02-07-2017, 06:19 PM
Some guy Wrote:Yeah, I have a feeling that if the theory has any legs at all the actual social moment will be noticeable by the time it's over.
I agree.
Quote:Suppose the War on Terror winds down, the ACA gets partially unwound, Trump could radically re-engineer the country with trade and immigration restrictions, some dramatic things happen on the domestic or international front, Pence gets in for a term and loses, and we get the Dems back in under Tulsi Gabbard(?), on a platform of single-payer healthcare and a raised minimum wage, as demographic shifts put some big Sun Belt states in play. You could still have Obama as the precursor to the new Democratic party, his ACA as consequential in the sense of pushing the issue forward finally, his term the start of the wind-down of the imperial project, but Trump as the president who defines the turning.
Seems to me, if Trump is having success he will run for a second term, so if Pence then follows him then that makes 2016 look like a critical election by the three-term rule. Trump would have the stature of Reagan. Seems to me it would make more sense to build the narrative of the 4T around successful Republican initiatives, rather than ignore them in favor of a Democratic story. We ruled out Bush when he was followed by Obama who enacted what looked like transformational policies. If Trump does the same to Obama as Obama did to Bush, then Obama should be discarded the same as Bush was. Why wouldn’t this be seen by an impartial observer as an institutional restructuring that began in 2016?
Or if we can count Obama as the start of a Democratic 4T because his healthcare initiative started a process that comes to fruition under a second Democrat, then why can’t Bush be the start of a Republican 4T because the WOT he began comes to a successful conclusion under a second Republican.