09-10-2022, 04:46 PM
I hope that I don't seem to toot my own horn, but 10,000 posts (granted, they are terribly and probably infamously uneven in quality, and I hardly claim to be better reading than anything on even the fringe of the literary canon. Then again, Mike Royko is no longer around. I can only imagine how he, as a Ukrainian-American, would skewer Vladimir Putin. He is one of my models as a writer.
Here's my first, really a discussion of the theory as it applies to life (Yawn!):
again, more theory than anything else applied to a generational trend:
my third, suggesting similar results from Presidents with similar temperaments even if those Presidents have little in common in personal lives, educational backgrounds, careers before electoral politics, and great difference in political careers -- and above all, ethnicity and partisan identity. Someone will likely steal this. I do not make a living as a writer, but whoever does... my name is Paul Brower and I would like some credit:
Few people would have foreseen that Americans would elect the son of an African immigrant and a white woman as President much before early 2008. That says much about Obama. Then again, that he got re-elected says much about him. The Eisenhower-Obama sort of President is the second-best sort of President we could have, following only "Mount Rushmore and FDR". The generational theory can explain much, including electoral patterns over sixty. (Taft, Ike, and Obama also match up surprisingly well over a century.
....The big topic of 2016 was the Presidential election. Aside from gutter racists even more strident than he and the putrid Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Donald Trump may have been the slimiest figure to ever appear so high in politics. Ross Perot may have been cranky, but Trump left all sorts of warning signs.
Abusive spouses are charming all the way through the honeymoon.
Here's my first, really a discussion of the theory as it applies to life (Yawn!):
Quote:People who went through the Great Depression and the Second World War (meaning generations before Boomers) often came to recognize that strong beliefs themselves could be dangerous. The fascists really believed in what they did -- even their mass murders, pseudo-medical experiments, and of course racial supremacy. Communists certainly believed strongly in the 'need ' for world (Socialist) revolution. People who believed nothing strongly would not drift too far from the American Dream circa 1950 -- doing one's job, getting well paid for it, and finding meaning in life solely in material gain and indulgence. Even family life was predicated upon uncritical acceptance of unfulfilling jobs that put food on the table and a car in the garage.
Boomers took this all for granted and saw the faults. Not knowing the Crisis of 1940 they could be more reckless in their views of the world.
again, more theory than anything else applied to a generational trend:
Quote:Economic inequality typically intensifies during a 3T. The culture becomes more attuned to the idea that top-down economic growth (often known as "trickle-down") succeeds in creating wealth that the culture deems unsuited for criticism for ethical failures. Immigration (employers preferring to get labor on the cheap love to import workers) rises during a 3T, and the part that goes into employment depresses wages. Social cohesion and institutional trust weaken except in Big Business.
So what happens? Business promotes debased culture because such is profitable. Labor unions weaken. Education becomes vocational in focus. Hustles flourish, and toward the end of the 3T a bubble economy develops. The bubble devours capital, depressing investment in plant and equipment while feeding a speculative boom. In the Double-Zero decade as well as the 1920s the bubble was real estate.
"The Good Lord isn't making any more real estate" becomes a rationale for pricing real estate into the stratosphere. But anything can be priced into the realm of absurdity. The last buyer gets stuck with something supremely costly but suddenly worth far less. Stock market crashes as severe as those of 1929 and 2008 ensue.
my third, suggesting similar results from Presidents with similar temperaments even if those Presidents have little in common in personal lives, educational backgrounds, careers before electoral politics, and great difference in political careers -- and above all, ethnicity and partisan identity. Someone will likely steal this. I do not make a living as a writer, but whoever does... my name is Paul Brower and I would like some credit:
Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.
It may be premature, but I expect historians to hold Eisenhower and Obama similar in quality.
Despite the great differences in curriculae vitae, Eisenhower and Obama seem to have something very much in common: both are members of Reactive generations. 60-ish Reactives (George Washington, John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower) may be the best sorts of leaders that Reactive leaders can be: cautious, mellow, respectful of precedent, and more trusting in legality than in the contemporary passion. Even if Barack Obama is one of the youngest Presidents ever elected and won't reach or surpass 60 as President (barring an amendment to undo the 22nd Amendment) he seems to act like someone in his sixties.
(The worst Reactive leaders are amoral, angry, cynical, bigoted leaders with an agenda of seeking revenge against real and imagined personal enemies -- like Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, puppets of tyrannical leaders such as Vidkun Quisling and Mátyás Rákosi, and such brutal functionaries of tyrants as Andrei Vishinsky and Lavrenti Beria). When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.
The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once
No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.
(This site uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans... I do not make waves about that in that website).
To be sure, one would expect any winning President to win almost entirely states that FDR won in 1936 (all then voting except Vermont and Maine), that Nixon won in 1972 (all but Massachusetts), or Reagan won in 1980 (all but Minnesota). But the overlay between Obama and Eisenhower fits far better includes all four such states that FDR, Nixon, and Reagan won in nearly-complete wins of the entire USA. As another coincidence, Eisenhower was the first Republican to win Virginia since 1928 (24 years) and Obama was the first Democrat to win the Old Dominion since 1964 (44 years) -- and both won the state twice.
Now, Carter vs. Obama:
If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:
Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012
Carter 1976, Obama twice red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue
....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas. Barring a major realignment of the states in partisan identity or an electoral blowout, Republicans are unlikely to win more than a state or two in white and Democrats are unlikely to win more than a state or two in yellow for the next couple of decades..
Few people would have foreseen that Americans would elect the son of an African immigrant and a white woman as President much before early 2008. That says much about Obama. Then again, that he got re-elected says much about him. The Eisenhower-Obama sort of President is the second-best sort of President we could have, following only "Mount Rushmore and FDR". The generational theory can explain much, including electoral patterns over sixty. (Taft, Ike, and Obama also match up surprisingly well over a century.
....The big topic of 2016 was the Presidential election. Aside from gutter racists even more strident than he and the putrid Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Donald Trump may have been the slimiest figure to ever appear so high in politics. Ross Perot may have been cranky, but Trump left all sorts of warning signs.
Abusive spouses are charming all the way through the honeymoon.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.