I have a feeling that today (or yesterday) is probably a huge generational shift.

[Cocoa_Puff]

I'm not sure if anyone born after this D.C. controversy can be Gen Z. Forget the end of COVID-19. I definitely think this is a true shift, although the whole 2020 election fiasco was. 2021 onward is definitely Gen Alpha imo. The start of Gen Z varies. It could probably be somewhere between 1997 and 2003. Nowhere past 2003 imo (they would not be able to vote in 2020 and would not be adults until afterwards, starting their adult lives in a new era), although 2001 is probably the best start date. Gen Z is probably 2001-2020 (the first two decades of the new millennium, from the beginning of the new millennium and Bush inauguration, as well as 9/11 upto COVID-19, the 2020 election and the D.C. controversy). Millennials are roughly 1982-2000 and are experiencing their 20s and 30s during these unfortunate times.

By the way, this is just my personal opinion so take this with a grain of salt.

[pbrower2a]

Welcome! So you found a way to navigate around the spam! I congratulate you!

9/11 will be twenty years in the past on September 11, 2021, and that is enough time for youth to fully reach adulthood without having it seared into individual or collective consciousness. More significant for the cohorts born between 2001 and now will be the disruption that COVID-19 inflicts on rites of passage that usually appear at set times. There will be school, childhood clubs, religious ceremonies, and the usual coming-of-age events. The only coming-of-age event that ill not be disrupted is voting.

Figuring that COVID-19 messes up one year of K-12 education, kids who used to graduate at 18 will often graduate at age 19. Figuring that a summer vacation can distract from learning in some environments and being an enriching experience in others... we are going to see greater disparities in educational results.

..............................

January 6, 2021 will be one of the most remarkable days in American history for rioters disrupting a usually-sedate but essential ceremony, the official count of electoral votes. We will not know the full effects for some time We all knew that Donald Trump would be a one-term President once the vote started coming in from such places as Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh. More was decided in the last spill-over of the 2020 election, to wit two run-off special elections in Georgia for two Senate seats. Those would decide the effective majority in the US Senate

I predict that the cult of personality associated with Donald Trump has shattered, and the extreme polarization that has bedeviled American politics for about twenty years may start to recede. We may be seeing the final stage of the Crisis of 2020. The end is nigh for COVID-19 (if hardly nigh enough for my taste, which means that I get the vaccine), and if its killing is on the scale of a modern "shooting war" is not yet over, it is easy to imagine the end of carnage that competent leadership can hardly avoid treating as a war. Donald Trump looks to become a scapegoat for much that has gone wrong in this Crisis from COVID-19 to the perverse spectacle in the Capitol building. People who thought that they could use him seem to be ditching him.

Will the worst trends of the last forty years vanish? Bad habits that precipitate a Crisis Era force their repudiation. I can start with the 2T "Multiversity" that turns a college education from a rigid program of courses likely to improve a youth and make him or her an inchoate leader (whether as a CPA, shop steward, clergy, nurse, research scientist...) who recognizes that there is more to life than bureaucratic power, material indulgence. sex, intoxicants, and mass low culture. What sort of education does one need to value such things? None at all! To be sure, bureaucratic power typically requires a college degree as proof of ability to cope with... well, bureaucracy. This said, the Boomer executives that many of us know too well have waxed rich by treating workers badly. I question how sustainable that is.

Maybe we go from plutocracy to a social market.

[Cocoa_Puff]

(01-08-2021, 01:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Welcome! So you found a way to navigate around the spam! I congratulate you!

9/11 will be twenty years in the past on  September 11, 2021, and that is enough time for youth to fully reach adulthood without having it seared into individual or collective consciousness. More significant for the cohorts born between 2001 and now will be the disruption that COVID-19 inflicts on rites of passage that usually appear at set times. There will be school, childhood clubs, religious ceremonies, and the usual coming-of-age events. The only coming-of-age event that ill not be disrupted is voting.

Figuring that COVID-19 messes up one year of K-12 education, kids who used to graduate at 18 will often graduate at age 19. Figuring that a summer vacation can distract from learning in some environments and being an enriching experience in others... we are going to see greater disparities in educational results.

..............................    

January 6, 2021 will be one of the most remarkable days in American history for rioters disrupting a usually-sedate but essential ceremony, the official count of electoral votes. We will not know the full effects for some time We all knew that Donald Trump would be a one-term President once the vote started coming in from such places as Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh. More was decided in the last spill-over of the 2020 election, to wit two run-off special elections in Georgia for two Senate seats. Those would decide the effective majority in the US Senate

I predict that the cult of personality associated with Donald Trump has shattered, and the extreme polarization that has bedeviled American politics for about twenty years may start to recede.   We may be seeing the final stage of the Crisis of 2020. The end is nigh for COVID-19 (if hardly nigh enough for my taste, which means that I get the vaccine), and if its killing is on the scale of a modern "shooting war" is not yet over, it is easy to imagine the end of carnage that competent leadership can hardly avoid treating as a war. Donald Trump looks to become a scapegoat  for much that has gone wrong in this Crisis from COVID-19 to the perverse spectacle in the Capitol building. People who thought that they could use him seem to be ditching him.  

Will the worst trends of the last forty years vanish? Bad habits that precipitate a Crisis Era force their repudiation. I can start with the 2T "Multiversity" that turns a college education from a rigid program of courses likely to improve a youth and make him or her an inchoate leader (whether as a CPA, shop steward, clergy, nurse, research scientist...) who recognizes that there is more to life than bureaucratic power, material indulgence. sex, intoxicants, and mass low culture. What sort of education does one need to value such things? None at all! To be sure, bureaucratic power typically requires a college degree as proof of ability to cope with... well, bureaucracy. This said, the Boomer executives that many of us know too well have waxed rich by treating workers badly. I question how sustainable that is.

Maybe we go from plutocracy to a social market.

Thanks. I appreciate it. January 6, 2021 will definitely go down as one of the most infamous days in American history. I wonder if this could be a possible marker for determining the Millennial/Gen Z cutoff.

[David Horn]

(01-07-2021, 04:13 AM)Cocoa_Puff Wrote: I'm not sure if anyone born after this D.C. controversy can be Gen Z. Forget the end of COVID-19. I definitely think this is a true shift, although the whole 2020 election fiasco was. 2021 onward is definitely Gen Alpha imo. The start of Gen Z varies. It could probably be somewhere between 1997 and 2003. Nowhere past 2003 imo (they would not be able to vote in 2020 and would not be adults until afterwards, starting their adult lives in a new era), although 2001 is probably the best start date. Gen Z is probably 2001-2020 (the first two decades of the new millennium, from the beginning of the new millennium and Bush inauguration, as well as 9/11 upto COVID-19, the 2020 election and the D.C. controversy). Millennials are roughly 1982-2000 and are experiencing their 20s and 30s during these unfortunate times.

By the way, this is just my personal opinion so take this with a grain of salt.

This isn't over yet.  A similar incident occurred under US Grant, when the Louisiana Capitol was overrun, and Grant responded with troops and ended the problem.  None of the perpetrators were punished, so they tried again 4 years later and succeeded.  That was the beginning of the end of Reconstruction.  After that, the South toppled like dominoes, and Jim Crow moved in for the duration.  

Watch how this ends, not how it begins.

[Cocoa_Puff]

(01-08-2021, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-07-2021, 04:13 AM)Cocoa_Puff Wrote: I'm not sure if anyone born after this D.C. controversy can be Gen Z. Forget the end of COVID-19. I definitely think this is a true shift, although the whole 2020 election fiasco was. 2021 onward is definitely Gen Alpha imo. The start of Gen Z varies. It could probably be somewhere between 1997 and 2003. Nowhere past 2003 imo (they would not be able to vote in 2020 and would not be adults until afterwards, starting their adult lives in a new era), although 2001 is probably the best start date. Gen Z is probably 2001-2020 (the first two decades of the new millennium, from the beginning of the new millennium and Bush inauguration, as well as 9/11 upto COVID-19, the 2020 election and the D.C. controversy). Millennials are roughly 1982-2000 and are experiencing their 20s and 30s during these unfortunate times.

By the way, this is just my personal opinion so take this with a grain of salt.

This isn't over yet.  A similar incident occurred under US Grant, when the Louisiana Capitol was overrun, and Grant responded with troops and ended the problem.  None of the perpetrators were punished, so they tried again 4 years later and succeeded.  That was the beginning of the end of Reconstruction.  After that, the South toppled like dominoes, and Jim Crow moved in for the duration.  

Watch how this ends, not how it begins.

That's very interesting. So you are saying that we should wait this out a little while before we can have any legit evidence as to what will be historically defining or something along those lines? I guess we do need to wait a little more but for now, I could at the very least make a guess as to how the generational boundaries will look like.

[David Horn]

(01-08-2021, 01:23 PM)Cocoa_Puff Wrote:

(01-08-2021, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-07-2021, 04:13 AM)Cocoa_Puff Wrote: I'm not sure if anyone born after this D.C. controversy can be Gen Z. Forget the end of COVID-19. I definitely think this is a true shift, although the whole 2020 election fiasco was. 2021 onward is definitely Gen Alpha imo. The start of Gen Z varies. It could probably be somewhere between 1997 and 2003. Nowhere past 2003 imo (they would not be able to vote in 2020 and would not be adults until afterwards, starting their adult lives in a new era), although 2001 is probably the best start date. Gen Z is probably 2001-2020 (the first two decades of the new millennium, from the beginning of the new millennium and Bush inauguration, as well as 9/11 upto COVID-19, the 2020 election and the D.C. controversy). Millennials are roughly 1982-2000 and are experiencing their 20s and 30s during these unfortunate times.

By the way, this is just my personal opinion so take this with a grain of salt.

This isn't over yet.  A similar incident occurred under US Grant, when the Louisiana Capitol was overrun, and Grant responded with troops and ended the problem.  None of the perpetrators were punished, so they tried again 4 years later and succeeded.  That was the beginning of the end of Reconstruction.  After that, the South toppled like dominoes, and Jim Crow moved in for the duration.  

Watch how this ends, not how it begins.

That's very interesting. So you are saying that we should wait this out a little while before we can have any legit evidence as to what will be historically defining or something along those lines? I guess we do need to wait a little more but for now, I could at the very least make a guess as to how the generational boundaries will look like.

Yes you can.  

[mamabug]

New here - I was part of the very first 4th Turning forums many years ago, left when it started dying off. The events of this year have been bringing it all back. For reference I am an old, mid-wave Gen X'er on the libertarian side who is old enough to remember the end of the last Awakening and has seen first-hand how the country has changed around me.

It is clear to me that we are just entering the crux of the crisis period. The country is still roughly split 50/50 between two sides that both feel threatened by each others existence and it will only get worse now that one side effectively controls the media, Hollywood, academia, Wall Street, and all three branches of federal government. The crisis can't end until either one side is so thoroughly decimated that they no longer exist OR a social compromise is reached that purges the extremists on one end while allowing the rest to hold on to the social structures and values most important to them. For the former example, see Stalin literally killing any opposition. For the latter, see the end of reconstruction and beginning of Jim Crow. They extremely hyperbolic and hypocritical reactions to the events in D.C. on both sides illustrate that we are nowhere near a compromise.

Artist generations continue to be born until at least two years before the actual end of the crisis. The question is whether 2022 or 2024 is more likely to mark the end of it and the beginning of the high. How the administration in power handles dissent over the next 2-4 years will be the key to determining not just when the crisis ends but also what the high will look like.

[pbrower2a]

Infamous -- but a tipping point in the generational cycle. Trump still had support large enough that he was within a 1.18% even swing of the popular vote of winning the Presidential election and keeping a Republican majority in the Senate. We had a President with an authoritarian-style cult of personality, and we can only imagine what a Second Term would be like. He had the audacity to believe that he won, and by a landslide no less except for pervasive vote fraud.

He has disgraced himself in ways that few of us though possible. But now we know why there were still Trump rallies. I would not be surprised that some of the people in the post-election rallies that I saw had gone to Washington, DC yesterday (but I am not going to accuse them of going into the Capitol Building   to wreak havoc.

We may be learning a few things from this ugliness. First, we must not raise kids to be like Donald Trump, a shallow man with a hair-trigger temper and unable to defer to scientific truth, objective evidence, and ordinary decencies of behavior. Second, we must raise any future children to face the civic responsibility of electing politicians who are not demagogues. (I am sure that the Millennial vote went strongly against Trump).

Trump did not appear in a political vacuum. He is the Presidential expression of the Tea Party movement that flipped the House of Representatives in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. He had the backing of people who believe that the sting of poverty is just the thing to compel greater productivity and loyalty to bosses who get paid well for treating workers badly.      

Well, maybe we can't blame him for educational content above K-12 that does nothing to build character and establish suitable values for leaders. We can't blame him for the speculative boom on shady lending in the Double-Zero decade that led to the Panic of 2008 which looked much like the first year and a half following the crazy activity in the securities markets in summer 1929 (1929 and 2007 were the peaks, and the real crashes came in 130 and 2008, respectively).  

Two years after Pearl Harbor the US had started to liberate Italy (and it was a liberation)whittling away at the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and started collecting troops for the D-Day onslaught (and death blow in the west upon the Third Reich) while delivering much-needed food and truckis to the Soviet Union -- which needed them.   Four years after Pearl Harbor, Hitler and Mussolini would be dead and Tojo would be in custodyFiguring that financial panics typically define the start of a Crisis Era, we are likely in the equivalent of 1943.

The political crisis is over.



Tough luck to this @$$hole! At least one moron brought in a Confederate flag.

[David Horn]

(01-08-2021, 02:20 PM)mamabug Wrote: New here - I was part of the very first 4th Turning forums many years ago, left when it started dying off.  The events of this year have been bringing it all back.  For reference I am an old, mid-wave Gen X'er on the libertarian side who is old enough to remember the end of the last Awakening and has seen first-hand how the country has changed around me.

It is clear to me that we are just entering the crux of the crisis period.  The country is still roughly split 50/50 between two sides that both feel threatened by each others existence and it will only get worse now that one side effectively controls the media, Hollywood, academia, Wall Street, and all three branches of federal government. The crisis can't end until either one side is so thoroughly decimated that they no longer exist OR a social compromise is reached that purges the extremists on one end while allowing the rest to hold on to the social structures and values most important to them.  For the former example, see Stalin literally killing any opposition.  For the latter, see the end of reconstruction and beginning of Jim Crow.  They extremely hyperbolic and hypocritical reactions to the events in D.C. on both sides illustrate that we are nowhere near a compromise.

Artist generations continue to be born until at least two years before the actual end of the crisis.  The question is whether 2022 or 2024 is more likely to mark the end of it and the beginning of the high.  How the administration in power handles dissent over the next 2-4 years will be the key to determining not just when the crisis ends but also what the high will look like.

Welcome back! You ask a good question, but one with no immediate answer.  The Crisis continues, at least for awhile.  So far, we've only dealt with a single demagogue, and he's only one of many crises (small 'c') that need attending -- as you inferred.  2022 is certainly the earliest. If you follow Eric the Green's reasoning, 2028 is more likely.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Mamabug, this culture wars chasm was mentioned in American Nations. The author suggested that the one common ground-the one course of action-that could be agreed would be decentralization of the country.

Decentralization of the USA would involve loosening up the federal structure, giving more autonomy to different areas. Which might work this time around, as we lack an issue as inflammatory as slavery was.

[Eric the Green]

(01-09-2021, 09:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-08-2021, 02:20 PM)mamabug Wrote: New here - I was part of the very first 4th Turning forums many years ago, left when it started dying off.  The events of this year have been bringing it all back.  For reference I am an old, mid-wave Gen X'er on the libertarian side who is old enough to remember the end of the last Awakening and has seen first-hand how the country has changed around me.

It is clear to me that we are just entering the crux of the crisis period.  The country is still roughly split 50/50 between two sides that both feel threatened by each others existence and it will only get worse now that one side effectively controls the media, Hollywood, academia, Wall Street, and all three branches of federal government. The crisis can't end until either one side is so thoroughly decimated that they no longer exist OR a social compromise is reached that purges the extremists on one end while allowing the rest to hold on to the social structures and values most important to them.  For the former example, see Stalin literally killing any opposition.  For the latter, see the end of reconstruction and beginning of Jim Crow.  They extremely hyperbolic and hypocritical reactions to the events in D.C. on both sides illustrate that we are nowhere near a compromise.

Artist generations continue to be born until at least two years before the actual end of the crisis.  The question is whether 2022 or 2024 is more likely to mark the end of it and the beginning of the high.  How the administration in power handles dissent over the next 2-4 years will be the key to determining not just when the crisis ends but also what the high will look like.

Welcome back! You ask a good question, but one with no immediate answer.  The Crisis continues, at least for awhile.  So far, we've only dealt with a single demagogue, and he's only one of many crises (small 'c') that need attending -- as you inferred.  2022 is certainly the earliest. If you follow Eric the Green's reasoning, 2028 is more likely.

Yes, 2028, or 2029; I'm not sure which. Mr. Howe, the co-author of The Fourth Turning, says 2029. I think people here can look on Mr. Howe's determination with some respect, given that he and Mr. Strauss started this whole conversation.

What Tim suggests is also something I have suggested. Whether some kind of break-up happens remains to be seen. That decision will largely rest with the Republicans. They can continue to be deceived and loyal to their extremist ideologies and cults, or they can join in a center-left consensus dedicated to progress and solutions, which is what the other side of our divide wants and has tried to create for many decades, but which the right-wing has blocked for 40 years now.

We are entering the crux of the Crisis indeed. But the climax will not come until mid-decade. That is when Gen Alpha will start coming in. Gen Z starts in about 2003-2004.

The Crisis will get better, the more that the blue side gains control. 4Ts have never been resolved by both sides compromising. That is not how a 4T works. Our two sides currently cannot come together; one must be defeated. How violent that contest becomes lies entirely in the hands of the right-wing and the alt-right. 

The right-wing does not now have the level of control that you say, mamabug. The filibuster is still in place and can continue to block any progress as it has done all during these last 40 years of stalemate and regression, whenever Democrats had any degree of power. The left does not control media and Hollywood to the extent you say mamabug. The right-wing still has many outlets, such as talk radio, Fox News, the podcasts etc. Most of the rest of the news media is non-partisan and fact-based. Academia as always is dedicated to a search for good education and research; it is non-partisan, except that since it is dedicated to truth and facts, it tends to go Democratic because that is where the truth and the facts are. Wall Street is certainly the headquarters of the right-wing oligarchy, which still effectively buys and controls the country thanks in part to the right-wing supreme court, which now can block any progressive legislation that it wants to block. The stalemate between the two sides continues, for now.

The crisis can only end when one side wins. If the blue side wins, we move on into a reasonable consensus that sustains some progress. If the red side wins, we slide further and quickly into banana republic status and the problems engulf us and leave us without any recourse. The break-up of the country may be the only way that both sides can win, if the red side can't be defeated.

In the previous Crisis that resembles ours, that is basically what happened; although the break-up only happened 12 years into the 1T, in 1877, when Reconstruction ended and Dixie was allowed to resume its hateful and oppressive ways. Our country remains divided this way to this day, and we face the challenge of what to do about this once more.

[Marypoza]

(01-09-2021, 04:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, 2028, or 2029; I'm not sure which. Mr. Howe, the co-author of The Fourth Turning, says 2029. I think people here can look on Mr. Howe's determination with some respect, given that he and Mr. Strauss started this whole conversation.

What Tim suggests is also something I have suggested. Whether some kind of break-up happens remains to be seen. That decision will largely rest with the Republicans. They can continue to be deceived and loyal to their extremist ideologies and cults, or they can join in a center-left consensus dedicated to progress and solutions, which is what the other side of our divide wants and has tried to create for many decades, but which the right-wing has blocked for 40 years now.
We are entering the crux of the Crisis indeed. But the climax 

 -- while there has certainly been talk of secession, the problem, as l see it, is that the Govt has bases in just about every state. So in order 2 successfully secede the seceding state(s) would have 2 kick the military personnel off those bases & l don't think a state militia/National Guard/whatever is up 2 the task

[mamabug]

(01-08-2021, 02:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Two years after Pearl Harbor the US had started to liberate Italy (and it was a liberation)whittling away at the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and started collecting troops for the D-Day onslaught (and death blow in the west upon the Third Reich) while delivering much-needed food and truckis to the Soviet Union -- which needed them.   Four years after Pearl Harbor, Hitler and Mussolini would be dead and Tojo would be in custodyFiguring that financial panics typically define the start of a Crisis Era, we are likely in the equivalent of 1943.

The political crisis is over.

I think this is incredibly over optimistic.  You can't use the Great Powers cycle to predict potential outcomes as that one had far, far, less internecine conflict.  In fact, most of the out-groups from the start were viewed as external foes - fascists, communists, immigrants, etc. - which made the chosen scapegoats something that needed to be ejected, not rooted out.  Also, the culmination of the crisis was via an external war, which allowed for reconciliation of those previously in the out-group back into the fold.

 I'm not sure our current situation is analogous to any of the ones we've experienced in the past, but I am sure we are nowhere close to 1943 (a united America fighting an external enemy as the internal crisis comes to a close).  We could be closer to 1864/5 or 1789 France depending on how far away the end of the crisis is and how well the left maintains it's current state of social cohesion.  If, in the coming months, there is the out-grouping of even moderate conservatives intensifies and the out-grouping of centrists and the center-left begins, then it would indicate to me that we are closer to a 'Revolution' cycle - which should concern anyone concerned that basic civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be secure for all people and not just those on the 'right' side.

[Warren Dew]

(01-09-2021, 04:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, 2028, or 2029; I'm not sure which. Mr. Howe, the co-author of The Fourth Turning, says 2029. I think people here can look on Mr. Howe's determination with some respect, given that he and Mr. Strauss started this whole conversation.

I think of Howe as the lightweight of the Strauss/Howe pair, just as Murray seemed to be the lightweight of the Herrnstein/Murray pair.  If you have independent reason to believe in 2028 or 2029, I'd be interested.

I feel like 2028 is late in the cycle - it would make Zoomers Millenials - but on the other hand, the likely Biden wins in 2020 and 2024 do conform to George Friedman's timetable as well, and he also predicts 2028 will be the turning point based on mostly separate theories.

January 6 is an indicator of what the crisis is about, but certainly not a turning point.  It didn't even delay the counting of electoral votes by a day, let alone change them.  Don't expect Alphas to start getting born for some years.

A compromise along the lines of greater devolution in our Federal system, like the Compromise of 1876, can happen in a first turning but not in a fourth turning.  Arguably it can only happen in a first turning.  So, it may happen, but in the 2040s, not the 2020s.

People are still thinking in terms of traditional Republicans and Democrats.  This is like thinking of the Civil War in terms of Whigs versus Democrats.  Both Whigs and Democrats had members that supported and opposed slavery; it wasn't until the Republican party formed that the party lines matched the slavery divide - along with the divide on tariffs for those who think that was the reason for the Civil War - and even then it was imperfect.

This time around, it will be workers versus globalists.  With Biden, and with the alignment of the Tech monopolists with the Democratic party, it appears the Democrats will be the globalist party.

During the gunpowder era, the workers would have won, because gunpowder wars were won by the larger army.  With the current dominance of nuclear weapons and cyber warfare, the globalists might win instead.  If that happens, we can say goodbye to democracy and individual rights.

[pbrower2a]

History moves slowly throughout most of a Crisis, but toward the end the glacial pace breaks and history moves fast. Consider that when the Wehrmacht was at its greatest distance (Krasnodar and Stalingrad, and Nazi units had planted a swastika flag on Mount Elbrus on the current Russian-Georgian border) it was closer in time to defending Berlin than it was to the invasion of Poland. Blunders and miscalculations play their role. 

Events of January 6 suggest that political change can be sharp and sudden. The putsch of Trump supporters,  had it succeeded in its objective, would have established a Trump dictatorship. Nullification of an election and suppression of the opposition make the dictatorship possible and certain.

[mamabug]

(01-11-2021, 09:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The putsch of Trump supporters,  had it succeeded in its objective, would have established a Trump dictatorship. 

Jan 6 was not a putsch, it was not a coup, and had it 'succeeded' it would have resulted in precisely nothing.  To count it as an actual threat is to believe that establishing Chaz was equivalent to the South seceding.  Neither event had the actors involved who were remotely close to having the ability to grab hold of and maintain control over the levers of power and both were easily suppressed once the actual powers in this country chose to do so.  The one thing both groups learned is that their actions will only be tolerated as long as they don't impact our betters (cf: what happened to Chaz after they marched on the mayor's house).  

I'm in agreement with Warren that thinking of this as a Republican v. Democrat battle is a fallacy.  The real ideological split that is threatening to break is within the Democrat party itself.  There was a reason the establishment dragged Biden out of retirement to run.  There is a reason neither he nor Pelosi plan to continue their political careers past the next 2-4 years.  Revolutionary eras always begin with an attempt to compromise, which is exactly what the Biden-Harris administration was positioned as.  A sharp divide runs down the middle of the democrat base, as seen by how Biden's win did nothing to lessen ongoing protests.  Unless he can manage to stabilize the center (the true center, not just the Center-left) and exert firm control over the party's more extremist elements, this is the likely true battle of the 4T and how it will play out is anyone's guess.  

That we have yet to see the emergence of a true Visionary leader that will layout a plan for America's future is concerning.  Most of the proposals being discussed are just variations on the continual late 3T to 4T subjects of healthcare, gun control and climate change.  No great ideal, bigger picture, or inspiring slogan.

Although, I recognize I could be 100% wrong and the Crisis is nearing it's conclusion.  In which case, I'm kind of happy that this was as bad as the Civil War 2.0 got.  I can live with people being banned from twitter as the worst consequence because, within about 10 years, our lovely little artists will start telling us how wrong we are to do that and begin opening society up again.

[Warren Dew]

(01-11-2021, 07:03 PM)mamabug Wrote: That we have yet to see the emergence of a true Visionary leader that will layout a plan for America's future is concerning.  Most of the proposals being discussed are just variations on the continual late 3T to 4T subjects of healthcare, gun control and climate change.  No great ideal, bigger picture, or inspiring slogan.

I think the visionary aspect is only apparent in hindsight.  "A chicken in every pot" is hardly inspiring, and Roosevelt bumbled along for almost a decade in the Great Depression before WWII came along.

Why do you think the conflict will be a division within the Democratic party rather than a realignment?

[Eric the Green]

(01-11-2021, 07:03 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-11-2021, 09:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The putsch of Trump supporters,  had it succeeded in its objective, would have established a Trump dictatorship. 

Jan 6 was not a putsch, it was not a coup, and had it 'succeeded' it would have resulted in precisely nothing.  To count it as an actual threat is to believe that establishing Chaz was equivalent to the South seceding.  Neither event had the actors involved who were remotely close to having the ability to grab hold of and maintain control over the levers of power and both were easily suppressed once the actual powers in this country chose to do so.  The one thing both groups learned is that their actions will only be tolerated as long as they don't impact our betters (cf: what happened to Chaz after they marched on the mayor's house).  

I'm in agreement with Warren that thinking of this as a Republican v. Democrat battle is a fallacy.  The real ideological split that is threatening to break is within the Democrat party itself.  There was a reason the establishment dragged Biden out of retirement to run.  There is a reason neither he nor Pelosi plan to continue their political careers past the next 2-4 years.  Revolutionary eras always begin with an attempt to compromise, which is exactly what the Biden-Harris administration was positioned as.  A sharp divide runs down the middle of the democrat base, as seen by how Biden's win did nothing to lessen ongoing protests.  Unless he can manage to stabilize the center (the true center, not just the Center-left) and exert firm control over the party's more extremist elements, this is the likely true battle of the 4T and how it will play out is anyone's guess.  

That we have yet to see the emergence of a true Visionary leader that will layout a plan for America's future is concerning.  Most of the proposals being discussed are just variations on the continual late 3T to 4T subjects of healthcare, gun control and climate change.  No great ideal, bigger picture, or inspiring slogan.

Although, I recognize I could be 100% wrong and the Crisis is nearing it's conclusion.  In which case, I'm kind of happy that this was as bad as the Civil War 2.0 got.  I can live with people being banned from twitter as the worst consequence because, within about 10 years, our lovely little artists will start telling us how wrong we are to do that and begin opening society up again.

I don't know what "establishing Chaz" means. Is this some internet gaming term only millennials understand? Why assume boomers would know what it is? Don't worry, I'm not angry just sarcastic.

I think Democrats on the Left are so used to buckling under and going along with the center-left that they will never change. They are used to it. These days, the issues are so pressing that the two wings are not that far apart. The times demand radical change after 40 years of regression and stalemate. The Democrats know they need to act as a bloc now, because the right-wing is so fanatical and so monolithic it's the only way they can win.

I don't know yet if this is a revolutionary era. If so, then it can only mean that the Left is able to foment and organize one. That would mean it takes over the Democratic Party, not get firm control exerted over it. How revolutionary it is will depend on the Right-wing, the Republican Party. How much they are able to block, will determine how far the Democrats need to push to get them out of the f**king way.

Banning seditionists and nazis from social media is hardly closing up society that artists will open up. Gen Z fully supports and will fully support liberation from the Trumpists and neo-liberals.

I don't think there is any other vision than what has been described since the 1960s. It probably won't take a visionary. Just a likable Democratic candidate who gives the impression of being a leader. Several candidates are available. The biggest danger to our future today is that the Democrats might choose the wrong candidate (Kamala Harris).

[mamabug]

[quote pid='73308' dateline='1610424582']

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't know what "establishing Chaz" means. Is this some internet gaming term only millennials understand? Why assume boomers would know what it is? Don't worry, I'm not angry just sarcastic.

Hah!  I'm definitely not a Millenial, I am slap dab in the middle of Gen X which is probably why I have a 'pox on both your houses' approach to the current political situation.  

CHAZ = Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (or CHOP with the last two for Occupied Precinct or something? I only use the first because it captures the Monty Pythonesque, neo-60's vibe of the whole thing).  It was a 6 block occupied area of Seattle back around June or so that managed to push out the police and declare themselves independent of the USA.  Right wing media was full of condemnation and acted as if it was the rising of the South all over again.  Mostly, it was what happens anytime there's an open air festival in a nice Seattle summer - a bunch of earth children crawling out from their caves to dance in the sun, smoke weed, and talk about the coming utopia.  God, I miss Folklife Festival.  

There were some aspects to it that were disturbing, but I attribute that to the fact that the city essentially allowed the area to operate as an anarchy and the protesters, who had not really planned to occupy anything, were unable to self-govern effectively.  Four people were killed over the course of it, including one African American teenager who had chosen to go joyriding that the self-appointed militia thought was a Proud Boy.  Not exactly the city's finest hour, but the hands off approach was probably the best (although it didn't work as well for Mayor Wheeler down south).

Anyway, the whole thing ended after the self-professed communist council woman led the protesters to first occupy city hall and then march on the mayor's house.  Also, a bunch of businesses started suing the city for essentially providing services to support the protestors (who were also blocking traffic and pedestrians from freely entering the neighborhood) which was hard for the businesses already suffering under some of the stricter lockdowns in the nation.  Even though they supported the protesters ('cause Seattle), they wanted the city to take back control.  About a day after that, the city dismantled the barricades and moved the protesters out to little fanfare.

Anyway, that all occurred a short drive North from me so it was a major story from my perspective. 

Quote:I think Democrats on the Left are so used to buckling under and going along with the center-left that they will never change. They are used to it. These days, the issues are so pressing that the two wings are not that far apart. The times demand radical change after 40 years of regression and stalemate. The Democrats know they need to act as a bloc now, because the right-wing is so fanatical and so monolithic it's the only way they can win.

I hope so.  Maybe it is my Pac NW location, but we tend towards the more radical wing so they may seem to have more influence to me than they actually do.  I mean, the city trash collectors were authorized by the council to peek in people's recycle bins and leave polite little notes if they aren't doing it properly and, as I mentioned, there's an open communist on our city council.  Being close to Portland, I have seen antifa (and their anarchist predecessors from the 90's) up front at local protests and these guys are NOT an idea and they are NOT peaceful.  I don't like how, during an election year, the establishment appears to let them out of their box to play because I fear that one day they won't go back in.

Yes, I'm cynical about party leadership on both sides.  Did I mention I'm Gen X?

Quote:I don't know yet if this is a revolutionary era. If so, then it can only mean that the Left is able to foment and organize one. That would mean it takes over the Democratic Party, not get firm control exerted over it. How revolutionary it is will depend on the Right-wing, the Republican Party. How much they are able to block, will determine how far the Democrats need to push to get them out of the f**king way.

Agree that if this turns revolutionary, it will be the left.  How violent it gets is up in the air, I'm pretty sure the Bolshevik's didn't anticipate Stalin or the French Robespierre. The likely path would be a takeover of the Democrat party, but that doesn't mean only the Republicans will be on the chopping block.  They will come for Biden and Pelosi, they will come for Tulsi Gabbard, they will come for the libertarians, they will come for the classical liberals, hell - they will probably put Bezos' head on a pike in the middle of the former CHAZ for all we can guess.  That still remains my 'worst case' scenario but I can't yet take it off the table.

Quote:Banning seditionists and nazis from social media is hardly closing up society that artists will open up. Gen Z fully supports and will fully support liberation from the Trumpists and neo-liberals.

Many of the people caught up in the social media purges are neither seditionists (which, honestly, I think is a pretty high bar to clear in a country that believes in freedom to protest and free speech.  It is a law that has mostly been misused for political purposes or to boost a prosecutor's rep) nor white supremacists and all most of them are guilty of is unfavored speech.  Since these actions are being taken by private companies outside the protections of the first amendment, it makes everyone subject to their (and the twitter mob's) judgement of what groups should or should not be banned.  As economic actors, they are being pretty careful not to remove the biggest voices so they are only trimming the fringes (including some on the left).  We can't say when we will hit the low point in this pendulum swing so there is no guarantee that this, and no farther, is where things stop.

I seem to recall my Silent and Boomer teachers making us study this old poem that goes 'First they came for the Communists...' or something.  I'm sure whatever events it described ended well so I guess there's nothing to worry about.  

Artist generations are willing to extend whatever they see as essential human rights necessary for a just society first to people that are marginalized and then even to people they disagree with.  If access to social media is considered one of those rights, they will eventually let the actual white supremacists (if any still exist) back.  From the way my kid's cell phone appears to be surgically attached to his hand, they might actually end up believing that.

My Gen Z. kid considers Trump a horrible president but not actively evil and thinks most of the social justice things his friends instagram is ineffectual and kind of stupid, so the leading edge of the new Beatnik's are already out there.  Except for the alcohol and smoking, he is weirdly teetotalerish, but I swear that hi-fi/lo-fi/whatever-fi music he listens to is as incomprehensible to me as jazz was to my grandparents. (*round of snaps* ).

Quote:I don't think there is any other vision than what has been described since the 1960s. It probably won't take a visionary. Just a likable Democratic candidate who gives the impression of being a leader. Several candidates are available. The biggest danger to our future today is that the Democrats might choose the wrong candidate (Kamala Harris).

At least we agree on something, Kamala Harris is the worst.  Actually, the one who kind of scares me the most is AOC - not for her ideas but because I honestly don't think she is all that smart and I get the vibe of a classic Queen Bee mean girl from her.  I'd take a grifting opportunist like Kamala over her any day.

And, yea, by Visionary I meant a likeable Democratic candidate that most people are willing to follow even if they may not 100% agree with them on everything.  Sadly, one of the only national level dems who I actually find likeable was completely stomped on by her party and I don't know of any others.  I have a similar hard time picking out likeable politicians on the right, aside from those who are also marginalized by their party.  
[/quote]

[pbrower2a]

I don't know if it is coincidence, but Sheldon Adelson, the biggest single donor to the Trump campaign, just died at the age of 87. Sudden feelings of guilt can precipitate death among any people with pre-existing conditions, and "age 87" is about as pre-existing a condition as there is.