02-27-2018, 11:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2018, 01:50 AM by Eric the Green.)
(02-27-2018, 11:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:(02-26-2018, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(02-26-2018, 12:51 PM)David Horn Wrote: We may be heading for a time a lot like the late 19th and early 20th centuries, if the government decays further. The absence of communal power opens the door to private power, and stalemated government is as good a way to kill communal power as I can see: no coup required.
We may be, and this is exactly the 4T crisis that we face. The competition with this red culture during the remaining 10-11 years of THIS 4T will decide what kind of 1T and 2T we will have, and what kind of country we will have for the foreseeable future.
This assumes that a counter-narrative can be offered, defended and act as a rallying point for the alternative to neo-liberalism. Count me skeptical. I don't see any evidence that the Democrats will abandon their culture-warrior stances, and, barring that, there is no other way to create the commonality needed to move hoi polloi, who pay minimal attention to details. It's like living in a loop. Atrocious behavior generates anger. Anger generates action, but the action is split by cultural demands that tend to anger most of the populace. Atrocious behavior arises, and the loop repeats.
Until someone with charisma and stature focuses the anger on communal action, this won't change. The Dems seem incapable of seeing that, or too cowardly to take the risk.
As you suggest, it will take a good candidate, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, who can convince people (as Obama and Clinton tried to do, somewhat successfully) to see that the concerns of their own cultural identity are being held back by the same private-power-enforced stalemate that holds back those of other cultural identities. Hillary made it clear too, using the slogan "stronger together." I don't think that's hard for people to understand; there just needs to be a candidate who can communicate well and give the impression that (s)he can be a leader.
Horoscope scores are a good indicator of who is and is not such a leader. Few candidates who run and lose, and not too many who are nominated and lose, have the score that indicates this ability to communicate and inspire confidence. Only two candidates ever in history who were never nominated, ever had a higher score than the winner of the election in which they actually competed. One of those was Carly Fiorina, who had a score just barely higher than Donald Trump's score. But Fiorina was not nearly as well-known as Trump, and that made a big difference.
Whether you accept this index or not, the bottom line is that Democrats as well as Republicans lose when they don't choose candidates who can communicate. If we want leadership that can turn the ship of state around from the domination of private power, and make it work, we need to choose the right person who can do that. If we do, and that person is actually a good leader as well as a good candidate, then it could happen. But the public will also need to support him or her, and let him keep a congress (s)he can work with.
As I see it, the only two possible candidates who can accomplish this for sure are Terry McAuliffe and Mitch Landrieu. Sherrod Brown is a maybe. Chris Murphy also has a slightly higher score than Trump. I have doubts about him though. Oprah Winfrey is another maybe if she runs.
Seth Meyers hasn't really put himself into a position of credibility yet, but he has a very high score too.
I thought Hillary had a chance against Trump, even though she had a much lower score than he. There were a few other things going for her, and she did win the popular vote. But we really needed a candidate who we could have been sure was going to win, not just one who might win. Trump is an expert salesman and entertainer. He connects very well with an audience. That is a hard thing to beat, even though he has no other virtues. Sanders had a better score than Hillary, but maybe he was not good enough either, and maybe too easy to pillory for his "socialist" ideas.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html