05-08-2020, 07:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2020, 08:54 PM by Bob Butler 54.)
The online version of the book is the layman’s version of Generational Dynamics. Little of the math. I’m barely into it now, but already it has me raising a few questions. It seems to me more pertinent to raise them than entertaining to wade through more of it, so I’ll raise some points as I go.
Is S&H’s high or GD’s austerity more descriptive? I’d personally go with high in these days. That was when America was Great by Trump’s declaration. Other country’s factories were bombed out. Colonialism was crippled by the US demanding world ports be opened or the Lend Lease debts would not be canceled. Unions and benefits were strong. The upper level managers were not getting large salaries, leaving more for the workers. Jobs had not yet been sent overseas. The 1950s are the years I experienced as good times, but in general I have the impression that the unraveling before the crisis was worse than the period after the crisis. I think high the better term. That may change if the crisis war is lost rather than won. Perhaps one should switch names depending on the crisis result?
Were boomers traumatized? I might say yes. The threat that at any moment we might instantly see the world destroyed by a nuclear strike could be comparably traumatizing as a crisis war. It was certainly enough that we would never support a politician looking to start a crisis war. I will not speak for the younger generations. Let them speak for themselves if they like. The world got less crazy when Russia and China became less militantly Communist and we kids were not sent scuttling under our desks. Still, the important question is would one support a leader who looked likely to start a crisis war? Would we get caught up in the readiness for war that was so big in the Industrial Age and earlier? This would push back the Generational Dynamics Generation Gap line at least a generation.
Do Pearl Harbor and September 11th rhyme? Initially they do. They rhymed less when the people were asked to go shopping instead of fully mobilize. I would say they ended up rhyming poorly.
Can Bush 43’s wars be considered crisis wars? No. They were wars of choice, not existential wars. We got pushed out of our new bases and embassy complex with no lasting effect on our existence. GD seems to agree with this.
Did Bush 43’s wars make the people less likely to promote non-crisis wars? Yes. America’s population, red and blue, became mush less eager to put boots on the ground. With nuclear war already out of the question, that makes America much less likely to promote war as a solution to problems while those who remember the time live and are in power. I was not so much traumatized by these wars as sympathetic with the soldiers who had to fight without mobilization. The army, marine and reserve troops were pushed to their limit. Regardless, that would seem to break the cycles that GD centers on. They break at the start of the Information Age, as I suggested could happen.
Barely started, but that will do for now.
Is S&H’s high or GD’s austerity more descriptive? I’d personally go with high in these days. That was when America was Great by Trump’s declaration. Other country’s factories were bombed out. Colonialism was crippled by the US demanding world ports be opened or the Lend Lease debts would not be canceled. Unions and benefits were strong. The upper level managers were not getting large salaries, leaving more for the workers. Jobs had not yet been sent overseas. The 1950s are the years I experienced as good times, but in general I have the impression that the unraveling before the crisis was worse than the period after the crisis. I think high the better term. That may change if the crisis war is lost rather than won. Perhaps one should switch names depending on the crisis result?
Were boomers traumatized? I might say yes. The threat that at any moment we might instantly see the world destroyed by a nuclear strike could be comparably traumatizing as a crisis war. It was certainly enough that we would never support a politician looking to start a crisis war. I will not speak for the younger generations. Let them speak for themselves if they like. The world got less crazy when Russia and China became less militantly Communist and we kids were not sent scuttling under our desks. Still, the important question is would one support a leader who looked likely to start a crisis war? Would we get caught up in the readiness for war that was so big in the Industrial Age and earlier? This would push back the Generational Dynamics Generation Gap line at least a generation.
Do Pearl Harbor and September 11th rhyme? Initially they do. They rhymed less when the people were asked to go shopping instead of fully mobilize. I would say they ended up rhyming poorly.
Can Bush 43’s wars be considered crisis wars? No. They were wars of choice, not existential wars. We got pushed out of our new bases and embassy complex with no lasting effect on our existence. GD seems to agree with this.
Did Bush 43’s wars make the people less likely to promote non-crisis wars? Yes. America’s population, red and blue, became mush less eager to put boots on the ground. With nuclear war already out of the question, that makes America much less likely to promote war as a solution to problems while those who remember the time live and are in power. I was not so much traumatized by these wars as sympathetic with the soldiers who had to fight without mobilization. The army, marine and reserve troops were pushed to their limit. Regardless, that would seem to break the cycles that GD centers on. They break at the start of the Information Age, as I suggested could happen.
Barely started, but that will do for now.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
