[USA] What do you think the political landscape will look like in the new saeculum?

[nguyenivy]

As in, what will the parties be likely to represent over the next turning or two? What will become of the Republican party if their ideas and policies prove to be unpopular enough for long enough that Democrats win multiple presidential and mid-term elections in a row (say from now till 2036 - a 16-year span of Democratic rule)? Will they reinvent themselves as a totally new party with the same name? On the other hand, if the Democratic party wins enough subsequent elections by wide enough margins, would we be in danger of that party not doing enough to 'market themselves' to voters? We already have elements of this playing out in places where people vote for the same party for decades on end and the state/city ends up just not innovating politically because the candidates assume they will always win (or lose). If every election were very close, it would motivate more people to go vote and candidates to actively try to win over voters.

Finally: Will third parties ever be viable to vote for? Did those of us who voted Green or other non-D/R in 2016 throw our votes away?

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2022, 10:09 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: As in, what will the parties be likely to represent over the next turning or two? What will become of the Republican party if their ideas and policies prove to be unpopular enough for long enough that Democrats win multiple presidential and mid-term elections in a row (say from now till 2036 - a 16-year span of Democratic rule)? Will they reinvent themselves as a totally new party with the same name? On the other hand, if the Democratic party wins enough subsequent elections by wide enough margins, would we be in danger of that party not doing enough to 'market themselves' to voters? We already have elements of this playing out in places where people vote for the same party for decades on end and the state/city ends up just not innovating politically because the candidates assume they will always win (or lose). If every election were very close, it would motivate more people to go vote and candidates to actively try to win over voters.

Finally: Will third parties ever be viable to vote for? Did those of us who voted Green or other non-D/R in 2016 throw our votes away?

1. If the GOP goes fully crazy, then it will lose relevance as a national party. It could lose relevance in one part of the country after another, losing elections in places now unthinkable. 

1T political life is far too collegial for political craziness to set.* People are looking for things to be done through compromises. Nobody gets perfection in the political process, and everyone must give something to get something in legislation and budgeting. Strident ideology loses all appeal, and identity politics goes into hibernation. The GOP heavily relies upon regional and ethnic identity (heavily white and rural), and if it fails to change its ways it can lose its relevance. 

2. The GOP practically got wiped out after the economic policies of the Second Gilded Age, the 1920's with the Big Business Knows Best agenda of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, twelve years of weak political leadership at the White House. Fully committed to such policies even after the speculative boom of the 1920's imploded in the economic meltdown leading to the Great Depression, the GOP went from riding the illusion of New Era prosperity to the harsh reality of mass poverty. It got a slow revival as an alternative for those that got shut out of machine politics as political aspirants and those that New Deal policies served ill. 

If I am to contrast Barack Obama to FDR it is that the economic meltdown that made the Obama Presidency possible lasted about a year and a half and that that made the FDR Presidency a certainty lasted three years before the economy started to turn around. 



Setting the peaks for the economy in late 1929 and late 2007 we can see that over a year and a half (until roughly the spring of 1931 and 2009, respectively) the overall economy had endured similar damage. Valuation of shares may not be the definitive measure of economic calamity, but it must be close. During the remainder of 1931, destructive bank runs ruined the financial sector and caused people to lose their life savings, with bank failures causing receivables and payrolls to disappear even if deposited. To be sure, relatively few people who had Old Money were still losing asset value, but their income was also disappearing. Concerned with survival, the few remaining super-rich were unable to buy the political process.  Contrast the economic meltdown ending in early 2009. Democrats did well enough in the 2008 elections to elect a President who acted decisively to meet the economic peril and a Congress that went along. So Obama and Democratic majorities were able to get the economy going in the right direction. There would be no bank runs. People could be certain that bank deposits were safe. Certainty was back in American economic life, as shown in the paucity of business failures while Obama was President. 

What is the problem? The Rich got their recovery, and they were able to invest lavishly in the political process. I hate to suggest that the super-rich all too often fit a Marxist stereotype of them as rapacious beasts who seek a pure plutocracy, but such is well reflected in the politicians they supported in the 2010 elections and ever since: the most reactionary figures possible. The three-year meltdown compelled the GOP to re-invent itself as an alternative to a Party that could support some politicians not in check for corruption and incompetence within the Democratic Party and that still neglected some groups. 

3. Death of the #2 Party has happened twice in America, with the Federalists in the 1810's and their successors the Whigs in the 1840's. In both cases the Democratic Party became an unwieldy Big Tent that had contradictory interests within it that had nothing in common. Factions form, and from such comes a new two-Party system. You can probably tell from my posts elsewhere that while I see plenty of opportunity for sane conservatives but little for the bigots, demagogues, extremists, and shysters. Maybe we have a split that leaves us with something approaching a Social Democrat - Christian Democrat split. The third Party to split from the Democratic Party is the Free Soil Party which became Lincoln's (and regrettably Trump's) Republican Party. 

4. Demographics doom the GOP as it is now constituted. Even in rural areas with the concentration of farms into bigger estates, such comes with a rapid growth of a population having economic very different from those of the big landowners: the people who do the work. So far, such people are heavily non-citizens... but their American-born children will be US citizens and voters. Dairies, feed lots, grain mills, and slaughterhouses have working conditions that fit the word "factory" well. Such people will frequently form militant unions and vote for politicians opposite their employers. Outnumbering the owners and executives, they will turn many rural areas much more liberal in voting than those districts are now. When a significant number of rural districts shed their conservative qualities because they have lots of blue-collar workers capable of voting, then the GOP as now constituted will lose too much of rural America to remain anything but a local relevancy.

* Before anyone brings up Joseph R. McCarthy, note well that his mad accusations led to his political ruin in a short time. Others were hesitant to jump onto his bandwagon, and the President of the time, Dwight Eisenhower, let him implode. So things are in a 1T, which is a very different environment from one in which a Donald Trump can more successfully exploit populist resentments.

[pbrower2a]

In essence, the GOP redefines itself away from Gingrich's "Contract for America" which in practice helped only the Rich, the Tea Party which solved nothing and prevented rational solutions to real problems, and Trump demagoguery. This was all to be the "new face of the GOP", and it was older than the old one. Democrats seem to already be coopting the virtues of the old GOP under their noses while doubling down on inclusion of everything but the criminal element and those who completely reject reason.

[erdna3]

Probably a more classic setup where you have a tax-and-spend faction and a small-government-plus-social-conservative one, with fewer symbolic labyrinths. We already saw symbolic-labyrinth candidates underperform in 2022. Not "moderates" per se but emphasis on the tangible. Current online-weird version of the culture wars probably only meaningfully intersects with power in the next 2T, the old Fox-News-and-MSNBC one is already fading (the actual Fox News was responsible in calling the 2020 election!)

[pbrower2a]

Basically, take a look at the last 1T (late 1940's and the 1950's), adapt it for about twice the population and the irreversible trends of technology (cell phones and music CD's are not going away), allow for some technological change possible because real wages will be higher than in the previous two turnings, and you have the forthcoming 1T. Except for LGBT rights it will be more sexually repressive, with monogamy as the norm. The sexual revolution of the 2T will be repudiated. (The jury is out on abortion and contraception because the Bible-thumpers may still be powerful in some states).

Education will be more rigorous as a norm, largely because of the increasing influence of America's Model Majorities. I expect the intellectual smorgasbord of the 2T Multiversity to disappear as solid citizenship will become an objective. To that end I expect at least two years of liberal-arts education, highly-standardized so that the results will be predictable outcomes, to become the norm for all but dullards. Mass culture will be smarter, if insipid, reflecting raised standards for education.

3T ephemera will die. Most mass culture of the 3T seems made for morons. This, I hope, includes the Gospel of Wealth. If 1T religiosity is any indication of what awaits us, then look again at Fulton Sheen and Billy Graham. This 4T has had no new pop music on par with that of the Big Band era, but the cinema has been the best since the Golden Age of American cinema circa 1940. There's little else new from the current 4T to preserve.

Politics? Donald Trump will be widely excoriated. After he dies he will be the whipping boy for much that Americans despise in the past that they know. Much that establishes a new era of cultural, economic, and administrative norms results from excoriation of what is seen as despicable in recent times. An example: Americans might have tolerated Jim Crow practice somewhat longer had it not been for encounters with the more virulent Nazi racism.

A 4T is to no small part a struggle between stale 3T ways and the potential of a new 1T. When the 4T struggles generally come to an end, then what emerges is a 1T. I expect a 1T to clearly delineate what differences must be tolerated (differences between the Model Minority cultures and white nominal Christians who have similar economic and educational ways) and what isn't (any drugs "harder" than marijuana, street crime, and anything that violates the yet-to-be-established orthodoxy in business). Yes, I expect J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books to survive, bur such will be an outlier.

[sbarrera]

(11-29-2022, 01:14 PM)erdna3 Wrote: Probably a more classic setup where you have a tax-and-spend faction and a small-government-plus-social-conservative one, with fewer symbolic labyrinths. We already saw symbolic-labyrinth candidates underperform in 2022. Not "moderates" per se but emphasis on the tangible. Current online-weird version of the culture wars probably only meaningfully intersects with power in the next 2T, the old Fox-News-and-MSNBC one is already fading (the actual Fox News was responsible in calling the 2020 election!)

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by a "symbolic-labyrinth candidate"? It's a new term to me.

[erdna3]

(11-30-2022, 01:11 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(11-29-2022, 01:14 PM)erdna3 Wrote: Probably a more classic setup where you have a tax-and-spend faction and a small-government-plus-social-conservative one, with fewer symbolic labyrinths. We already saw symbolic-labyrinth candidates underperform in 2022. Not "moderates" per se but emphasis on the tangible. Current online-weird version of the culture wars probably only meaningfully intersects with power in the next 2T, the old Fox-News-and-MSNBC one is already fading (the actual Fox News was responsible in calling the 2020 election!)

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by a "symbolic-labyrinth candidate"? It's a new term to me.

Someone more known for their rhetorical emphases than their policy plans. Blake Masters was a good example this cycle.

[pbrower2a]

The Silent are nearly gone as a political influence except for Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell. Nancy Pelosi will no longer be Speaker of the House once the new Congress is inaugurated.

Boomers are on the fade, and they are a disappointment in politics and culture. Just look at poetry: who is their Walt Whitman or Robert Frost? The biggest political loudmouths are dead (Rash Libel -- OK, Rush Limbaugh) or has lost relevance (Newt Gingrich). If there is to be any lasting influence of Boomers upon American or world culture fifty years from now, then one will have to ignore the (then) Dead White Males aside from perhaps Steven Spielberg. For a generation that had all the advantages of privacy for developing individual thought and technology for expressing such, Boomers have been a big disappointment. Boomer politicians have been mediocre at best, and don't let me start talking about Donald Trump. Unless some late-wave Boomer (let us say Amy Klobuchar) becomes President, the Boom Generation will be known for three Presidents born in the same year, 1946.

For the next twenty years the big players will be X and Millennials as Millennial pols largely supplant Boomer pols. Boomer pols might have some success of they can harmonize X and Millennial agendas, but Boomers have had the opportunity to establish one agenda once-and-for-all, and have failed at that. Forcing a Boomer flavor upon political trends is now out of a question.

X starts off with the political advantage of having a near-great President in Obama, an excellent model on how to be President (as much as Donald Trump is an example of how to be a dreadful President). I expect the next effective conservative President to act much like Obama. You know -- untroubling sex life, rationality, sobriety, loyalty, overall caution, no personal scandals or corruption, clean government, respect for protocol and precedent, acceptance of a hierarchy of legitimate achievement, disdain for demagoguery, no sympathy for law-breakers, and not pushing his religious values or culture where such are unwelcome. These used to be the norms for conservatives at their best. Few expected Obama to co-opt the values that the GOP at its best used to hold firmly, but that is exactly what he did. They also serve liberalism well. and indeed any non-extremist ideology. By ordering an underworld-style hit on Osama bin Laden, Obama could show that he could learn even from some historical figures of Chicago that most of us (and likely he himself) despise.

The Millennial Generation is just starting to work its way into high office. Jon Ossoff is their first Senator, and there will be fare more of them, along with Governors, Justices of the Supreme Court, Minority Whips, Speakers of the House, and Majority Whips. Howe and Strauss predicted that they would be much like the GI Generation, and nothing says otherwise. They are collegial and rational, and they will likely be conformist. It is likely that their culture will be bland. So what? If you like your music, art, and literature to have substance, then you might want to look at the Missionary or Lost Generations.

I am going to make a prediction about the Homeland Generation: it will do what the Silent did and will do it well: comedy. With the exit of the Silent Generation from comedy either through death, debility, or even a loss of timing, we risk becoming excessively stuffy. I expect the Homeland Generation to fill that gap as they enter adulthood.

[Tim Randal Walker]

As for Culture during the next 1T.... I can imagine a few Boomers as Late Bloomers. Boomers may have retired from, say, producing/directing movies, but a few old Boomers may create art in such endeavors as painting, poetry, and novels. Endeavors where individuals can create while working alone.

[pbrower2a]

(12-05-2022, 10:31 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: As for Culture during the next 1T....  I can imagine a few Boomers as Late Bloomers.  Boomers may have retired from, say, producing/directing movies, but a few old Boomers may create art in such endeavors as painting, poetry, and novels.  Endeavors where individuals can create while working alone.

This will be better. Many will be retired from the pecuniary drive. Except in advertising, the pecuniary drive pushes people into non-creative activities. Boomers who halfway know what they are doing with their lives might see retirement as an opportunity to most fully express themselves. Fifteen years of artistic achievements following years of contemplation might get some interesting results. 

Early-wave Boomers have shown no indication (aside from Donald Trump, whose personal habits bode ill for prospects of a very long life) that they will abandon the GI pattern that the Silent continued of staying attached and active while exercising good health habits that extend lives.

[JasonBlack]

One thing that is sure to go: the divide over whether to have more vs less involvement overseas is a generation one, not a left/right one. Silents and boomers want more "spreading democracy", nation building, being the world police, etc. Millennials and zoomers want us to leave the rest of the world alone and focus on ourselves. One of my biggest gripes with Idealist generations is their tendency to want to project universalist ideologies as far as possible, and they expect other generations to foot the bill and make the sacrifices necessary for this to happen. The Civil War is probably the most extreme example, but this trait is still definitely present in boomers.

In the event that they are opposing rather than complimentary priorities, the question is what is best for America, not what is best for the rest of the world. Many boomers (and likely a few in here) will object to this, but frankly...most of y'all gon' be dead by the 1T, and the younger generations simply don't care about that. We care about rebuilding, not making sacrifices for causes primarily aimed at benefitting foreign parties.

[nguyenivy]

(12-14-2022, 12:40 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: One thing that is sure to go: the divide over whether to have more vs less involvement overseas is a generation one, not a left/right one. Silents and boomers want more "spreading democracy", nation building, being the world police, etc. Millennials and zoomers want us to leave the rest of the world alone and focus on ourselves. One of my biggest gripes with Idealist generations is their tendency to want to project universalist ideologies as far as possible, and they expect other generations to foot the bill and make the sacrifices necessary for this to happen. The Civil War is probably the most extreme example, but this trait is still definitely present in boomers.

In the event that they are opposing rather than complimentary priorities, the question is what is best for America, not what is best for the rest of the world. Many boomers (and likely a few in here) will object to this, but frankly...most of y'all gon' be dead by the 1T, and the younger generations simply don't care about that. We care about rebuilding, not making sacrifices for causes primarily aimed at benefitting foreign parties.

Is this why the US is moving slowly on climate change so far & appears to not care as much as other places on this topic? Slowing down the phenomenon will also benefit the US in addition to everywhere else, but it seems even my (Millennial) generation & the Xers I know don't seem to care enough about it to push industry to change. Do we just think we won't be around to see whatever the outcome will be? (Xers will be 70+/'twilight years' in 2050, Millennials 50+/'leaving prime age', etc) Millennials are in the 'raising kids/family' phase and likely just don't have the time to pursue a lot of protesting for something far down the pike when we have plenty on our plate now that is troublesome.

[JasonBlack]

(12-14-2022, 05:05 AM)nguyenivy Wrote: Is this why the US is moving slowly on climate change so far & appears to not care as much as other places on this topic? Slowing down the phenomenon will also benefit the US in addition to everywhere else, but it seems even my (Millennial) generation & the Xers I know don't seem to care enough about it to push industry to change. Do we just think we won't be around to see whatever the outcome will be? (Xers will be 70+/'twilight years' in 2050, Millennials 50+/'leaving prime age', etc) Millennials are in the 'raising kids/family' phase and likely just don't have the time to pursue a lot of protesting for something far down the pike when we have plenty on our plate now that is troublesome.

I'm confident this will pick up when millennials enter midlife. At present, I think the main problem is just that it's the younger two generations who are more interested in climate change, and the older two only more moderately so.

[pbrower2a]

(12-14-2022, 12:40 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: One thing that is sure to go: the divide over whether to have more vs less involvement overseas is a generation one, not a left/right one. Silents and boomers want more "spreading democracy", nation building, being the world police, etc. Millennials and zoomers want us to leave the rest of the world alone and focus on ourselves. One of my biggest gripes with Idealist generations is their tendency to want to project universalist ideologies as far as possible, and they expect other generations to foot the bill and make the sacrifices necessary for this to happen. The Civil War is probably the most extreme example, but this trait is still definitely present in boomers.

Human nature and bureaucratic behavior as they are, one can expect people and especially politicians and administrators to find new demons. I looked at Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds in the al-Anfal campaign and I saw a very bad character on the world scene with the potential to make the Cold War irrelevant.

The ideal that all human life is precious, a core value of the major religions of our time is internationalist in character. Abolition of slavery became a pretext of European colonization in Africa. British and French declarations of war against Nazi Germany, and UN measures against a similarly-vile regime upon invading Kuwait were pretexts for war. 

The demons remain much the same. The inability to judge evil for what it is is itself evil, whether chattel slavery or murderous genocide. Until the final defeat of Evil we can expect a continuing struggle between Good and Evil, both taking different forms and rationales. 
     

Quote:In the event that they are opposing rather than complimentary priorities, the question is what is best for America, not what is best for the rest of the world. Many boomers (and likely a few in here) will object to this, but frankly...most of y'all gon' be dead by the 1T, and the younger generations simply don't care about that. We care about rebuilding, not making sacrifices for causes primarily aimed at benefitting foreign parties.

Perhaps being born now are the first wave of New Idealists. Maybe the vast majority will be unable to wallow in the indulgence, certainty, and privacy that made possible the narcissism of middle-class (let alone upper-class) Boomers. Some political systems (typically Communist) have compelled their youth to do farm labor instead of enjoying "bourgeois" indulgence. A plutocratic order of the sort that Trump tried to create and that others may still succeed in establishing could ensure that the managerial and  professional elites emerge entirely from entrenched elites as everyone else is priced out of any training not suitable for menial services, low-grade technical work (repair and maintenance, largely), or raw labor. Such work as nursing, teaching, religion, police work, and all creative activity will be so ill-paid that those who do it will be obliged to rely upon rich relatives for much of their sustenance that cannot pay for student loans. Economic elites can be cruel not only in failing to share the wealth that others create on their behalf but also in brutal treatment of anyone who demands anything better in life than bare sustenance for long hours of ill-paid toil. This is yet to be decided; if Trump fails to get elected in 2024 then there will be others willing to impose such on behalf of their perverse dreams of power. Such nasty orders remain until overthrown in revolutions or calamitous wars. On the other side, we may have a saner new paradigm of neo-liberalism.   

After World War II the general consensus in America was that people who had endured hardscrabble childhood were trustworthy if they could show competence on the job, and they could form a large middle class. Bureaucratic assumptions in recent years have been that anyone who has endured any hardship is untrustworthy because such a person will show sympathy for people enduring hardships. It is best that we have a political and economic order that is not simultaneously hierarchical, inequitable, and repressive as was Imperial Russia, don't you think?

[pbrower2a]

(12-14-2022, 05:05 AM)nguyenivy Wrote:

(12-14-2022, 12:40 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: One thing that is sure to go: the divide over whether to have more vs less involvement overseas is a generation one, not a left/right one. Silents and boomers want more "spreading democracy", nation building, being the world police, etc. Millennials and zoomers want us to leave the rest of the world alone and focus on ourselves. One of my biggest gripes with Idealist generations is their tendency to want to project universalist ideologies as far as possible, and they expect other generations to foot the bill and make the sacrifices necessary for this to happen. The Civil War is probably the most extreme example, but this trait is still definitely present in boomers.

In the event that they are opposing rather than complimentary priorities, the question is what is best for America, not what is best for the rest of the world. Many boomers (and likely a few in here) will object to this, but frankly...most of y'all gon' be dead by the 1T, and the younger generations simply don't care about that. We care about rebuilding, not making sacrifices for causes primarily aimed at benefitting foreign parties.

Is this why the US is moving slowly on climate change so far & appears to not care as much as other places on this topic? Slowing down the phenomenon will also benefit the US in addition to everywhere else, but it seems even my (Millennial) generation & the Xers I know don't seem to care enough about it to push industry to change. Do we just think we won't be around to see whatever the outcome will be? (Xers will be 70+/'twilight years' in 2050, Millennials 50+/'leaving prime age', etc) Millennials are in the 'raising kids/family' phase and likely just don't have the time to pursue a lot of protesting for something far down the pike when we have plenty on our plate now that is troublesome.

The American political system gives disproportionate power to the super-wealthy who can supply the Dark Money to political aspirants who, like many of the super-wealthy, believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as such serves the power, indulgence, and greed of elites who know no limits for these. Dark Money supports politics of fear and loathing, reflecting to the extent that people can be manipulated, that those who own the gold are the only ones who can competently or rightly rule. This can change. Those super-wealthy are disproportionately white, and those who are most amenable to such an appeal are undereducated white people under economic and cultural stress. 

Generation X acquiesced to neoliberal politics and economics in return for promises of opportunity but often hated their jobs and the abysmal pay that came with them. They griped to their Millennial kids who learned their economics as griping about economic inequity and an increasingly-rigid class structure.

[JasonBlack]

(12-14-2022, 05:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The American political system gives disproportionate power to the super-wealthy who can supply the Dark Money to political aspirants who, like many of the super-wealthy, believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as such serves the power, indulgence, and greed of elites who know no limits for these. Dark Money supports politics of fear and loathing, reflecting to the extent that people can be manipulated, that those who own the gold are the only ones who can competently or rightly rule. This can change. Those super-wealthy are disproportionately white, and those who are most amenable to such an appeal are undereducated white people under economic and cultural stress. 

Generation X acquiesced to neoliberal politics and economics in return for promises of opportunity but often hated their jobs and the abysmal pay that came with them. They griped to their Millennial kids who learned their economics as griping about economic inequity and an increasingly-rigid class structure.

It would be nice if we had more right wingers around wanting to do something about this. Whether we like it or not, some sort of wrecking ball is going to smash into the bureaucratic establishment, and a right wing "drain the swamp" agenda is much more favorable to a lefty swing toward something more restrictive or South America-esque.

As to your previous comment about the possibility of young idealists just starting to be born, I don't see that happening yet. One of the most basic turning points that suggest a 4T is just starting to correct course is that people are much more willing to acknowledge the inevitable and face it down on their own terms. We aren't there yet, not even close. Honestly, I'd give us another year before this happens, and another 8-11 years after that before it really gets resolved. As such, my money is on the new idealist births starting around 2027-ish. Of course, we won't really know until the 1T arrives.

[David Horn]

There is a breaking point. Note: the Brits are finally there, though we seem destined to continue to ride neoliberalism into the ground. But even that desire can't change what is getting more and more obvious: the shift of resources to the top is now so severe that the other 99% can't sustain itself. That's what is happening in the UK and will here ... eventually.

In the UK, the Toories took it way too far. The GOP is doing the same thing here. The real question: when will the dam break? I'm afraid the waning 4T may not allow enough time to get us there, but, then again, things are far more fluid that I expected even a few months ago. I would love to see this play out in my lifetime, so I'm hoping for a 4T solution.

[Eric the Green]

(12-15-2022, 12:26 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(12-14-2022, 05:26 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The American political system gives disproportionate power to the super-wealthy who can supply the Dark Money to political aspirants who, like many of the super-wealthy, believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as such serves the power, indulgence, and greed of elites who know no limits for these. Dark Money supports politics of fear and loathing, reflecting to the extent that people can be manipulated, that those who own the gold are the only ones who can competently or rightly rule. This can change. Those super-wealthy are disproportionately white, and those who are most amenable to such an appeal are undereducated white people under economic and cultural stress. 

Generation X acquiesced to neoliberal politics and economics in return for promises of opportunity but often hated their jobs and the abysmal pay that came with them. They griped to their Millennial kids who learned their economics as griping about economic inequity and an increasingly-rigid class structure.

It would be nice if we had more right wingers around wanting to do something about this. Whether we like it or not, some sort of wrecking ball is going to smash into the bureaucratic establishment, and a right wing "drain the swamp" agenda is much more favorable to a lefty swing toward something more restrictive or South America-esque.

As to your previous comment about the possibility of young idealists just starting to be born, I don't see that happening yet. One of the most basic turning points that suggest a 4T is just starting to correct course is that people are much more willing to acknowledge the inevitable and face it down on their own terms. We aren't there yet, not even close. Honestly, I'd give us another year before this happens, and another 8-11 years after that before it really gets resolved. As such, my money is on the new idealist births starting around 2027-ish. Of course, we won't really know until the 1T arrives.

I don't see any right-wingers around willing to do anything about "economic inequity and an increasingly-rigid class structure". It is true that Trump alluded to aspects of this, but only offered remedies that make it worse; in fact he doubled down on the neoliberal agenda that so benefits him and his class. I'm afraid that restrictions on big corporate operations and wealthy business interests has to be the central focus of any such correction, since they are the cause of all such economic inequity and the increasingly-rigid class structure. That means higher taxes and regulations on them, and protections and support for the poor and middle class folks who suffer from their behavior and their monopolization of power today in so many ways. And since the government must provide these things, I'm afraid that we need more, not less, "bureaucracy" to handle these matters. And such bureauracy must be clean and not corrupt. Such things as gerrymandering and money-domination of politics, all so favored by the right wing and its supreme court, is the real swamp, and only the Left can or is willing to drain it.

I agree on your timing. I expect the astrological indicator of the first births of the prophet/idealist and civic/hero generations, Neptune entering a cardinal tropical zodiac sign, will hold up again, which means the next idealist prophets should begin to be born within a year of 2025 or 2026, plus or minus, probably plus. I expect that, IF we come through our crisis and correct our course, that the 1T should begin in 2029 or 2030. 

As you know, I expect any such course correction will depend on Democrats coming out of the 4T with more power. I don't see any problem with the more-lefty regimes coming into power now in some places South and Latin America; they are not extreme or totalitarian. I don't endorse the Cuba model or Venezuelan kleptocracy, and I abhor the traitor Ortega in Nicaragua, and I don't think the new regimes in Brazil (Lula taking office in January), Chile and Colombia, for example, emulate those models.

[JasonBlack]

(12-15-2022, 02:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't see any right-wingers around willing to do anything about "economic inequity and an increasingly-rigid class structure". It is true that Trump alluded to aspects of this, but only offered remedies that make it worse; in fact he doubled down on the neoliberal agenda that so benefits him and his class. I'm afraid that restrictions on big corporate operations and wealthy business interests has to be the central focus of any such correction, since they are the cause of all such economic inequity and the increasingly-rigid class structure. That means higher taxes and regulations on them, and protections and support for the poor and middle class folks who suffer from their behavior and their monopolization of power today in so many ways. And since the government must provide these things, I'm afraid that we need more, not less, "bureaucracy" to handle these matters. And such bureauracy must be clean and not corrupt. Such things as gerrymandering and money-domination of politics, all so favored by the right wing and its supreme court, is the real swamp, and only the Left can or is willing to drain it.

I agree on your timing. I expect the astrological indicator of the first births of the prophet/idealist and civic/hero generations, Neptune entering a cardinal tropical zodiac sign, will hold up again, which means the next idealist prophets should begin to be born within a year of 2025 or 2026, plus or minus, probably plus. I expect that, IF we come through our crisis and correct our course, that the 1T should begin in 2029 or 2030. 

As you know, I expect any such course correction will depend on Democrats coming out of the 4T with more power. I don't see any problem with the more-lefty regimes coming into power now in some places South and Latin America; they are not extreme or totalitarian. I don't endorse the Cuba model or Venezuelan kleptocracy, and I abhor the traitor Ortega in Nicaragua, and I don't think the new regimes in Brazil (Lula taking office in January), Chile and Colombia, for example, emulate those models.

I can't think of a single Latin American country I'd ever want to emulate (at least as far as political regimes are concerned). Even the best are always way worse than America at its worst.

[Eric the Green]

(12-15-2022, 03:15 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(12-15-2022, 02:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't see any right-wingers around willing to do anything about "economic inequity and an increasingly-rigid class structure". It is true that Trump alluded to aspects of this, but only offered remedies that make it worse; in fact he doubled down on the neoliberal agenda that so benefits him and his class. I'm afraid that restrictions on big corporate operations and wealthy business interests has to be the central focus of any such correction, since they are the cause of all such economic inequity and the increasingly-rigid class structure. That means higher taxes and regulations on them, and protections and support for the poor and middle class folks who suffer from their behavior and their monopolization of power today in so many ways. And since the government must provide these things, I'm afraid that we need more, not less, "bureaucracy" to handle these matters. And such bureauracy must be clean and not corrupt. Such things as gerrymandering and money-domination of politics, all so favored by the right wing and its supreme court, is the real swamp, and only the Left can or is willing to drain it.

I agree on your timing. I expect the astrological indicator of the first births of the prophet/idealist and civic/hero generations, Neptune entering a cardinal tropical zodiac sign, will hold up again, which means the next idealist prophets should begin to be born within a year of 2025 or 2026, plus or minus, probably plus. I expect that, IF we come through our crisis and correct our course, that the 1T should begin in 2029 or 2030. 

As you know, I expect any such course correction will depend on Democrats coming out of the 4T with more power. I don't see any problem with the more-lefty regimes coming into power now in some places South and Latin America; they are not extreme or totalitarian. I don't endorse the Cuba model or Venezuelan kleptocracy, and I abhor the traitor Ortega in Nicaragua, and I don't think the new regimes in Brazil (Lula taking office in January), Chile and Colombia, for example, emulate those models.

I can't think of a single Latin American country I'd ever want to emulate (at least as far as political regimes are concerned). Even the best are always way worse than America at its worst.

The Trump regime was worse than many Latin American regimes.