Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump, Bannon and the Coming Crisis
#21
(11-27-2016, 04:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-27-2016, 12:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 08:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Sometimes nations in a 4T try all sorts of bad solutions before coming up with the right one ...

I don't see how we can avoid a period of experimentation, since we are totally in the dark about the course we must follow.  Isn't that a huge part of the 4T ethic?  If we knew what to do, there would be no reason for a crisis.

FWIW, I assume the next iteration will involve a full restructuring of the system we have currently locked in place by the Constitution.  Doing that will be hard ... very hard.  It could involve the Constitutional convention that has never happened to date, or some form of social disintegration that leads to who-knows-what.  In any case, it will be dramatic, if it happens.  Stasis is also a possibility, and crisis will simply pass unresolved for now. 

If the solution is the non-solution, then the next 2T will see the last 2T on steroids, and the 4T ... I hate to think.  We're running a post-modern America on an Agricultural Age political model.  At some point, that has to break down.


It is the neglectful government of a 3T, the bad business practices, and the perverse mass culture that form the Degeneracy that implodes as a Crisis. The 3T is the time of hidden rot (especially the intensification of economic inequality and the degradation of public service); the 4T usually strikes when a do-nothing leader is in charge and has no clue of how to meet the Crisis.

The problem isn't our Constitution; it is that cunning, ruthless people have found ways to get around its intent for their own gain and power. We will need a new political structure that counteracts those tendencies.
I wonder if it's possible to guess at the contours of where we are headed post crisis (assuming there's a big one in the next 10 years).

Some biggies:

1. Income inequality is starting to become a problem
2. US manufacturing jobs for the lower middle class have all but vanished
3. The culture at large is becoming incredibly fragmented (civil unrest, shootings, cops killing innocents and getting killed etc.)
4. Economic slowdowns in Europe and in China are likely to affect the US soon.
5. ISIS-style terrorism is becoming more common.
6. There's a significant element of the US population which will not accept climate change as a serious problem.
7. Unfunded entitlements, debt, interest rates at zero, QE, etc.

Let's assume that all these problems come to a head in the next 3-4 years. We can also assume that Trump/Bannon etc. will probably exacerbate these issues to the point where we (the citizens) may feel that the republic is falling apart.

All these problems point to the start of a new era driven by (i) the need to address climate change head on by changing our infrastructure and (ii) ensuring that there's decent GDP growth in the U.S. while providing job security for the middle and lower middle classes, (iii) taking steps toward forming a unified American culture and (iv) firewalling the terrorist world somehow.

What's written above seems insanely difficult to achieve. And yet we'll probably get there (or somewhere equivalent) because we'll reach a point where we have nothing to lose. This view also points to the U.S. moving in a more socially conservative (in the good sense) and economically liberal direction. The question is: is this the likely 1T?
Reply
#22
(11-27-2016, 10:57 PM)anandrajan Wrote:
(11-27-2016, 04:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(11-27-2016, 12:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 08:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Sometimes nations in a 4T try all sorts of bad solutions before coming up with the right one ...

I don't see how we can avoid a period of experimentation, since we are totally in the dark about the course we must follow.  Isn't that a huge part of the 4T ethic?  If we knew what to do, there would be no reason for a crisis.

FWIW, I assume the next iteration will involve a full restructuring of the system we have currently locked in place by the Constitution.  Doing that will be hard ... very hard.  It could involve the Constitutional convention that has never happened to date, or some form of social disintegration that leads to who-knows-what.  In any case, it will be dramatic, if it happens.  Stasis is also a possibility, and crisis will simply pass unresolved for now. 

If the solution is the non-solution, then the next 2T will see the last 2T on steroids, and the 4T ... I hate to think.  We're running a post-modern America on an Agricultural Age political model.  At some point, that has to break down.


It is the neglectful government of a 3T, the bad business practices, and the perverse mass culture that form the Degeneracy that implodes as a Crisis. The 3T is the time of hidden rot (especially the intensification of economic inequality and the degradation of public service); the 4T usually strikes when a do-nothing leader is in charge and has no clue of how to meet the Crisis.

The problem isn't our Constitution; it is that cunning, ruthless people have found ways to get around its intent for their own gain and power. We will need a new political structure that counteracts those tendencies.
I wonder if it's possible to guess at the contours of where we are headed post crisis (assuming there's a big one in the next 10 years).

Some biggies:

1. Income inequality is starting to become a problem
2. US manufacturing jobs for the lower middle class have all but vanished
3. The culture at large is becoming incredibly fragmented (civil unrest, shootings, cops killing innocents and getting killed etc.)
4. Economic slowdowns in Europe and in China are likely to affect the US soon.
5. ISIS-style terrorism is becoming more common.
6. There's a significant element of the US population which will not accept climate change as a serious problem.
7. Unfunded entitlements, debt, interest rates at zero, QE, etc.

Let's assume that all these problems come to a head in the next 3-4 years. We can also assume that Trump/Bannon etc. will probably exacerbate these issues to the point where we (the citizens) may feel that the republic is falling apart.

All these problems point to the start of a new era driven by (i) the need to address climate change head on by changing our infrastructure and (ii) ensuring that there's decent GDP growth in the U.S. while providing job security for the middle and lower middle classes, (iii) taking steps toward forming a unified American culture and (iv) firewalling the terrorist world somehow.

What's written above seems insanely difficult to achieve. And yet we'll probably get there (or somewhere equivalent) because we'll reach a point where we have nothing to lose. This view also points to the U.S. moving in a more socially conservative (in the good sense) and economically liberal direction. The question is: is this the likely 1T?

We are in the post-industrial world. We can achieve all of our material needs much more easily than we did even forty years ago. We do not need as many people in manufacturing as we used to because manufacturing is now a smaller part of the economy. Services are where the money is. It's arguable that many of us are paying more in interest than we are paying on equity. If you have a two-year-old computer you have probably paid more on the Internet service than on the computer itself. Likewise on cable TV (one can't get good reception where I live without cable TV, as I am seventy or so miles away from most TV signals) than for the TV set that you watch it on, unless you have one of those super-expensive ones.

To save money we can largely do three things:

(1) be a late adapter, which means that one gets serviceable technologies when they are  obsolete by most standards,
(2) be very conservative in personal style, or
(3) cut back on services.

Basically one can make it do or do without. People will do that in an economic meltdown, only to make the meltdown worse.

Being able to meet one's needs with less work would seem to be a blessing -- right?  If it takes 28 hours to meet our basic needs instead of 40 (allowing a reasonable return on investment for ownership, of course) then maybe we need to cut back on the workweek so that we have more leisure.

But what would we do with that leisure? That's where high-quality liberal education comes in.  We need to sort the uplifting from the degrading and choose the uplifting. We need to expand formal education so that people can deal with the great variety of material available so easily. But in that material is material that ranges from wastes of time to sheer toxic waste for the mind -- dioxin for the soul.

People need recognize that some news sources are reliable and that some aren't. It is bad enough (from my ideological standpoint) that people rely upon FoX News, Breitbart, Newsmax, and other such right-wing stuff. I can ignore the journalistic trash that tells us of space aliens, toast that bears apparitions of the Virgin Mary, and the lore of the Loch Ness Monster because such is harmless (if stupefying). People were citing Facebook as a news source just because people were getting news items over it... news items often little more than rumors. (My ideal news source is the AP wires because they are blitz-written for speed, without room for a journalist's bias). As the news items that we see are fed to us often based upon what we believe instead of what is true, those who feed us the stuff have quit fact-checking. We need to do our own fact-checking or rely upon paid sources that do what used to be a norm in journalism.

So we need more education, and not less -- and a high school diploma that might have been adequate in the days in which many who got it could  expect to do 40 hours of work with numbing boredom on an assembly line is no longer adequate for people who no longer need to work so many hours. We need to get our youth exposed to more philosophy (including formal logic), world history, economics, and psychology.  

There's much art, music, and literature on the Web... and we might as well enjoy it. I'm not going to say that those who love classical music need scrap Anton Bruckner for Conway Twitty, or vice versa. There is not and never will be a unified American culture. I might be a better fit for Japanese-American culture (if you are wondering about my taste in music, classical music does well in Japan) than for many American subcultures. We need freedom to change cultural identity, something highly likely in mixed marriages. But you said culture... I think that you really meant 'civil society'. We will be able to get away with many cultures and cultural fusions, but we can have only one society. The optimum is an orderly (if intellectually free) society that respects learning, enterprise, and legitimate achievement.

I see middle-class minorities as the hope for an advancing America. These people are well educated as a rule, and they respect learning not only as vocational preparation but also as essential for finding meaning in life. The truly vile stuff in America seems directed at dumb white people who lack heroes even in the white part of the American middle class. Their lack of such heroes makes them amenable to someone as callow as Donald Trump. The minority poor at the least have the middle class of their own ethnic group to look up to and to seek as mentors if they so desire.

...The generational cycle offers some hope. We often have to go through some catastrophic blunders (Donald Trump will be that) to figure that we need something sensible. The Crisis pushes people to the limits of their competence just for survival of the society. Who would have expected flappers of the 1920s to become Rosie the Riveter? By the end of the Crisis we will get institutional change that sweeps out many bad habits that have put the People  in danger. Shared danger pushes people into shared effort, and inequality for its own sake (typically very high going into a Crisis Era) diminishes due to economic necessity.

I figure that life in the late 2020s and the 2030s will have parallels to the last American High in the late 1940s and early 1950s -- austere enough to be bland, conformist due to the habits that compulsory teamwork have imposed, and equitable. Labor-management relations will not be as one-sided as they are now. People will respect learning and achievement again and consider pompous display suspect. Political invective will be entirely against those seen as dangerous extremists. The vulgarity of a 3T in speech (as in the political speech of Donald Trump) and other expression goes to the scrap heap.  The High is if nothing else a family-friendly time.

...I think we got the political sequence wrong. Dubya was perfect for fitting the climate of a 3T going bad... permissive toward greed and speculation, and no reformer. Then would come someone who really mucks things up (Hoover or Buchanan in previous cycles, probably Trump this time) and then someone who either solves the problems forcefully (Lincoln, FDR's  third term) or at least calms things (nobody did that before the Civil War, but maybe FDR's first two terms of Obama) with needful reforms and a steady hand. This time we got a financial panic due to the implosion of a corrupt boom, we did a few things right, and we may be going into a time in which we collectively learn much the hard way.



I predict that Donald Trump will be a disaster as President; he is not uniting Americans; he is for the intensification of economic inequality; he is a reformer only if one's idea of reform is to turn back race relations fifty years and labor-management relations back eighty years. That's  before I even discuss a foreign policy likely to make enemies out of countries either already cool to America (like China) and even allied. Neither he, nor Mike Pence should Trump step down, will solve anything except for tiny segments of the American people -- segments that consider themselves the only Americans who matter.  Neither will be able to win a free and fair election in 2020. (If either wins a rigged election in 2020, then we are in deep trouble, the sort that either domestic revolutionaries or foreign occupiers solve on our behalf).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#23
(11-28-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 04:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem with "Clinton meant war while Trump did not," is that Trump's foreign policy is far more dangerous. It is just as dangerous to leave the door open for a tyrant to invade; that's called appeasement. What makes it worse in Trump's case is that he is quick to turn on erstwhile allies. Any betrayal, and he attacks. That would happen if Putin perceives that it is allowed by Trump to attack a NATO country like Estonia, which harbors a large Russian population. If Putin did attack, Trump would cry betrayal and declare war. Trump's statements that more countries should have nuclear weapons, his advocacy of war crimes and his appointment of a war criminal as his advisor, and his promise to provide himself with more and bigger war toys, are just more of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Whereas Hillary was an experienced and talented diplomat who knows when to back off from a confrontation, without allowing tyrants' ambitions to run wild.

All I can do is hope the astrological cycle I discovered holds true, and the USA is not going out on another adventure until Jupiter returns to its place in our American horoscope again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoeW5fXJYU

It's not due until 2025-26.

If the cycle holds, then it didn't matter which one was elected. We are not going to war.

We just had the latest return as we went off to help in Syria, almost bombing it, and then to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.

Cracks me up to see Dew and other latter day "Rightists" preaching appeasement. WTF ever happened to "peace through strength" and the bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression that we used to see from The Right? Heck, we even saw it from the likes of JFK!!!

Got any examples of "bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression" from the Cold War?  JFK pulled our IRBMs from Turkey to get the Soviets to pull theirs from Cuba; we got rolled back as much as them.  In Cuba it was obviously not the Soviets that got rolled back with Castro and the Bay of Pigs.  The Vietnam War obviously did not roll anything back.

The closest thing to a rollback was our facilitating the quagmire that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan, and even that did not involve direct confrontation between U.S. and Soviet troops the way Clinton threatened with Russia.  Reagan may have achieved strategic rollbacks, but was always very careful to avoid military confrontation, to the point of withdrawing in the case of Lebanon.

"Peace through strength" requires both strength and the idea that peace is the goal.  Clinton's policies included neither; the policy of today's left - or at least the Democratic establishment - is closer to "war through weakness".
Reply
#24
(11-28-2016, 12:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 04:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem with "Clinton meant war while Trump did not," is that Trump's foreign policy is far more dangerous. It is just as dangerous to leave the door open for a tyrant to invade; that's called appeasement. What makes it worse in Trump's case is that he is quick to turn on erstwhile allies. Any betrayal, and he attacks. That would happen if Putin perceives that it is allowed by Trump to attack a NATO country like Estonia, which harbors a large Russian population. If Putin did attack, Trump would cry betrayal and declare war. Trump's statements that more countries should have nuclear weapons, his advocacy of war crimes and his appointment of a war criminal as his advisor, and his promise to provide himself with more and bigger war toys, are just more of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Whereas Hillary was an experienced and talented diplomat who knows when to back off from a confrontation, without allowing tyrants' ambitions to run wild.

All I can do is hope the astrological cycle I discovered holds true, and the USA is not going out on another adventure until Jupiter returns to its place in our American horoscope again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoeW5fXJYU

It's not due until 2025-26.

If the cycle holds, then it didn't matter which one was elected. We are not going to war.

We just had the latest return as we went off to help in Syria, almost bombing it, and then to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.

Cracks me up to see Dew and other latter day "Rightists" preaching appeasement. WTF ever happened to "peace through strength" and the bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression that we used to see from The Right? Heck, we even saw it from the likes of JFK!!!

Got any examples of "bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression" from the Cold War?  JFK pulled our IRBMs from Turkey to get the Soviets to pull theirs from Cuba; we got rolled back as much as them.  In Cuba it was obviously not the Soviets that got rolled back with Castro and the Bay of Pigs.  The Vietnam War obviously did not roll anything back.

But, whether it worked or not was not the essence of Mr. X's point, as I read it. It was that the right wing "preached" peace through strength constantly in those days, and Reagan built up the military at the cost of ballooning the debt. And the "Left" (if you can call it that) of JFK and LBJ went along with the right's program. I'd give credit to JFK for confronting Russia's build up in Cuba, even if it involved a quid pro quo. That's just good diplomacy. Trump's policy would be the equivalent of just letting Putin have missiles wherever he wants, rather than standing up to him. Hillary Clinton would have made tough negotiations like JFK did.

Quote:The closest thing to a rollback was our facilitating the quagmire that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan, and even that did not involve direct confrontation between U.S. and Soviet troops the way Clinton threatened with Russia.  Reagan may have achieved strategic rollbacks, but was always very careful to avoid military confrontation, to the point of withdrawing in the case of Lebanon.

[quote]

Yeah, after 242 marines were killed there on a mission with no purpose and no support.

[quote]
"Peace through strength" requires both strength and the idea that peace is the goal.  Clinton's policies included neither; the policy of today's left - or at least the Democratic establishment - is closer to "war through weakness".

Hillary Clinton would have had a military 10 times stronger than any nation without Trump's expensive, useless proposed build-up. We would have had a competent diplomat who knows when to stand and when to back off. Now we have a loose cannon about to take charge who has no sense at all. It is truly scary what the people of the American heartland have done to the safety of the world, by voting for this nincompoop as leader of the free world. CEO, more properly called; he's the new CEO of the USA Inc., not a "president" and certainly not a competent CIC. And not even a competent CEO. What is your explanation, Dew, of why you and others made such a ghastly choice on Nov.8?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#25
(11-28-2016, 02:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 12:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 04:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem with "Clinton meant war while Trump did not," is that Trump's foreign policy is far more dangerous. It is just as dangerous to leave the door open for a tyrant to invade; that's called appeasement. What makes it worse in Trump's case is that he is quick to turn on erstwhile allies. Any betrayal, and he attacks. That would happen if Putin perceives that it is allowed by Trump to attack a NATO country like Estonia, which harbors a large Russian population. If Putin did attack, Trump would cry betrayal and declare war. Trump's statements that more countries should have nuclear weapons, his advocacy of war crimes and his appointment of a war criminal as his advisor, and his promise to provide himself with more and bigger war toys, are just more of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Whereas Hillary was an experienced and talented diplomat who knows when to back off from a confrontation, without allowing tyrants' ambitions to run wild.

All I can do is hope the astrological cycle I discovered holds true, and the USA is not going out on another adventure until Jupiter returns to its place in our American horoscope again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoeW5fXJYU

It's not due until 2025-26.

If the cycle holds, then it didn't matter which one was elected. We are not going to war.

We just had the latest return as we went off to help in Syria, almost bombing it, and then to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.

Cracks me up to see Dew and other latter day "Rightists" preaching appeasement. WTF ever happened to "peace through strength" and the bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression that we used to see from The Right? Heck, we even saw it from the likes of JFK!!!

Got any examples of "bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression" from the Cold War?  JFK pulled our IRBMs from Turkey to get the Soviets to pull theirs from Cuba; we got rolled back as much as them.  In Cuba it was obviously not the Soviets that got rolled back with Castro and the Bay of Pigs.  The Vietnam War obviously did not roll anything back.

But, whether it worked or not was not the essence of Mr. X's point, as I read it. It was that the right wing "preached" peace through strength constantly in those days, and Reagan built up the military at the cost of ballooning the debt. And the "Left" (if you can call it that) of JFK and LBJ went along with the right's program. I'd give credit to JFK for confronting Russia's build up in Cuba, even if it involved a quid pro quo. That's just good diplomacy. Trump's policy would be the equivalent of just letting Putin have missiles wherever he wants, rather than standing up to him. Hillary Clinton would have made tough negotiations like JFK did.

Quote:The closest thing to a rollback was our facilitating the quagmire that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan, and even that did not involve direct confrontation between U.S. and Soviet troops the way Clinton threatened with Russia.  Reagan may have achieved strategic rollbacks, but was always very careful to avoid military confrontation, to the point of withdrawing in the case of Lebanon.

Quote:Yeah, after 242 marines were killed there on a mission with no purpose and no support.

Quote:"Peace through strength" requires both strength and the idea that peace is the goal.  Clinton's policies included neither; the policy of today's left - or at least the Democratic establishment - is closer to "war through weakness".

Hillary Clinton would have had a military 10 times stronger than any nation without Trump's expensive, useless proposed build-up. We would have had a competent diplomat who knows when to stand and when to back off. Now we have a loose cannon about to take charge who has no sense at all. It is truly scary what the people of the American heartland have done to the safety of the world, by voting for this nincompoop as leader of the free world. CEO, more properly called; he's the new CEO of the USA Inc., not a "president" and certainly not a competent CIC. And not even a competent CEO. What is your explanation, Dew, of why you and others made such a ghastly choice on Nov.8?
This site provides an interesting analysis of military strength.
Quote:The complete Global Firepower list puts the military powers of the world into full perspective.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp


 1 0.0897 - United States of America (North America; NATO)2  0.0964 - Russia (Asia)3  0.0988 - China (Asia)4  0.1661 - India (Asia)5  0.1993 - France (Europe; NATO; Eunion)
[url=http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=france][/url]
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#26
(11-28-2016, 02:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 12:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 04:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem with "Clinton meant war while Trump did not," is that Trump's foreign policy is far more dangerous. It is just as dangerous to leave the door open for a tyrant to invade; that's called appeasement. What makes it worse in Trump's case is that he is quick to turn on erstwhile allies. Any betrayal, and he attacks. That would happen if Putin perceives that it is allowed by Trump to attack a NATO country like Estonia, which harbors a large Russian population. If Putin did attack, Trump would cry betrayal and declare war. Trump's statements that more countries should have nuclear weapons, his advocacy of war crimes and his appointment of a war criminal as his advisor, and his promise to provide himself with more and bigger war toys, are just more of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Whereas Hillary was an experienced and talented diplomat who knows when to back off from a confrontation, without allowing tyrants' ambitions to run wild.

All I can do is hope the astrological cycle I discovered holds true, and the USA is not going out on another adventure until Jupiter returns to its place in our American horoscope again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoeW5fXJYU

It's not due until 2025-26.

If the cycle holds, then it didn't matter which one was elected. We are not going to war.

We just had the latest return as we went off to help in Syria, almost bombing it, and then to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.

Cracks me up to see Dew and other latter day "Rightists" preaching appeasement. WTF ever happened to "peace through strength" and the bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression that we used to see from The Right? Heck, we even saw it from the likes of JFK!!!

Got any examples of "bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression" from the Cold War?  JFK pulled our IRBMs from Turkey to get the Soviets to pull theirs from Cuba; we got rolled back as much as them.  In Cuba it was obviously not the Soviets that got rolled back with Castro and the Bay of Pigs.  The Vietnam War obviously did not roll anything back.

But, whether it worked or not was not the essence of Mr. X's point, as I read it. It was that the right wing "preached" peace through strength constantly in those days, and Reagan built up the military at the cost of ballooning the debt. And the "Left" (if you can call it that) of JFK and LBJ went along with the right's program. I'd give credit to JFK for confronting Russia's build up in Cuba, even if it involved a quid pro quo. That's just good diplomacy. Trump's policy would be the equivalent of just letting Putin have missiles wherever he wants, rather than standing up to him. Hillary Clinton would have made tough negotiations like JFK did.

Quote:The closest thing to a rollback was our facilitating the quagmire that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan, and even that did not involve direct confrontation between U.S. and Soviet troops the way Clinton threatened with Russia.  Reagan may have achieved strategic rollbacks, but was always very careful to avoid military confrontation, to the point of withdrawing in the case of Lebanon.

Quote:Yeah, after 242 marines were killed there on a mission with no purpose and no support.

Quote:"Peace through strength" requires both strength and the idea that peace is the goal.  Clinton's policies included neither; the policy of today's left - or at least the Democratic establishment - is closer to "war through weakness".

Hillary Clinton would have had a military 10 times stronger than any nation without Trump's expensive, useless proposed build-up. We would have had a competent diplomat who knows when to stand and when to back off. Now we have a loose cannon about to take charge who has no sense at all. It is truly scary what the people of the American heartland have done to the safety of the world, by voting for this nincompoop as leader of the free world. CEO, more properly called; he's the new CEO of the USA Inc., not a "president" and certainly not a competent CIC. And not even a competent CEO. What is your explanation, Dew, of why you and others made such a ghastly choice on Nov.8?
I'm new to this forum and I have to say that it's amazing to see actual exchanges between people with very different political views. This is a real strength especially when combined with a clear predictive vision (4T Crisis leading to next 1T High). In the brick and mortar world, I'm in an extremely liberal enclave and can't say anything anti-Hillary (or pro-Trump for that matter) which is pretty unhealthy IMHO.
Have y'all had discussions about how very different political views will have to be set aside in service of helping the US negotiate the Crisis (assuming it happens on schedule as is looking more and more likely)?
Reply
#27
(11-29-2016, 10:28 AM)anandrajan Wrote: I'm new to this forum and I have to say that it's amazing to see actual exchanges between people with very different political views. This is a real strength especially when combined with a clear predictive vision (4T Crisis leading to next 1T High). In the brick and mortar world, I'm in an extremely liberal enclave and can't say anything anti-Hillary (or pro-Trump for that matter) which is pretty unhealthy IMHO.
Have y'all had discussions about how very different political views will have to be set aside in service of helping the US negotiate the Crisis (assuming it happens on schedule as is looking more and more likely)?

Not sure I'd characterize these as actual exchanges.  Eric occasionally acknowledges facts, but that's because he can always find a way to use them in an argument against the right, even if it's the exactly the opposite of the argument he most recently made.  Or maybe Eric is arguing that Trump is a warmonger and it was someone else on the left that argued he is too much of a peacenik; I've lost track.

We've had discussions about whether - not how - very different political views will have to be set aside during the crisis.  I believe Eric and I are of the opinion that what's actually going to happen is that red boomers and blue boomers will continue to fight things out, which is why we are happy to argue.  Others argue that views will need to adjust and consolidate, but somehow those who so argue always think the views need to consolidate on their views, and never that they are the ones that will need to adjust.
Reply
#28
There also has been discussion about how in every 4T - e.g. the last 4T in the 30's & 40's - there was still a lot of disagreement with decisions proposed & made; it's not as though FDR won by acclimation. So everyone doesn't need to set aside their own views, there just needs to be a sufficient mass on one side to make the other temporarily irrelevant.
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Reply
#29
(11-29-2016, 10:28 AM)anandrajan Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 02:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 12:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-28-2016, 12:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-25-2016, 04:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The problem with "Clinton meant war while Trump did not," is that Trump's foreign policy is far more dangerous. It is just as dangerous to leave the door open for a tyrant to invade; that's called appeasement. What makes it worse in Trump's case is that he is quick to turn on erstwhile allies. Any betrayal, and he attacks. That would happen if Putin perceives that it is allowed by Trump to attack a NATO country like Estonia, which harbors a large Russian population. If Putin did attack, Trump would cry betrayal and declare war. Trump's statements that more countries should have nuclear weapons, his advocacy of war crimes and his appointment of a war criminal as his advisor, and his promise to provide himself with more and bigger war toys, are just more of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Whereas Hillary was an experienced and talented diplomat who knows when to back off from a confrontation, without allowing tyrants' ambitions to run wild.

All I can do is hope the astrological cycle I discovered holds true, and the USA is not going out on another adventure until Jupiter returns to its place in our American horoscope again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoeW5fXJYU

It's not due until 2025-26.

If the cycle holds, then it didn't matter which one was elected. We are not going to war.

We just had the latest return as we went off to help in Syria, almost bombing it, and then to fight the IS in Iraq and Syria.

Cracks me up to see Dew and other latter day "Rightists" preaching appeasement. WTF ever happened to "peace through strength" and the bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression that we used to see from The Right? Heck, we even saw it from the likes of JFK!!!

Got any examples of "bold, forceful roll back of Russian aggression" from the Cold War?  JFK pulled our IRBMs from Turkey to get the Soviets to pull theirs from Cuba; we got rolled back as much as them.  In Cuba it was obviously not the Soviets that got rolled back with Castro and the Bay of Pigs.  The Vietnam War obviously did not roll anything back.

But, whether it worked or not was not the essence of Mr. X's point, as I read it. It was that the right wing "preached" peace through strength constantly in those days, and Reagan built up the military at the cost of ballooning the debt. And the "Left" (if you can call it that) of JFK and LBJ went along with the right's program. I'd give credit to JFK for confronting Russia's build up in Cuba, even if it involved a quid pro quo. That's just good diplomacy. Trump's policy would be the equivalent of just letting Putin have missiles wherever he wants, rather than standing up to him. Hillary Clinton would have made tough negotiations like JFK did.

Quote:The closest thing to a rollback was our facilitating the quagmire that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan, and even that did not involve direct confrontation between U.S. and Soviet troops the way Clinton threatened with Russia.  Reagan may have achieved strategic rollbacks, but was always very careful to avoid military confrontation, to the point of withdrawing in the case of Lebanon.

Quote:Yeah, after 242 marines were killed there on a mission with no purpose and no support.

Quote:"Peace through strength" requires both strength and the idea that peace is the goal.  Clinton's policies included neither; the policy of today's left - or at least the Democratic establishment - is closer to "war through weakness".

Hillary Clinton would have had a military 10 times stronger than any nation without Trump's expensive, useless proposed build-up. We would have had a competent diplomat who knows when to stand and when to back off. Now we have a loose cannon about to take charge who has no sense at all. It is truly scary what the people of the American heartland have done to the safety of the world, by voting for this nincompoop as leader of the free world. CEO, more properly called; he's the new CEO of the USA Inc., not a "president" and certainly not a competent CIC. And not even a competent CEO. What is your explanation, Dew, of why you and others made such a ghastly choice on Nov.8?
I'm new to this forum and I have to say that it's amazing to see actual exchanges between people with very different political views. This is a real strength especially when combined with a clear predictive vision (4T Crisis leading to next 1T High). In the brick and mortar world, I'm in an extremely liberal enclave and can't say anything anti-Hillary (or pro-Trump for that matter) which is pretty unhealthy IMHO.
Have y'all had discussions about how very different political views will have to be set aside in service of helping the US negotiate the Crisis (assuming it happens on schedule as is looking more and more likely)?

I agree; most of America lives in their respective echo chambers and there's not much communication. At least here, while the two sides mostly stay in their camps, at least people here know there IS another side, and have a better ideas perhaps of what it says.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#30
(11-29-2016, 11:21 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-29-2016, 10:28 AM)anandrajan Wrote: I'm new to this forum and I have to say that it's amazing to see actual exchanges between people with very different political views. This is a real strength especially when combined with a clear predictive vision (4T Crisis leading to next 1T High). In the brick and mortar world, I'm in an extremely liberal enclave and can't say anything anti-Hillary (or pro-Trump for that matter) which is pretty unhealthy IMHO.
Have y'all had discussions about how very different political views will have to be set aside in service of helping the US negotiate the Crisis (assuming it happens on schedule as is looking more and more likely)?

Not sure I'd characterize these as actual exchanges.  Eric occasionally acknowledges facts, but that's because he can always find a way to use them in an argument against the right, even if it's the exactly the opposite of the argument he most recently made.  Or maybe Eric is arguing that Trump is a warmonger and it was someone else on the left that argued he is too much of a peacenik; I've lost track.

You mean my argument against Trump, which in some cases may be a bit different than an argument against "the right." There are some (perhaps slight, but perhaps significant) differences among the right these days.

I wouldn't agree Trump is a peacenik, although he prattles on about non-intervention and non-nation building. Then he turns around and advocates bombing ISIS into oblivion including torture and killing civilians, and wants to build up the military. The problem with Trump, as opposed to the "right" per se, is that Trump is a loose cannon. He's kinda like a box of chocolates. You never know just what your gonna git. The problem with the right, in this case, includes that they are willing to "come home" to the Republican Party and vote for a liar who is unfit for the job, and against a woman who was superbly qualified and relatively honest. In this case, clearly it demonstrates the totally-authoritarian nature of the right, despite their deceptive free-enterprise slogans. Just go with what the Party says; it doesn't matter which incompetent they nominate, as long as he's a Republican who knocks the right people with the right dog whistles, and keeps the less priviledged from having more power.

Quote:We've had discussions about whether - not how - very different political views will have to be set aside during the crisis.  I believe Eric and I are of the opinion that what's actually going to happen is that red boomers and blue boomers will continue to fight things out, which is why we are happy to argue.  Others argue that views will need to adjust and consolidate, but somehow those who so argue always think the views need to consolidate on their views, and never that they are the ones that will need to adjust.

I tend to agree. 4Ts are not times when society comes together, but possibly one side gets it together enough to defeat the other side and set the consensus for the next saeculum. It had better be the progressive side, otherwise (barring foreign conquest like the allies achieved in 1945) we begin a rapid decline for the first time ever for the English-speaking world in a 4T. Which means there will have to be a dramatic turnaround in political power in the 2020s. I do still predict it to happen, based on MY reading of the cosmic indicators.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#31
(11-29-2016, 03:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree; most of America lives in their respective echo chambers and there's not much communication. At least here, while the two sides mostly stay in their camps, at least people here know there IS another side, and have a better ideas perhaps of what it says.

Good point, albeit a sad commentary on how things are most places.
Reply
#32
(11-29-2016, 03:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to agree. 4Ts are not times when society comes together, but possibly one side gets it together enough to defeat the other side and set the consensus for the next saeculum. It had better be the progressive side, otherwise (barring foreign conquest like the allies achieved in 1945) we begin a rapid decline for the first time ever for the English-speaking world in a 4T. Which means there will have to be a dramatic turnaround in political power in the 2020s. I do still predict it to happen, based on MY reading of the cosmic indicators.

For the benefit of anandrajan, I'll just note that I have a different view:  I believe that whatever side wins, that side is considered after the fact to be the one that represents progress.
Reply
#33
(11-29-2016, 04:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-29-2016, 03:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to agree. 4Ts are not times when society comes together, but possibly one side gets it together enough to defeat the other side and set the consensus for the next saeculum. It had better be the progressive side, otherwise (barring foreign conquest like the allies achieved in 1945) we begin a rapid decline for the first time ever for the English-speaking world in a 4T. Which means there will have to be a dramatic turnaround in political power in the 2020s. I do still predict it to happen, based on MY reading of the cosmic indicators.

For the benefit of anandrajan, I'll just note that I have a different view:  I believe that whatever side wins, that side is considered after the fact to be the one that represents progress.

But, what if the next 1T is a kind of (Hegelian) synthesis of opposite views? Imagine this is 1945 after WW II. OK, perhaps the American left had to be pulled back from embracing communism then but there was broad consensus.

I see enough seeds in the millennials (including my kid) that give me hope: (i) Many hate identity politics (while remaining socially liberal), (ii) they have a strong communitarian ethos and with the road already paved by commercial open source communities they can scale that to all of society, (iii) they are agnostic about foreign policy, therefore seeming more pragmatic than boomers, (iv) they're badly hit by economic inequality but most will not turn to outright socialism. In other words, there are plenty of ways for a good synthesis to occur which is hard for us to see at the present time.
Reply
#34
(11-29-2016, 04:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-29-2016, 03:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to agree. 4Ts are not times when society comes together, but possibly one side gets it together enough to defeat the other side and set the consensus for the next saeculum. It had better be the progressive side, otherwise (barring foreign conquest like the allies achieved in 1945) we begin a rapid decline for the first time ever for the English-speaking world in a 4T. Which means there will have to be a dramatic turnaround in political power in the 2020s. I do still predict it to happen, based on MY reading of the cosmic indicators.

For the benefit of anandrajan, I'll just note that I have a different view:  I believe that whatever side wins, that side is considered after the fact to be the one that represents progress.

Progress, perhaps, in the sense that metastasizing cancer is 'progress' -- if to death.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#35
(11-30-2016, 08:44 AM)anandrajan Wrote: But, what if the next 1T is a kind of (Hegelian) synthesis of opposite views? Imagine this is 1945 after WW II. OK, perhaps the American left had to be pulled back from embracing communism then but there was broad consensus.

I see enough seeds in the millennials (including my kid) that give me hope: (i) Many hate identity politics (while remaining socially liberal), (ii) they have a strong communitarian ethos and with the road already paved by commercial open source communities they can scale that to all of society, (iii) they are agnostic about foreign policy, therefore seeming more pragmatic than boomers, (iv) they're badly hit by economic inequality but most will not turn to outright socialism. In other words, there are plenty of ways for a good synthesis to occur which is hard for us to see at the present time.

After WWII -- but in which country? Our political system is broken and our culture is depraved. Our educational system has become an anachronism.

We may need a Constitutional Convention  just to establish a political system much more difficult to game. Maybe it was only a matter of time before people not only found its faults but also saw nothing wrong in exploiting those faults. If partisan manipulation of districts allows special interests to tailor geographic districts to fit a political agenda, then perhaps a system of proportional representation might stop that.

The Founding Fathers wanted a legislative system as different as possible from the British Parliament as they could get, and they did as well as was possible.  But the real problem with the British Parliament was with it being stuffed with the King's reliable flunkies representing the now-infamous rotten boroughs -- legislative districts with few or no people. The British solved that problem by adopting a Census to create nearly-equal boroughs in population.

For good reason, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and (for all its flaws) South Africa did not have the sorts of anti-colonial rebellions that the colonies from the future Maine (then a part of Massachusetts) to Georgia had against the British Crown. The American colonists would have never rebelled against a Westminster-style parliament.

It could be that the solution to stop another Donald Trump (and he will become an anathema fast) is what the Germans did to ensure that they would never have another Hitler.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#36
(11-30-2016, 08:44 AM)anandrajan Wrote:
(11-29-2016, 04:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-29-2016, 03:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to agree. 4Ts are not times when society comes together, but possibly one side gets it together enough to defeat the other side and set the consensus for the next saeculum. It had better be the progressive side, otherwise (barring foreign conquest like the allies achieved in 1945) we begin a rapid decline for the first time ever for the English-speaking world in a 4T. Which means there will have to be a dramatic turnaround in political power in the 2020s. I do still predict it to happen, based on MY reading of the cosmic indicators.

For the benefit of anandrajan, I'll just note that I have a different view:  I believe that whatever side wins, that side is considered after the fact to be the one that represents progress.

But, what if the next 1T is a kind of (Hegelian) synthesis of opposite views? Imagine this is 1945 after WW II. OK, perhaps the American left had to be pulled back from embracing communism then but there was broad consensus.

I see enough seeds in the millennials (including my kid) that give me hope: (i) Many hate identity politics (while remaining socially liberal), (ii) they have a strong communitarian ethos and with the road already paved by commercial open source communities they can scale that to all of society, (iii) they are agnostic about foreign policy, therefore seeming more pragmatic than boomers, (iv) they're badly hit by economic inequality but most will not turn to outright socialism. In other words, there are plenty of ways for a good synthesis to occur which is hard for us to see at the present time.

I do think the ultimate synthesis will include views from more than one side.  However, I think that synthesis will coalesce around one side or another.  As I said in another thread, I think that it's a fight between different boomer factions regarding which can persuade the most millenials to join "their" side,, perhaps by adjusting their positions in the process.
Reply
#37
Once Trump is President, where do I find "Radio Free America"? I may need it.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#38
(11-29-2016, 12:04 PM)tg63 Wrote: There also has been discussion about how in every 4T - e.g. the last 4T in the 30's & 40's - there was still a lot of disagreement with decisions proposed & made; it's not as though FDR won by acclimation.  So everyone doesn't need to set aside their own views, there just needs to be a sufficient mass on one side to make the other temporarily irrelevant.

... or, the other side can just be so disheartened that they fail to fight for the opposing view.  We'll see if the Democrats decide to "play nice" as a concession to the victorious GOP.  Needless to say, it didn't play that way in reverse.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#39
(11-29-2016, 04:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-29-2016, 03:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree; most of America lives in their respective echo chambers and there's not much communication. At least here, while the two sides mostly stay in their camps, at least people here know there IS another side, and have a better ideas perhaps of what it says.

Good point, albeit a sad commentary on how things are most places.

This board has always had a wide diversity of opinion ... and manners, for the most part.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#40
(11-30-2016, 01:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Once Trump is President, where do I find "Radio Free America"? I may need it.

That's a good question.

I hope we in Callifornia at least can set up some kind of media that isn't owned by Trump/America Inc. 

You guys up in Michigan and places up north perhaps still have Canada. Any radio stations from there reach your whereabouts?

The internet is still available, although I don't know how long before the Orange Anus makes it too slow to use in order to accomodate his cronies (aka destroy "internet neutrality").
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Neil Howe: Where did Steve Bannon get his worldview? From my book. Dan '82 32 12,166 04-21-2017, 12:35 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Steve Bannon is obsessed with The Fourth Turning Dan '82 17 6,059 02-06-2017, 02:27 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)