So...where exactly is our leadership?

[JasonBlack]

With support for government at an all time low among both Republicans and Democrats, and two presidents in a row with exceedingly low approval ratings, who is eventually going to fill the leadership vacuum? At present, we have the party that is supposed to be the steady hand of authority trying to play rebel, and the party which is supposed to be the rebel trying to play the hand of authority. 

If I'm being honest, I hate that I have to ask this question. Ideally, people would be adults with their own life missions, motivations and ability to make rational decisions, but realistically, most people need leaders to get them through crises. The "facts don't care about your feelings" angle most conservatives have taken is just not going to work for most people, especially not in a 4T. You can't solve political problems by only thinking about the perspective of people you like. 

On a less personal basis, when I look at history....the traits that make someone a strong, heroic leader and the traits that make someone a strong, despotic dictator have a disturbing amount of overlap, so the choice is between two options
1) an impotent leader who won't take the reigns of power or curb civil rights, but who is flaccid with regards to dealing with opposition or instigating real change
2) a leader with power and charisma who can rally people to solve problems...but whom you must take a leap of faith to support, because the chance that he'll become corrupt is always looming in the background. 
 

So tell me....who is exactly do we have to lead us? Trump? No. Biden? Hell no? Bitch McConnell or Pansy Pelosi? nope. Ben Shapiro or AOC? lmao. The mainstream cultures of the two political parties remind me of teenagers. The right are like rebellious teenage boys, the left like nagging, bratty and histrionic teenage girls. Do we have anyone truly inspiring? Someone who makes us feel mighty, powerful and motivated? Someone with vision that can bring together large factions from both wings of the political eagle? 

I have claimed to be a moderate on several occasions, but applies more to the policies that I want, not the personality I would like to see in a leader. Make no mistake, I want someone with balls, and at present, I see very few contenders, whether we're talking young heroes, middle aged family leaders or elder sages.

PS: I'm not necessarily asking for a single grey champion. Feel free to list potential leadership figures for a range of positions.

[JasonBlack]

The only two people I can think of who remotely embody this are Ron DeSantis and Tulsi Gabbard, and they're different enough that I think they could compliment each other nicely and appeal to a fairly wide audience if they ran on the same ticket.

[David Horn]

(11-11-2022, 06:35 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: On a less personal basis, when I look at history....the traits that make someone a strong, heroic leader and the traits that make someone a strong, despotic dictator have a disturbing amount of overlap, so the choice is between two options
1) an impotent leader who won't take the reigns of power or curb civil rights, but who is flaccid with regards to dealing with opposition or instigating real change
2) a leader with power and charisma who can rally people to solve problems...but whom you must take a leap of faith to support, because the chance that he'll become corrupt is always looming in the background. 
 

So tell me....who is exactly do we have to lead us? ...

I have claimed to be a moderate on several occasions, but applies more to the policies that I want, not the personality I would like to see in a leader. Make no mistake, I want someone with balls, and at present, I see very few contenders, whether we're talking young heroes, middle aged family leaders or elder sages.

PS: I'm not necessarily asking for a single grey champion. Feel free to list potential leadership figures for a range of positions.

(11-11-2022, 06:41 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: The only two people I can think of who remotely embody this are Ron DeSantis and Tulsi Gabbard, and they're different enough that I think they could compliment each other nicely and appeal to a fairly wide audience if they ran on the same ticket.

Wow ... just Wow.  First, Ron DeSantis is a faux populist with ivory tower credential (so is Glenn Youngkin, but you didn't mention him).  Ron DeSanctimonious is an apt name.  Even Trump hits one once in a while.  Then we have Tulsi Gabbard.  What the appeal is there is a total mystery.  She's a certified flake.  

More in line with the rubber actually meeting the road: Gretchen Whitmer.  She captained a clean sweep in a right-leaning swing state, and didn't break a sweat.  More to the point, she's a state-school graduate and fully blue collar to boot.

[nguyenivy]

At least around here on these forums, a DeSantis or other Gen X presidential win would be interesting given the timing (yes I know Obama was also technically X but he's on the cusp between Boomer & X). We may be seeing the beginnings of leadership finally passing onto the next generations after decades of Boomer/Silent leadership. We may not be fans of DeSantis's policies either during most of the COVID-19 pandemic or now, but maybe he was thinking of practicalities when he kept his state open. Maybe he was thinking 'What ways can we still function with this virus circulating around?' Here we are in 2022 with plenty of vaccines/boosters and the rest of the country probably has a similar line of thinking these days: 'We know it's circulating but we have vaccines/boosters people should be responsible to get so we can now safety get back to work.' Other parts of the world opened schools up sooner than some of the states in the USA once it became clear which demographics were statistically at highest and lowest risks.

[pbrower2a]

(11-11-2022, 06:35 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: With support for government at an all time low among both Republicans and Democrats, and two presidents in a row with exceedingly low approval ratings, who is eventually going to fill the leadership vacuum? At present, we have the party that is supposed to be the steady hand of authority trying to play rebel, and the party which is supposed to be the rebel trying to play the hand of authority.

I suspect that approval of President Biden is higher than the polls show, and in my opinion Donald Trump fails to merit whatever polling support he had in the latter stages of his Neronian Presidency. Trump violated too many fundamental rules of basic human dignity, including those that kids usually learn by the middle of elementary school.  His diplomacy was an unmitigated disaster for seeking ratification of his personality by rulers ordinarily hostile to the USA. he bungled the response to COVID-19. Then came the Capitol Putsch. 

I checked Wikipedia for ratings of the Presidents, and Siena College had a poll in 2022 of ratings of the President. This one is the first to contain Joe Biden, who rates 19th. That is slightly above average for all Presidents, but our Presidents are mostly good people and competent administrators. 

OK, Trump is a mismatch (43 of 45 -- Grover Cleveland not being counted twice). Aside from Trump the others ranked from 41 to 45 are  Pierce (41), Harding (42), Buchanan (44), Andrew Johnson (45). At the top are "Mount Rushmore and FDR" -- FDR 1, Lincoln 2, Washington 3, TR 4. and Jefferson 5, which has been stable for decades. Saving Western Christian Civilization seems to be more important than keeping the Union together or defining the Presidency. 

Recent Presidents (Truman on) rank as such:

Truman 7
Eisenhower 6
Kennedy 9
LBJ 8
Nixon 28
Ford 30
Carter 24
Reagan 18
GHWB 20
Clinton 14
GW Bush 35
Obama 11

as I have already mentioned FDR, Trump, and Biden. Nixon seems to be rising some and Reagan seems to be dropping a little. Others of the last century (I mentioned Harding and FDR) Coolidge is at 32 and Hoover is at 37.  The demands upon the Presidency changed greatly during the Hoover administration and caught him off guard. Expectations for the Presidency were low, which may explain why Presidents ranked from #6 to #11 are all post-WWII Presidents. That Obama and Eisenhower seem to have similar conduct, political skills, and electoral appeal suggests how close #6 and #11 are. Trump is still rotten to the core of his slimy personality, and Dubya is still awful. 

Quote:If I'm being honest, I hate that I have to ask this question. Ideally, people would be adults with their own life missions, motivations and ability to make rational decisions, but realistically, most people need leaders to get them through crises. The "facts don't care about your feelings" angle most conservatives have taken is just not going to work for most people, especially not in a 4T. You can't solve political problems by only thinking about the perspective of people you like. 

Giving children adult responsibilities without guidance, as was especially so with the Lost, is gross exploitation. Adults trying to stretch their childhood while demanding adult means without adult responsibilities (the worst, but all-too-prominent Boomers) is abuse of everyone else. As I have noticed, liberals have turned "facts do not care for your opinions" upon the Hard Right.  

Quote:On a less personal basis, when I look at history....the traits that make someone a strong, heroic leader and the traits that make someone a strong, despotic dictator have a disturbing amount of overlap, so the choice is between two options
1) an impotent leader who won't take the reigns of power or curb civil rights, but who is flaccid with regards to dealing with opposition or instigating real change
2) a leader with power and charisma who can rally people to solve problems...but whom you must take a leap of faith to support, because the chance that he'll become corrupt is always looming in the background. 

How much of a dictator? When a country is in extreme Crisis its democratic government typically gives its leadership great power. Churchill could do anything but murder and steal at will, which are hallmarks of the nastiest tyrants. The British wartime economy was the one under tightest economic controls except perhaps for Stalin's Soviet Union at the time. Even Hitler left much slack for the production of luxury goods as late as 1944. except for the niceties of rule of law and civil liberties that did not hamper the war effort, wartime Britain  was totalitarian for the Duration. 

Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill were not corrupt. They had concerns other than lining their pockets. Contrast Nazi Germany: Goering had his fingers in every economic activity, and a common underground joke was "Im Westen liegt Frankreich; im Osten wird Frank Reich". (In the west lies France; in the East, Hans Frank gets rich). Hans Frank was the brutal overlord of the General Gouvernement of occupied Poland not annexed outright by Germany. Dictatorships often must offer booty as rewards. For Lincoln, Churchill, and FDR, booty is not an objective.  
 

Quote:So tell me....who is exactly do we have to lead us? Trump? No. Biden? Hell no? Bitch McConnell or Pansy Pelosi? nope. Ben Shapiro or AOC? lmao. The mainstream cultures of the two political parties remind me of teenagers. The right are like rebellious teenage boys, the left like nagging, bratty and histrionic teenage girls. Do we have anyone truly inspiring? Someone who makes us feel mighty, powerful and motivated? Someone with vision that can bring together large factions from both wings of the political eagle? 

We are in a Crisis Era, but one hardly as dangerous as the American Revolution, Civil War, or the Great Depression and World War II. Donald Trump has made the current 4T more dangerous than it need be.  Obama and Biden seem to go by the book. This said, the Democrats are picking up the conservative virtues that the GOP has abandoned on behalf of what at first seemed like a successful populism. People dressing up as shamans or bringing Confederate flags into the Capitol, or erecting a gallows in front of the Capitol and shouting "Hang Mike Pence!"  on January 6 were anything but adults. We may have the Democrats collecting the sane part of the political spectrum, and history shows that that is usually so large and unwieldy that it requires the split of the surviving Party into two.  

Putting the Center Left  and the Hard Right together is like putting water on a fire. The fire will evaporate the water away and come out of the attempt as strong as ever, or the water will quench the fire.  

Let's face it; in normal times politics is not the center of our lives. We don't end friendships because someone else is on the opposing side of the political debate. OK, I taunted a leader of the ultra-Trumpist Patriot Party at a county fair as I walked by with a pulled-pork sandwich. I said

"This pulled-pork sandwich reminds me of the fascist pig you supported as President".

I don't ordinarily use the words "fascist pig" cheaply. But he had his children in tow (children should not be drawn into partisan politics), and his Trumpist faction had plenty of characteristics of a fascist movement. I proved what I suspected about extreme supporters of Donald Trump: that they have little self-restraint. The regular GOP was comparatively polite as were the Right-to-Life people.      

Quote:I have claimed to be a moderate on several occasions, but applies more to the policies that I want, not the personality I would like to see in a leader. Make no mistake, I want someone with balls, and at present, I see very few contenders, whether we're talking young heroes, middle aged family leaders or elder sages.

Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.   

Quote:PS: I'm not necessarily asking for a single grey champion. Feel free to list potential leadership figures for a range of positions.

Literary device, and far from certain or even necessary to emerge.

[pbrower2a]

The big change that America needs is one of culture. We are best off with one that is rational  yet adequately permissive, and tolerant of benign and unavoidable differences. Crisis eras redefine the material and intellectual world.

Neoliberal economics were good for stopping inflation (if at great cost to younger workers who needed opportunity and adequate pay if they were to fulfill even the desire for starting families and were denied that). They were pushed to their limit in staleness, effectiveness, and harm.

I look at the Siena poll of historians, and I notice that two Presidents have slipped greatly from once-high perches. Andrew Johnson was a political hero until Americans started judging the removal of First Peoples in part to allow the expansion of chattel slavery. (America would pay a high price for that in the Civil War). Reagan has also slipped some. Jackson has lost standing in recent years, and the assessment of Reagan is theoretically reversible. Taking Reagan's ideology to the logical conclusion leads to Donald Trump.  

Here's one of the paradoxes: Trump is a lousy President for his gross immorality (including cruelty, which is one of the worst expressions of immorality), a paucity of lasting achievements, debasement of political discourse, and his tendencies toward despotism. He demanded unqualified loyalty from Republicans even to the extent of endorsing the Capitol Putsch soon after it was over as a test of loyalty. He tried to rule as a dictator, and the Constitution got in the way. The President may have great powers in the event of a major war, and economic calamity, or a natural disaster to the extent that Congress authorizes such power.  

Had Trump won a smashing electoral victory in 2020, getting re-elected with firm majorities of lackeys in both Houses of Congress, then he might be #1 because dissent would be driven underground and flooded with macabre cynicism. Everyone would be obliged to praise His Undeniable Greatness if they want to keep teaching, preaching, or doing journalism. Maybe Democrats would be old-whale figures in giant cities (think of "Red Budapest" in Horthy's Hungary), but outside of such sanctuaries for liberals, getting along in life would depend on holding the sort of values consistent with the GOP/MAGA/John Birch Society. Kiss up, and always be thankful that no matter how harsh reality is, it at least isn't as bad for one as someone who grumbled or even failed to show a big-enough smile. Even the mass culture would be corrupted, as movies, TV shows, and pop tunes espousing Trump-era values would get advantages over others. Want to attend a public college if one doesn't have a million dollars for attending a private one that still exercises academic freedom*. Then make sure as a high-school student to praise Trump and unbridled plutocracy in high-school essays -- and be sure to join the politicized youth movement, the Trump equivalent of Soviet Pioneers or Mussolini's Balilla (I could name another, the female equivalent being the Bund deutscher Madel), instead of the Catholic Youth League, Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, 4H, Y's, Future Farmers of America, Junior Achievement, Campfire Girls, or Boys' Clubs -- unless those are taken over and corrupted.  

Trump, MAGA, and Q-Anon have failed to win enough to stop the slow erosion of support that is now sure to make the current Hard Right increasingly weak in electoral contests. Young adults are the future in American politics, as Boomers are going to lose their constituencies unless they can make solid appeals outside their generation. Millennial adults will increasingly find themselves in high public office and will be able to reshape the debate into one consistent with Millennial rationality and insistence upon equity. Conspiracy theories are not their style. Other generations have had a difficult time in fending of the garbage appeals of the Hard Right.  

The 1T is nigh, and it seems much closer now than it did even a week ago. Just look at 1T values that form in a 4T and supplant those of a 3T because the hard struggles wring out failed ideas and practices. The late 1940's looked little like the Roaring Twenties even if multitudes of the had participated exuberantly in that giddy time. Bathtub gin or GI Bill? Slum housing or Suburbia? Burlesque halls or sanitized entertainment? Labor unions that give workers a stake in the economic order or being at the mercy of a boss who could always demand unpaid overtime if there were a  large order to complete? A world in which one nearly had to be a WASP to get ahead in life or one in which anyone white had a chance (rights for blacks did improve in the 1T outside the South, but at a glacial pace).  

I can't imagine a huge technological revolution, and I can't imagine huge new rings of suburbs in which blue-collar workers get to live up to middle-class standards. I can't see an equivalent of Interstate Highways or television reshaping  American life this time. I can see MAGA stuff becoming objects of ridicule instead of fearful reverence.

*From what I hear one country offers an outlet: Finland, which welcomes foreigners who can learn one of the most difficult languages in a Latin script. You will effectively become a Finn, which is part of the idea.  Finland has "Russian winters".

[JasonBlack]

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

[nguyenivy]

(11-13-2022, 01:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The big change that America needs is one of culture. We are best off with one that is rational  yet adequately permissive, and tolerant of benign and unavoidable differences. Crisis eras redefine the material and intellectual world.

Neoliberal economics were good for stopping inflation (if at great cost to younger workers who needed opportunity and adequate pay if they were to fulfill even the desire for starting families and were denied that). They were pushed to their limit in staleness, effectiveness, and harm.

I look at the Siena poll of historians, and I notice that two Presidents have slipped greatly from once-high perches. Andrew Johnson was a political hero until Americans started judging the removal of First Peoples in part to allow the expansion of chattel slavery. (America would pay a high price for that in the Civil War). Reagan has also slipped some. Jackson has lost standing in recent years, and the assessment of Reagan is theoretically reversible. Taking Reagan's ideology to the logical conclusion leads to Donald Trump.  

Here's one of the paradoxes: Trump is a lousy President for his gross immorality (including cruelty, which is one of the worst expressions of immorality), a paucity of lasting achievements, debasement of political discourse, and his tendencies toward despotism. He demanded unqualified loyalty from Republicans even to the extent of endorsing the Capitol Putsch soon after it was over as a test of loyalty. He tried to rule as a dictator, and the Constitution got in the way. The President may have great powers in the event of a major war, and economic calamity, or a natural disaster to the extent that Congress authorizes such power.  

Had Trump won a smashing electoral victory in 2020, getting re-elected with firm majorities of lackeys in both Houses of Congress, then he might be #1 because dissent would be driven underground and flooded with macabre cynicism. Everyone would be obliged to praise His Undeniable Greatness if they want to keep teaching, preaching, or doing journalism. Maybe Democrats would be old-whale figures in giant cities (think of "Red Budapest" in Horthy's Hungary), but outside of such sanctuaries for liberals, getting along in life would depend on holding the sort of values consistent with the GOP/MAGA/John Birch Society. Kiss up, and always be thankful that no matter how harsh reality is, it at least isn't as bad for one as someone who grumbled or even failed to show a big-enough smile. Even the mass culture would be corrupted, as movies, TV shows, and pop tunes espousing Trump-era values would get advantages over others. Want to attend a public college if one doesn't have a million dollars for attending a private one that still exercises academic freedom*. Then make sure as a high-school student to praise Trump and unbridled plutocracy in high-school essays -- and be sure to join the politicized youth movement, the Trump equivalent of Soviet Pioneers or Mussolini's Balilla (I could name another, the female equivalent being the Bund deutscher Madel), instead of the Catholic Youth League, Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, 4H, Y's, Future Farmers of America, Junior Achievement, Campfire Girls, or Boys' Clubs -- unless those are taken over and corrupted.  

Trump, MAGA, and Q-Anon have failed to win enough to stop the slow erosion of support that is now sure to make the current Hard Right increasingly weak in electoral contests. Young adults are the future in American politics, as Boomers are going to lose their constituencies unless they can make solid appeals outside their generation. Millennial adults will increasingly find themselves in high public office and will be able to reshape the debate into one consistent with Millennial rationality and insistence upon equity. Conspiracy theories are not their style. Other generations have had a difficult time in fending of the garbage appeals of the Hard Right.  

The 1T is nigh, and it seems much closer now than it did even a week ago. Just look at 1T values that form in a 4T and supplant those of a 3T because the hard struggles wring out failed ideas and practices. The late 1940's looked little like the Roaring Twenties even if multitudes of the had participated exuberantly in that giddy time. Bathtub gin or GI Bill? Slum housing or Suburbia? Burlesque halls or sanitized entertainment? Labor unions that give workers a stake in the economic order or being at the mercy of a boss who could always demand unpaid overtime if there were a  large order to complete? A world in which one nearly had to be a WASP to get ahead in life or one in which anyone white had a chance (rights for blacks did improve in the 1T outside the South, but at a glacial pace).  

I can't imagine a huge technological revolution, and I can't imagine huge new rings of suburbs in which blue-collar workers get to live up to middle-class standards. I can't see an equivalent of Interstate Highways or television reshaping  American life this time. I can see MAGA stuff becoming objects of ridicule instead of fearful reverence.

*From what I hear one country offers an outlet: Finland, which welcomes foreigners who can learn one of the most difficult languages in a Latin script. You will effectively become a Finn, which is part of the idea.  Finland has "Russian winters".

So we may be at the point where the 3T values are starting to be rejected more, but I am not confident the new 1T values have been established yet.  What even are the new values?  Unions appear to be finally coming back but we have a long ways to go.

[pbrower2a]

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Brute force is no longer as effective as it used to be. If some enemy uses human-wave techniques against a country that chooses to not counter such except by mowing those human waves down, then a few human waves that fail except to kill a large mass  of young men is likely to lead to a collapse of the social order.   Running out of soldiers is one way to lose a war. 

Quote:Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

I had to check the word neotonization. Do you mean neotenization? That is the tendency to preserve juvenile traits in a creature. Humans have gone as far as they can (elephants, also very smart creatures) can extend the time of intellectual growth to roughly age 20. Few creatures attain even that age. Humans and elephants are long-lived creatures. 

I do not consider ages 16-25 the peak years of life for quality. Maybe people can have some fun, but those are harsh years on the job (usually raw or servile toil). The middle class has been extending its expectations for college attainment in part because ages 16 to 22 are mostly a black hole for earnings. Yes, the typical centerfold is in that age group, and much of the appeal of the centerfold (I am a straight male, so I can't really say the same about young men) that girls of a certain age if physically fit often look better without clothes than with clothes*. Sex sells when competence is not so obvious, even in commerce not overtly sexual. To get a job as a retail salesclerk or as a barista if a woman, it helps to be pretty and shapely. Sex sells. Not so pretty? Then the factory awaits you as a start.  

The peak time of life is when one has a stake in the economic order, when one has specialized skills, when one has social connections, when one's income is outpacing mortgage payments and one no longer has the high cost of  buying household furnishings, and when one actually has vacation time. Of course if one never gets into such a position, then all that one can do is to buy schlock to replace older short-lived schlock that has worn out 
 

Quote:Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

As they begin to have a stake in the system beyond a meager paycheck  they often continue their narcissism or ramp it up. To be sure, the Idealist who does genuinely hard or servile work gets humbled early and gets little opportunity to express narcissism. Even schoolteachers must constrain themselves from acting out any narcissistic fantasies. Donald Trump exposed much about himself as well as the entertainment business when he said to the effect that "when you are a star you can get away with anything". Humility is a survival skill for working as a retail salesclerk or waitperson, typically two of the most common  jobs that people hold at some time in their lives. In commerce, managers above a certain level can develop narcissistic behavior because such is a tool of oppression that keeps workers scared and poor and themselves rich. 

Their narcissism can be so severe that they fit a pattern that American Heritage Magazine once discussed in an article on the mental world of the slave-owning planter. This sort had no qualms about the savage world of harsh exploitation that underpinned his grandiose way of life. The slave-owning planters saw themselves as benefactors to "their" slaves and would never let anyone forget that they were the best thing possible for their enslaved human property.   Exploiters seeing themselves as benefactors to their slaves, some of the worst-treated people in the world, they could never understand how hated they could be. As people began to find slavery odious they could only double down on efforts to tighten their grips on the political process As one can expect of narcissistic exploiters, they went too far. 
 
* I have seen the pattern on Playboy centerfolds. Their lifespans are shorter than the US average despite seeming healthier and fitter when they become Playmates of the Month. Drugs play a role, as do abusive relationships. Few find their way into successful careers in entertainment of any kind.  You might be surprised how many of them become born-again Christians (which might be good for survival as well as a potential reaction to an excessively sexualized world. When the very short-lived activity comes to an end, such a past may be unwelcome for someone in a professional career or some not-so-professional career in high contact with the public. That's not something to put on a resume  for applying for a job as a bank teller or legal secretary. Big business likes things sexy, but not too blatantly sexual.

[pbrower2a]

(11-13-2022, 02:04 AM)nguyenivy Wrote:

(11-13-2022, 01:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The big change that America needs is one of culture. We are best off with one that is rational  yet adequately permissive, and tolerant of benign and unavoidable differences. Crisis eras redefine the material and intellectual world.

Neoliberal economics were good for stopping inflation (if at great cost to younger workers who needed opportunity and adequate pay if they were to fulfill even the desire for starting families and were denied that). They were pushed to their limit in staleness, effectiveness, and harm.

I look at the Siena poll of historians, and I notice that two Presidents have slipped greatly from once-high perches. Andrew Johnson was a political hero until Americans started judging the removal of First Peoples in part to allow the expansion of chattel slavery. (America would pay a high price for that in the Civil War). Reagan has also slipped some. Jackson has lost standing in recent years, and the assessment of Reagan is theoretically reversible. Taking Reagan's ideology to the logical conclusion leads to Donald Trump.  

Here's one of the paradoxes: Trump is a lousy President for his gross immorality (including cruelty, which is one of the worst expressions of immorality), a paucity of lasting achievements, debasement of political discourse, and his tendencies toward despotism. He demanded unqualified loyalty from Republicans even to the extent of endorsing the Capitol Putsch soon after it was over as a test of loyalty. He tried to rule as a dictator, and the Constitution got in the way. The President may have great powers in the event of a major war, and economic calamity, or a natural disaster to the extent that Congress authorizes such power.  

Had Trump won a smashing electoral victory in 2020, getting re-elected with firm majorities of lackeys in both Houses of Congress, then he might be #1 because dissent would be driven underground and flooded with macabre cynicism. Everyone would be obliged to praise His Undeniable Greatness if they want to keep teaching, preaching, or doing journalism. Maybe Democrats would be old-whale figures in giant cities (think of "Red Budapest" in Horthy's Hungary), but outside of such sanctuaries for liberals, getting along in life would depend on holding the sort of values consistent with the GOP/MAGA/John Birch Society. Kiss up, and always be thankful that no matter how harsh reality is, it at least isn't as bad for one as someone who grumbled or even failed to show a big-enough smile. Even the mass culture would be corrupted, as movies, TV shows, and pop tunes espousing Trump-era values would get advantages over others. Want to attend a public college if one doesn't have a million dollars for attending a private one that still exercises academic freedom*. Then make sure as a high-school student to praise Trump and unbridled plutocracy in high-school essays -- and be sure to join the politicized youth movement, the Trump equivalent of Soviet Pioneers or Mussolini's Balilla (I could name another, the female equivalent being the Bund deutscher Madel), instead of the Catholic Youth League, Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, 4H, Y's, Future Farmers of America, Junior Achievement, Campfire Girls, or Boys' Clubs -- unless those are taken over and corrupted.  

Trump, MAGA, and Q-Anon have failed to win enough to stop the slow erosion of support that is now sure to make the current Hard Right increasingly weak in electoral contests. Young adults are the future in American politics, as Boomers are going to lose their constituencies unless they can make solid appeals outside their generation. Millennial adults will increasingly find themselves in high public office and will be able to reshape the debate into one consistent with Millennial rationality and insistence upon equity. Conspiracy theories are not their style. Other generations have had a difficult time in fending of the garbage appeals of the Hard Right.  

The 1T is nigh, and it seems much closer now than it did even a week ago. Just look at 1T values that form in a 4T and supplant those of a 3T because the hard struggles wring out failed ideas and practices. The late 1940's looked little like the Roaring Twenties even if multitudes of the had participated exuberantly in that giddy time. Bathtub gin or GI Bill? Slum housing or Suburbia? Burlesque halls or sanitized entertainment? Labor unions that give workers a stake in the economic order or being at the mercy of a boss who could always demand unpaid overtime if there were a  large order to complete? A world in which one nearly had to be a WASP to get ahead in life or one in which anyone white had a chance (rights for blacks did improve in the 1T outside the South, but at a glacial pace).  

I can't imagine a huge technological revolution, and I can't imagine huge new rings of suburbs in which blue-collar workers get to live up to middle-class standards. I can't see an equivalent of Interstate Highways or television reshaping  American life this time. I can see MAGA stuff becoming objects of ridicule instead of fearful reverence.

*From what I hear one country offers an outlet: Finland, which welcomes foreigners who can learn one of the most difficult languages in a Latin script. You will effectively become a Finn, which is part of the idea.  Finland has "Russian winters".

So we may be at the point where the 3T values are starting to be rejected more, but I am not confident the new 1T values have been established yet.  What even are the new values?  Unions appear to be finally coming back but we have a long ways to go.

More and more people reject 3T values. Some of it is that young adults never got to imbibe in the heady hedonism of a 3T and recognize that such, from what they see, brought far too much pain for the pleasure. As have said people from Aristotle on, happiness is the test of the validity of one's choices in life (if one actually makes such choices). Freud's trichtomy of id, ego, and superego has the id as the survival instinct and the pleasure principle. Without the id one can enjoy nothing and is continually in depression, and without a survival instinct one has a high likelihood of early death from reckless or suicidal behavior. The id likes its delights to have swift achievement attached, and most of those (sweets, fats, drug highs, an alcoholic buzz, the "rush" from gambling or impulse shopping, sex, or excitement from daredevil actions) are also ephemeral and costly. Rotting teeth, obesity, arrests, fights, unwelcome pregnancies, and ending up broke result. The superego puts a lid on some of it as the "Thou shalt not" part of moral law. The ego tells people how they can stretch out a delight at the expense of its intensity by connecting it to anticipation, planning, budgeting, and scheduling. The happiest people on their vacations, I have seen, are those who plan their delights with managerial skills of planning, scheduling, budgeting, and recording what they do. So, should I visit a city that I have never visited (somehow Minneapolis and Atlanta are the closest giant cities to me outside of my experience that extends to Madison, Wisconsin and Knoxville, Tennessee) I intend to know where I am going, what I will do and experience when I get there, and not waste money. I am likely to keep at the least a photographic journal, and I will seek out what is unique to those places. Art galleries, architectural wonders, historical sites, and museums of various types are obvious.  Strip clubs? No. Too unimaginative annot special enoughd. I expect to avoid troublesome areas; even I know what few places are worth a visit in Detroit, most of which is to be avoided at all costs. 

The rationalists may not have the most intense fun, but they get the longest and most lasting delight. The stupid and unimaginative end up with obesity, rotten teeth, arrests, fights resulting in broken bones, bad livers, smoking-related diseases, and trouble with creditors.   

The 3T was not only cultural ephemera; it was also economic policy.  Check Maslow's hierarchy of needs against your life and see how far you can go:




At the bottom (physiological survival in doubt)

  are people in danger of death or crippling, or in hopeless situations (the extreme is a Gulag or a KZ-lager. If one lives long enough to get congestive heart failure or terminal cancer one will experience such. I have seen people with emphysema and cirrhosis, so I choose to drink rarely and little and to avoid tobacco completely. The social orders that do the worst to people as a rule offer the least freedom. If you don't believe me on that than I can refer you to the late Richard Rummel, who connects the culpability for the greatest human suffering to some of the most tyrannical regimes that see people exclusively as tools for exploitation or as vermin to be exterminated. Examples include Leopold II (of Belgium) for his hypocritically-named Congo Free State (Heart of Darkness), the Ottoman Empire in the first quarter of the 20th century, Imperial Russia, the Soviet Un ion, Nazi Germany and its satellites, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Zone, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Uganda under Idi Amin, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. If you disobey you die, and if you obey you will hate your life. 

Go one step above that (safety concerns), and you might be a serf or slave, or at least a prisoner (even if "only" of starvation). You might be in a miserable life of helpless dependency upon an abusive spouse. you might be an alcoholic or addict. or -- you hate your job and see no obvious escape except to more of the same. You might try to bond with sympathetic people in much the same plight, but they can rarely help you. You may endure official oppression as under Jim Crow or Apartheid. You may have gotten yourself in that position and you may have to pull yourself out if you want any dignity as a person.  

Many people struggle (I included due to Asperger's) with love and belonging. I can be friendly, but I usually fail to seal the deal. I am a misfit in the isolated rural area in which I live. Many of those who live in it could never be truly happy anywhere else even if the community is obviously limited in its offerings of fun and enlightenment. Even with great wealth and talent one can be here; Maslow uses Richard Wagner and Vincent van Gogh as failures in personal life despite their artistic successes. (Need I add Sylvia Plath, Marilyn Monroe, Jim Morrison, Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski, and John Belushi?) I may go out on a limb and suggest that we have migrant farm workers far happier than Donald Trump because they are not insufferable @$$holes. 

Then comes esteem. So how good does one feel about oneself, and as importantly, can one support such a self-image? If you are doing bad stuff to people, your feigned self-esteem can evaporate very fast. Having legitimate cause to feel good about oneself and the society in which one lives requires some high-powered learning or development of legitimate skill or talent and the moral conduct necessary for staying there. Conspicuous consumption proves nothing; a low-level drug trafficker can do that until he is caught. 

Self-Actualization? As I am stranded between #2 and #3, I obviously cannot fully understand it.

[Eric the Green]

And the secret is that life is actually driven from the top of the pyramid!

[Eric the Green]

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

As I see it, yes we need strength, and our culture has, yes, become weak, and other countries do laugh at us.

The mainstream of US American (and I always avoid simply referring to the US or its people as "Americans" since the term applies to two continents and all their people) culture is weak in virtue and sensitivity. It is driven by money-dominated commercial interests and not by the highest cultural aspirations and traditions. The opening to something better in the 1960s has been largely forgotten in favor of mass-produced fare of all kinds and media, and by horrific "alternative" screeching and screaming sounds. 

But being "guilt-ridden" is our strength, such as it is; our weakness is found among those who resist the culture warriors' scam to hide our history and its still-unlearned lessons in the name of children learning to love their country. Such rot is indeed making our culture weak. The 1960s featured the cry of youth "don't trust anyone over 30". I still hold to the ideal of looking and sounding young (maybe not THAT young). But not because of what commercials or peers say, but because of what I want. What is making our culture weak is not so much the traditions lost from before the 60s, but also in-part the traditions lost that were created since then. Other countries do indeed laugh at our culture war and our needless and deadly ammosexuality.

Patriarchy and other traditions outdated since the "woke" 1960s do not hold society together; they are used by culture warriors like DeSantis to tear our country apart. Other developed countries are not so held back (although superstitious countries in the Middle East are) by these outdated suppressions of human growth and development.

[JasonBlack]

I agree we are seeing a rise in toxic masculinity in the United States...however, we're only reaping what we have sewn. A society which does nothing to cultivate and celebrate healthy masculinity deserves the ravages of toxic masculinity.

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2022, 03:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

corrected post...

As I see it, yes we need strength, and our culture has, yes, become weak, and other countries do laugh at us.

The mainstream of US American (and I always avoid simply referring to the US or its people as "Americans" since the term applies to two continents and all their people) culture is weak in virtue and sensitivity. It is driven by money-dominated commercial interests and not by the highest cultural aspirations and traditions. The opening to something better in the 1960s has been largely forgotten in favor of mass-produced fare of all kinds and media, and by horrific "alternative" screeching and screaming sounds. 

But being "guilt-ridden" is our strength, such as it is; our strength is found among those who resist the culture warriors' scam to hide our history and its still-unlearned lessons in the name of children learning to love their country. Such rot is indeed making our culture weak. The 1960s featured the cry of youth "don't trust anyone over 30". I still hold to the ideal of looking and sounding young (maybe not THAT young). But not because of what commercials or peers say, but because of what I want. What is making our culture weak is not so much the traditions lost from before the 60s, but also in-part the traditions lost that were created since then. Other countries do indeed laugh at our culture war and our needless and deadly ammosexuality.

Patriarchy and other traditions outdated since the "woke" 1960s do not hold society together; they are used by culture warriors like DeSantis to tear our country apart. Other developed countries are not so held back (although superstitious countries in the Middle East are) by these outdated suppressions of human growth and development.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2022, 10:04 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: I agree we are seeing a rise in toxic masculinity in the United States...however, we're only reaping what we have sewn. A society which does nothing to cultivate and celebrate healthy masculinity deserves the ravages of toxic masculinity.

Why not a society that cultivates and celebrates healthy people?

[pbrower2a]

(11-16-2022, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-14-2022, 03:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2022, 01:36 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(11-12-2022, 05:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toxic masculinity ("he has balls") that societies once tolerated may have made sense when kings were leading armies in the field, but that is over. Victories often involve logistics and military technology. It is arguable that the British and Americans fared better than their German, Italian, and Japanese enemies because they fought in ways to reduce losses in the field. Much wartime death has been from communicable diseases and septic conditions; the British and Americans used antibiotics and field sanitation to reduce those. The human wave attacks of the sorts used by most armies in WWI or in the Iran-Iraq war are one way of ensuring that nearly all the soldiers at the front are green. The British and Americans had plenty of experienced, battle-hardened NCO's who made battlefield decisions that a junior officer in the German, Italian, or Japanese armies got stuck with because there were few NCO's.  

corrected post...

Say what you will about "toxic masculinity", but, while I am on board with being cautious about war and impulsive aggression, strength is necessary in every age. Just as development of synthetic vitamins did not make eating obsolete, modern technology and civil rights history have not made strength obsolete.

Right now, we do not have that. As a culture, we...are...weak. The main stream of American culture has become defeatist, guilt-ridden, and even self-hating. Personally I blame MTV and the neotonization or popular culture. When the ideal is to look and sound 16-25, it's no wonder people have become so depressed, narcissistic and self-destructive. None of our culture icons have any sense of dignity, of authority, of fortitude, and because of that, things are falling apart. 

Idealists (used in the colloquial sense, even though it does include many boomers) want to do away with all these "patriarchal" influences which hold society together, but other countries laugh at us for attempting to do this, because they know that, without the steady hand of older conservative men, they would have starved or been taken over long ago.

As I see it, yes we need strength, and our culture has, yes, become weak, and other countries do laugh at us.

The mainstream of US American (and I always avoid simply referring to the US or its people as "Americans" since the term applies to two continents and all their people) culture is weak in virtue and sensitivity. It is driven by money-dominated commercial interests and not by the highest cultural aspirations and traditions. The opening to something better in the 1960s has been largely forgotten in favor of mass-produced fare of all kinds and media, and by horrific "alternative" screeching and screaming sounds. 

But being "guilt-ridden" is our strength, such as it is; our strength is found among those who resist the culture warriors' scam to hide our history and its still-unlearned lessons in the name of children learning to love their country. Such rot is indeed making our culture weak. The 1960s featured the cry of youth "don't trust anyone over 30". I still hold to the ideal of looking and sounding young (maybe not THAT young). But not because of what commercials or peers say, but because of what I want. What is making our culture weak is not so much the traditions lost from before the 60s, but also in-part the traditions lost that were created since then. Other countries do indeed laugh at our culture war and our needless and deadly ammosexuality.

Patriarchy and other traditions outdated since the "woke" 1960s do not hold society together; they are used by culture warriors like DeSantis to tear our country apart. Other developed countries are not so held back (although superstitious countries in the Middle East are) by these outdated suppressions of human growth and development.

Because "American" can include practically any human type and any religious faith (the USA is a geopolitical empire and not a nation state even if it can be seen as the "Empire of Liberty" in contrast to something so sordid as the Third Reich), we might as well adopt the word anti-Constitutional as used in Germany to describe those who betray the Constitutional basis of law and order, inclusion, and overall decency. Section 86 of the German penal code defines prohibited activities, affiliations, slogans, songs, and symbols. First this applied to the Nazi Party and its militias and for symbols, slogans, salutes, songs, and some memes These are seen as contrary to the Constitution of German Federal Republic. with similar items being banned also in the former DDR at the behest of the Soviet Union. With the unification of Germany, Section 86 of the Penal Code applies throughout Germany against Nazi activities and affiliations. Use of symbols for strictly educational or artistic purposes such as archive work  or use in legitimate entertainment (foreign or German) is prohibited. Nazi activities could not be classified as anti-German  because at one time they were distinctly German. They were contrary, however, to the Constitution of the German Federal Republic which fully repudiates Nazi ideology. The ban has been extended to include the symbols of some clearly anti-democratic groups such as the remnants of the old German Communist Party, the second Ku Klux Klan, the Islamic State, and the "Z" logo associated with the Russian Army as well as the usual suspects. 

Prohibited materials, affiliations, and activities are better described here.

The people in the Capitol Putsch were, so far as I can tell, practically all American. Indeed they saw themselves acting in the support of some "real America" as opposed to "wokeness" or whatever demon they see as radical leftism. Still, the Capitol Putsch was clearly anti-Constitutional.

[JasonBlack]

(11-16-2022, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Why not a society that cultivates and celebrates healthy people?

The two are not exclusive. The point is that cultivating healthy masculinity and healthy femininity are completely different. Men and women are much more different than they are alike, and the delusion that you can just raise both of them the same way is a big reason why we're in this mess. Even if we set aside gender, the whole notion of blank slate theory has been disproven by psychologists (specifically, it is in the minority of psychological studies which are actually reputable) for at least 40 years. Brain lateralization, testosterone levels, estrogen levels, proneness to aggression, hypocampus, verbal intelligence, mathematical intelligence, visual spatial intelligence, neuroticism, agreeableness......I could fill a book with the inborn differences between men and women, and why they have different talents, different needs and different priorities.

So I will restate my point: if you don't cultivate, cherish and respect healthy masculinity, don't expect anyone to defend you from toxic masculinity, because you have done nothing to deserve it, and even if you did, there would be no one around to do it.