Will a nationalist/cosmopolitan divide be the political axis of the coming saeculum?

[Einzige]

It certainly looks like it's shaping up that way.  My bet is that the 2020s see the last election along the conservative/liberal divide that originated in the Millennial Saeculum.

[Warren Dew]

Tribal nationalism is on the rise because we're in a crisis period.  We'll have to wait for the next second or third turning for cosmopoliitanism to come back.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2016, 11:31 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Tribal nationalism is on the rise because we're in a crisis period.  We'll have to wait for the next second or third turning for cosmopoliitanism to come back.

It's rearing its head, but is not dominant. Tribal nationalism is a reaction to the fact that old borders are crumbling, seemingly suddenly with the migrations in the wake of recent revolutions and civil wars. Everything as I predicted. I think that trend will continue into the next saeculum, but as it goes along it will diminish, and I don't know if it will be the its central conflict. The Green Revolution continues to be the nub of the matter, and as the 2T dawns it will take center stage and become dominant, no doubt with some resistance. The environment remains the central issue of our time, into the next seaculum, and whether people realize this or not doesn't really matter.

[Warren Dew]

(10-27-2016, 11:40 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-27-2016, 11:31 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Tribal nationalism is on the rise because we're in a crisis period.  We'll have to wait for the next second or third turning for cosmopoliitanism to come back.

In no way is what I described Cosmopolitanism. It is actually based on Agrarian, Jeffersonian values. And it can win. The tribal version cannot, and always ends in destruction, either self destruction or destruction imposed from without.

I was responding to Eiinzige's post, not to your post - sorry about being unclear about that.

[playwrite]

I think the divide is much more cosmopolitan/vulgarian, with the vulgarian tribe divided further between the philistine with xenophobic tendencies (disguised as nationalism) and the money-grubbers.  To the extent that the money-grubbers can manipulate the philistines will determine how much the combined vulgarian group can remain an active political force.

Some of the philistines sub-group will smartin up and reject the xenophobic siren calls of the money-grubbers sub-group.  However, most will not change but instead fall further and further behind economically and healthwise and simply die out.

On occasion, the money-grubbers will come to fear what they have wrought with their seething philistine sheeple and back off - like the ones currently backing away from Trumpism.  The money-grubbers subgroup, however, cannot be made to fully come to heel until enough of their philistine sheeple either smartin up or die off to sufficiently undermine the political power of the combined vulgarians group.

It's going to take a while, but we're on the road to it.  First by winning national level elections and increasingly statewide elections that through making the SCOTUS and state judiciary increasingly progressive will undermine  gerrymandering, corporate electioneering, voter suppression and other desperate rearguard effort.  But just as important, these loses will help split the vulgarians into their two subgroups, despising each other as much as the cosmopolitans and thereby hasten their eventual departure as a political force.

[pbrower2a]

Nationalism is outmoded except as a diversion from real economic and political distress.

[David Horn]

(10-27-2016, 01:39 PM)playwrite Wrote: I think the divide is much more cosmopolitan/vulgarian, with the vulgarian tribe divided further between the philistine with xenophobic tendencies (disguised as nationalism) and the money-grubbers.  To the extent that the money-grubbers can manipulate the philistines will determine how much the combined vulgarian group can remain an active political force.

Some of the philistines sub-group will smartin up and reject the xenophobic siren calls of the money-grubbers sub-group.  However, most will not change but instead fall further and further behind economically and healthwise and simply die out.

On occasion, the money-grubbers will come to fear what they have wrought with their seething philistine sheeple and back off - like the ones currently backing away from Trumpism.  The money-grubbers subgroup, however, cannot be made to fully come to heel until enough of their philistine sheeple either smartin up or die off to sufficiently undermine the political power of the combined vulgarians group.

It's going to take a while, but we're on the road to it.  First by winning national level elections and increasingly statewide elections that through making the SCOTUS and state judiciary increasingly progressive will undermine  gerrymandering, corporate electioneering, voter suppression and other desperate rearguard effort.  But just as important, these loses will help split the vulgarians into their two subgroups, despising each other as much as the cosmopolitans and thereby hasten their eventual departure as a political force.

The worst part of this is the totally vacuous nature of both sides.  Yes, the cosmopolitans have the right future path, more or less, but they are not a lot less self centered and shallow than their opponents.  This is least serious election in my lifetime.  It's all theater.

[Mikebert]

(10-27-2016, 11:23 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(10-27-2016, 09:59 AM)Einzige Wrote: It certainly looks like it's shaping up that way.  My bet is that the 2020s see the last election along the conservative/liberal divide that originated in the Millennial Saeculum.

I'd like to offer up a better type of Nationalism.

The current pathetic attempt is essentially an "Anglo-Saxon-American White Power" tribal identity group. Truly lame.

A better Nationalism is based on what the US was always architected to be - a nation formed around ideals, structures, and Natural Law, and not formed around the narrow and non-sustainable notion of tribe. This is what has always set us apart from our European colonial power former masters. There are some oft overlooked corners of Whiggish American-style Classical Liberalism which are excellent potential incubators for a future Humanistic Nationalism.

Links would help when making a post like this. Are there some writers advocating for this idea?  Link to them.  If this is your idea then more detail and explanation is needed.  Not in a single super-long post, but in bite sized pieces in which you respond to questions.

[pbrower2a]

(10-27-2016, 01:39 PM)playwrite Wrote: I think the divide is much more cosmopolitan/vulgarian, with the vulgarian tribe divided further between the philistine with xenophobic tendencies (disguised as nationalism) and the money-grubbers.  To the extent that the money-grubbers can manipulate the philistines will determine how much the combined vulgarian group can remain an active political force.

Many of the vulgarians are proud of Hillary Clinton's label "deplorable", even wearing the word as a badge of pride. Such people would never think of deciding why Hillary Clinton labels them 'deplorable'. Thus I see paraphernalia that read "Deplorables for Trump", apparently for people who read little and fail to contemplate what insults really mean. To them, "homophobia", "xenophobia", and "Islamophobia" that she considers horrible are harmless and even admirable.

The money-grubbers may not be particularly bigoted; they simply have their gain above all else -- some times even their own indulgence. So why shouldn't working people make great sacrifices for the creation of elite wealth, the only virtue in America? To such an end the common man needs to pay more of the cost of enforcing capitalist 'needs' through taxes? Why should plutocrats need to show any conscience? So it is back to the Gilded Age with its 70-hour work-weeks and 40-year lifespans for industrial workers and extreme distress for all but a few big land-owners in rural America because such creates wealth.

(Really, the great plantations were not so good at creating wealth as they were at concentrating income; the progress of the Gilded Age was innovation in technology and business practices. Some fellow named Karl Marx showed that the concentration of income would eventually create human suffering and social instability that would manifest itself in revolution in which the workers would rise against their cruel and perverse masters and overthrow them in a new era of social equity.

The wiser capitalists, or at least those who saw their innovations needed mass consumption to justify high levels of productivity, sought to make the proletariat into a market and give workers a stake in the system.

Quote:Some of the philistines sub-group will smartin up and reject the xenophobic siren calls of the money-grubbers sub-group.  However, most will not change but instead fall further and further behind economically and healthwise and simply die out.

Support for Donald Trump is largely low-end, among people whose civic ignorance is 'deplorable'. I notice a lack of reflection -- how can people believe something else? These people get answers that they never asked for from Donald Trump, answers that one would not accept if one faces the same economic hardships but has a different ethnic or religious origin or level of intellectual achievement. Donald Trump plays the white populist card well, but he does little to assuage fears of people not clearly white or who can think things through.

I hate to use the political f-word, but as with fascists of the past, Trump appeals to people of superficial learning. Such people buy and read tabloids... and when they read those tabloids they see nothing missing. They identify with 'celebrities', many of them vulgar and intellectually vacuous parvenus who act as if they won the Super-Duper Megabucks Lottery, or at least pretending to be such. The only way in which those people in the 'deplorable basket' will ever get rich is by winning the Super Duper Megabucks Lottery or its equivalent in a casino. So don't bother with book-learning that might teach some of the underlying realities of life, some workable philosophy of existence, or the idea that there is more to life than (I have said it often enough).

Their kids need to put down the video games on occasion or turn away from such on the Internet often enough to learn some stuff that gives them more opportunities on the job and more meaning in life once they get past the nothing-but-survival mode of existence. One is more than one's economic role, or one's life is miserable. Ask any slave who has ever lived.

Quote:On occasion, the money-grubbers will come to fear what they have wrought with their seething philistine sheeple and back off - like the ones currently backing away from Trumpism.  The money-grubbers subgroup, however, cannot be made to fully come to heel until enough of their philistine sheeple either smartin up or die off to sufficiently undermine the political power of the combined vulgarians group.

But few of the money-grubbers are pure misers who insist upon misery for everyone else so that the misers can simply accumulate capital without reward other than in owning capital or watching it accumulate in others' hands. Most recognize that workers need some stake in the system so that they have something more to lose than their chains.

Quote:It's going to take a while, but we're on the road to it.  First by winning national level elections and increasingly statewide elections that through making the SCOTUS and state judiciary increasingly progressive will undermine  gerrymandering, corporate electioneering, voter suppression and other desperate rearguard effort.  But just as important, these losses will help split the vulgarians into their two subgroups, despising each other as much as the cosmopolitans and thereby hasten their eventual departure as a political force.

Maybe it's hard to be a vulgarian if one sees the economic elites as exploiters and abusers. Remember -- if one is not white, straight, Christian, and Anglo one has good cause to distrust Donald Trump. The votes of all those groups, however subdivided, would give Hillary Clinton 538 electoral votes. This is true even of groups doing better than average, like most Asian ethnic groups. Middle-class blacks and Hispanics vote like poor blacks or Hispanics against Trump.

Donald Trump is a nightmare to many Americans. Maybe if poor white people would contemplate why blacks in the same economic plight see Donald Trump as a political anathema they might vote on conscience instead of for some junk politics. But who needs a conscience when one's life is debased to sex, booze, mass low culture, and the implicit acceptance of superiority for being white, Anglo, straight, and Christian?

Some people are more concerned about their rights as expressed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments; some are more concerned about the 2nd Amendment. Go figure. I have heard some people express themselves as "10th-Amendment Americans". Somehow they neglect the 13th, 14th, and 15th.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-28-2016, 02:48 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Links would help when making a post like this. Are there some writers advocating for this idea?  Link to them.  If this is your idea then more detail and explanation is needed.  Not in a single super-long post, but in bite sized pieces in which you respond to questions.

I can sympathize with Mike, here.  This thread is introducing new labels, but isn’t defining what they mean very well.  They are perfectly good labels, but haven’t we got enough labels?

I’ve a sense of a significant shift in the dynamics of the Red / Blue conflict, but rather than change the label I’d like to examine which issues have shifted.  My first thought was to write a super-long mega post to examine each and every issue and look for shifts, but I’m afraid Mike might decide to apply a 2nd Amendment Solution.

The obvious change is that racism and sexism have been brought out in the open again.  Through the unraveling, political correctness kept much of that below the surface.  With hindsight, the deplorable thoughts were suppressed but hadn’t gone away.  I have seen polls saying that one of Trump’s key draws is ‘curbing the excesses of political correctness.’  That is, of course, the politically correct way of saying he’s making it OK to be openly deplorable.

“Make America Deplorable Again?”

A second factor is his insulting of America.  In order to assert he would make America better, he is portraying America as horrible, mostly by repeating stuff that simply isn't true over and over again.  This isn’t so much a issue change as a campaign tactic.  I’m not sure a new version of the Republican Party can be based on demeaning and insulting lies.

On economics, he’s going with Trumped Up Trickle Down.  This isn’t new.  The Republican base is sold on tax cuts and small government.  He is promising more of the same but more so.  Personally, I thought Bush 43 had already taken that well beyond the point of reason and collapsed the economy in the process.  Trump is promising to go further beyond reason.  Still, this isn’t a transformation of the Republican philosophy.  If Reagan had some good ideas, and the Bushes hurt the country by over using these ideas, Trump is bushier than either Bush.

I could go on, but somewhere around here is the super long post mega line.

But what other issues are involved in this supposed change into a nationalist / cosmopolitan divide?  To me, the Establishment Republicans were willing to mess up the country doing stupid things if doing stupid things would get them re-elected.  Trump is taking the same old promises to the next level but adding open prejudice and hate.  He has shown that if one deliberately seeks out the deplorable wing of the Republican party, one could win primaries and defeat the less deplorable Republicans.  While this approach can win Republican primaries, to what extent can it win general elections?

That seems to be the key Trump shift.  I’m not really seeing new ideas transforming party lines.

[naf140230]

(10-29-2016, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Many of the vulgarians are proud of Hillary Clinton's label "deplorable", even wearing the word as a badge of pride. Such people would never think of deciding why Hillary Clinton labels them 'deplorable'.

It goes both ways. At the last debate, Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a nasty woman. Clinton supporters are wearing that word "nasty" as a badge of pride, too. I have seen this on Twitter.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-29-2016, 04:29 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(10-29-2016, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Many of the vulgarians are proud of Hillary Clinton's label "deplorable", even wearing the word as a badge of pride. Such people would never think of deciding why Hillary Clinton labels them 'deplorable'.

It goes both ways. At the last debate, Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a nasty woman. Clinton supporters are wearing that word "nasty" as a badge of pride, too. I have seen this on Twitter.

Which to me isn't a change for the better on either side.

[David Horn]

(10-29-2016, 04:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-29-2016, 04:29 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(10-29-2016, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Many of the vulgarians are proud of Hillary Clinton's label "deplorable", even wearing the word as a badge of pride. Such people would never think of deciding why Hillary Clinton labels them 'deplorable'.

It goes both ways. At the last debate, Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a nasty woman. Clinton supporters are wearing that word "nasty" as a badge of pride, too. I have seen this on Twitter.

Which to me isn't a change for the better on either side.

Apparently we are no longer a nation of thinking adults.  We have regressed to middle school and should be ashamed, but we aren't ... at least not enough of us to stop the lunacy.  Are we talking about issues?  Not really.  Both candidates have made statements, but I'm not sure either is serious.  Hillary knows she won't be allowed to do anything and Trump won't want to do anything that might require thinking and hard work.

We have four years of vacuous posturing ahead of us.  Will that aid or retard the transformation of the parties?  2020 is a critical election, much more so than this one, and I don't see anything in the works that will move use in a better direction.  It's obvious that the old structure is dead, and this poisonous election is doing nothing to help.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-01-2016, 01:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: We have four years of vacuous posturing ahead of us.  Will that aid or retard the transformation of the parties?  2020 is a critical election, much more so than this one, and I don't see anything in the works that will move use in a better direction.  It's obvious that the old structure is dead, and this poisonous election is doing nothing to help.

The only plausible upside I can see is that a Buchanan or Hoover seems to be required before a Lincoln or FDR.

[Mikebert]

What do you see as issues, and how would you address them?

Some years ago I wrote a series of posts calling for somebody to advocate for a tariff. I said they may not be a good policy in themselves, but talking about tariifs was definitely a good policy as it would put the fear of God into the elites.  Well that has now happened, and it is good.

Next up is more problematic.  Simple repetition would suggest some right-wing or Islamic terrorism. But history does not repeat. Of course a financial panic and depression would solve all the problems, but this would be a gift from God.  I am not sure God gives a shit about us, but if I am wrong and the Christians are right, then we should get an economic collapse, the sooner the better.

We can hope that the Christians are right, that God will intervene on behalf of America and give us the economic collapse we need, but suppose the atheists are right and there is no God? Then they may well be no panic, no economic collapse

In this case maybe we get violence?  The question is who?  American Right-Wingers talk a good game but ultimately have no balls. Even if they did, you would think it would be mass shootings, which are zero impact, particularly if the perp is some white dude.  Maybe there could be some Islamic terrorism, but I don't think ISIS has the ideological penetration to carry this off. Maybe there will be more cops getting shot, but I doubt it.  Unless you have some more McVeigh-type figures using bombs, I can't see anything coming from something like this.

So we are left with slow motion cultural evolution of the mindsets needed to resolve the crisis. In that case we might not get movement on the crisis issues until a decade or more hence, by which time, Dave Horn will be pass the point of caring and I will be getting close that that.

[Copperfield]

(11-01-2016, 04:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why the heck does America mix politics and religion ffs?

Why is Elizabeth the Second queen of New Zealand?

[Ragnarök_62]

(10-29-2016, 04:29 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(10-29-2016, 09:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Many of the vulgarians are proud of Hillary Clinton's label "deplorable", even wearing the word as a badge of pride. Such people would never think of deciding why Hillary Clinton labels them 'deplorable'.

It goes both ways. At the last debate, Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a nasty woman. Clinton supporters are wearing that word "nasty" as a badge of pride, too. I have seen this on Twitter.

I blame Survivor myself.     It's tribe deplorable vs. tribe nasty, man.     So as for election 2016, here's the poster for the thing below.

Mikebert Wrote:So we are left with slow motion cultural evolution of the mindsets needed to resolve the crisis. In that case we might not get movement on the crisis issues until a decade or more hence, by which time, Dave Horn will be pass the point of caring and I will be getting close that that.

Uh, has the thought that this particular 4T may well be a dud?  After all, the generational alignment for a crisis does have a due by date. The poster works for instance as well.

[Warren Dew]

(11-01-2016, 04:25 PM)Mikebert Wrote: What do you see as issues, and how would you address them?

Some years ago I wrote a series of posts calling for somebody to advocate for a tariff. I said they may not be a good policy in themselves, but talking about tariifs was definitely a good policy as it would put the fear of God into the elites.  Well that has now happened, and it is good.

Next up is more problematic.  Simple repetition would suggest some right-wing or Islamic terrorism. But history does not repeat. Of course a financial panic and depression would solve all the problems, but this would be a gift from God.  I am not sure God gives a shit about us, but if I am wrong and the Christians are right, then we should get an economic collapse, the sooner the better.

We can hope that the Christians are right, that God will intervene on behalf of America and give us the economic collapse we need, but suppose the atheists are right and there is no God? Then they may well be no panic, no economic collapse

In this case maybe we get violence?  The question is who?  American Right-Wingers talk a good game but ultimately have no balls. Even if they did, you would think it would be mass shootings, which are zero impact, particularly if the perp is some white dude.  Maybe there could be some Islamic terrorism, but I don't think ISIS has the ideological penetration to carry this off. Maybe there will be more cops getting shot, but I doubt it.  Unless you have some more McVeigh-type figures using bombs, I can't see anything coming from something like this.

So we are left with slow motion cultural evolution of the mindsets needed to resolve the crisis. In that case we might not get movement on the crisis issues until a decade or more hence, by which time, Dave Horn will be pass the point of caring and I will be getting close that that.

If we get domestic violence, it's more likely to be in the form of assassinations of elites than mass shootings.  Then we could get police crackdowns, and in reaction riots that result in burning down affluent neighborhoods.  Generalized societal breakdown could follow.

More likely, the elites manage to unite the plebs around some external enemy, like Russia or Islam.  If it's Russia, nuclear war likely follows.  Not sure how it goes if "Islam" is the enemy.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-01-2016, 04:41 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why the heck does America mix politics and religion ffs?

It's a values thing, of course.  As such, if one has a deep involvement in one value set, that value set is fixed and deeply imbedded.  The US is a large immigrant nation with remnants of a wide variety of cultures and values, so there are conflicts.

Some identify America as a religious nation.  Morality is viewed as ultimately coming from God and/or the Bible.  If the majority of a region shares a given belief that certain acts are immoral sins, it seems entirely proper for them to elect representatives and pass laws that enforce moral behavior.

Others have values based more on the Enlightenment, and thus place more moral emphasis on rights and freedom.  The government should not be able to force individuals to do certain things.  Many such put an emphasis on Freedom of Religion, that the government cannot be used to force the religious practices of one sect or cult on all.

That's the basic tension.  There are of course many variations on the theme.  For much of US history various protestant religions have been in the majority.  Believers are used to religious doctrine and secular laws being quite compatible.  That is how it ought to be in their minds.  As the population becomes more diverse and the secular individuals push for rights and equality trumping religious doctrine, the more religious individuals are feeling a loss of control and a failure of morality.

It is possible to know God's will.  It is proper to do God's will.  Voting for the government to enforce God's will is natural and proper.  To do otherwise might be judged as sin.

You might extrapolate from there.

OK.  When I start trying to think like the other guy, I sometimes get caught up in their way of seeing things.  Does New Zealand not care about God and the morality he attempts to teach?

[pbrower2a]

The bigger divide may be between elitists and anti-elitists -- between those believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as it gives the elites the maximal profits and those who believe that workers need a stake in the system if there is not to be a socialist insurrection/slave revolt/peasant uprising. The former have often shown their willingness to use lies, tortures, and mass murder to get their way.

If this divide operates without mitigation then the question may not be so much whether people figuratively grease the guillotine but instead who gets the figurative command of the guillotine -- against whom.