GI values, the opposite of an enthusiastic bearing of any burden, paying of any price, fighting of any foe...

For a current day progressive to break the Reagan Memes will be very very difficult, but that's where we are at.  The Reagan Memes are an over reaction to the GI faith that Big Government can solve any problem if only enough money is thrown at it.  The truth is somewhere between the GIs and Reagan.  It is a question of finding a rational balance rather than deciding which extreme is going to triumph and run roughshod over the other extreme.  Neither extreme is desirable.

Which is problematic.  Only an extremist is going to break the status quo.  If we keep electing establishment politicians riding comfortably in the unravelling rut, existing very real problems will only continue to get worse.

Like a lot of folks, I'm not sure how to read Trump.  The easy if possibly shallow read is he's a high ego extrovert who will say whatever his followers will get enthusiastic about.  Most of his followers are still embracing the Reagan memes, angry and disappointed that the Republican establishment aren't chasing the Reagan memes to a great enough extreme.  I'm not confident, though, that Trump is a Reagan True Believer.  I'm not sure what he'll do if he actually wins it.  As a business man he was a doer with a touch of charlatan.  He doesn't seem to see the system in the Reagan way, a flawed mess that will lead inevitably to failure, thus one minimizes the system.  I get the sense he sees the system as a convoluted playground to be manipulated for profit.  He is willing to lend his name to con artists and use the bankruptcy system to dump his failures overboard.  I just don't trust his style or integrity.  I don't doubt that he will through out a lot of simplistic ideas that sound good to the potential Reagan Meme voters.  I don't know that he will be able to twist either establishment party in Congress to make any of the ideas actually work.

I liked your old Communist spin on Trump better than your current spin.  At one point you were backing Trump as he would mess things up so badly that a Communist Revolution would become more likely.  That made more sense to me than your current endorsement.

I know I'm not going to convince everyone to see things my way, but that's where I'm at.  The very long 3T is actually a 3T, failed 4T, 3T reprise.  The mood we are in, regardless of how we got there or whether the failed 4T is recognized or not, is of stagnation, inaction and filibuster.  There is no lack of extreme proposals.  There is a lack of enabled extremists actually able to start implementing far out ideas.  From my understanding of the T4T verbiage, that means we haven't reached a regeneracy yet.  We're still talking, not doing.