Trump, Bannon and the Coming Crisis

[pbrower2a]

2000th post!

[quote pid='20554' dateline='1486360062']

Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 09:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: No worse than anyone else.

This is really the point.  Authoritarian governmental models such as fascism are natural fits for fourth turnings.  I'd say the best way to put it would be to say FDR's America tended toward fascism, but everyone else did as well.

What really happens? In the harsh transition from 3T to 4T, the economically-libertarian model of extreme social inequality with anything-goes hedonism for anyone who can buy it collapses. Too many people find themselves priced out of the fun while inequality intensifies. An orgy of reckless speculation in a bubble economy (1857, 1929, 2008) comes to an abrupt end, and the illusion of prosperity vanishes. People realize that they have been had.

Quote:

Quote:Intellectual life went on after Pearl Harbor as it did before -- and there was practically no sympathy for fascism in America before, let alone after.

There was plenty of sympathy for fascism in America in the mid 1930s.

Probably because there was little intellectual support for fascism in America, the government could leave academic life unhindered. America's intellectuals generally found ways to support the war effort -- and much military and medical research went on at the colleges and universities... of course, formal college enrollment obviously shrank, but the colleges and universities could be used as training academies for specialized members of the Armed Services.

But the most dangerous fascist movement in America, the 1915 Klan, shrank steadily until it declared bankruptcy and dissolved over back taxes in 1944. The Communist Party did grow substantially due to its promise to jump-start prosperity for most by disposing of the economic elites, but it never posed a real threat to the Establishment.

Fascism was a political fad that became unsupportable after about 1935 in the United States.

[beneficii]

(02-05-2017, 12:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Are you complaining that you posted something on a discussion forum and people had the temerity to disagree with it?  Appealing to the authority of the publishers, where every interpretation of events they publish must be true?  Anxious that there might be people who feel they "won the argument"? WTF?

I hope you feel better soon, and that you feel up to participating in future discussions on a more even footing.

I'm mad that I can't defend it better. I also feel like I'm betraying the author by making his position look weaker than it is.

You misunderstand me. I am making no appeal to authority. Rather, I am saying it might be worth your time to look at the argument more in-depth. If it was just some guy with a blog, people would probably think it was a waste of their valuable time, but that Kim's book was published by such presses might assure more people they might get greater value out of spending their time reading and considering it.

That's why we have printing presses with such good reputations in the first place.

[SomeGuy]

(02-07-2017, 01:14 AM)beneficii Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 12:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Are you complaining that you posted something on a discussion forum and people had the temerity to disagree with it?  Appealing to the authority of the publishers, where every interpretation of events they publish must be true?  Anxious that there might be people who feel they "won the argument"? WTF?

I hope you feel better soon, and that you feel up to participating in future discussions on a more even footing.

I'm mad that I can't defend it better. I also feel like I'm betraying the author by making his position look weaker than it is.

You misunderstand me. I am making no appeal to authority. Rather, I am saying it might be worth your time to look at the argument more in-depth. If it was just some guy with a blog, people would probably think it was a waste of their valuable time, but that Kim's book was published by such presses might assure more people they might get greater value out of spending their time reading and considering it.

That's why we have printing presses with such good reputations in the first place.

Fair enough.  I remain skeptical, and between studying for work (and future work) related stuffs and my existing reading list, I won't be checking it out soon.  

But I will keep an eye out.  Thanks!

[TeacherinExile]

David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

[SomeGuy]

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

[TeacherinExile]

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

I think that's very much what Kaiser has concluded, and I now see eye to eye with him on that 4T concept.  What troubles me on his blog is his assertion of a possible armed conflict between federal forces and municipal authorities over the issue of immigration bans and sanctuary cities.  That's highly speculative.

[SomeGuy]

(02-07-2017, 12:53 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

I think that's very much what Kaiser has concluded, and I now see eye to eye with him on that 4T concept.  What troubles me on his blog is his assertion of a possible armed conflict between federal forces and municipal authorities over the issue of immigration bans and sanctuary cities.  That's highly speculative.

It's possible, I don't really think it likely.

[TeacherinExile]

(02-07-2017, 12:55 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:53 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

I think that's very much what Kaiser has concluded, and I now see eye to eye with him on that 4T concept.  What troubles me on his blog is his assertion of a possible armed conflict between federal forces and municipal authorities over the issue of immigration bans and sanctuary cities.  That's highly speculative.

It's possible, I don't really think it likely.

Increasingly, I can no longer dismiss out of hand the possibility of a cold civil war, roughly along red and blue lines, and perhaps leading to the dissolution of our republic, much as happened with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.  And even that seems farfetched.

But armed conflict?  Are we indeed nearing the flashpoint--like the parlays of old--where the generals of two sides arrayed for battle finally say to one another, "Enough talk, it's war now!"

[SomeGuy]

Generally skirmishes precede full-scale war.  We have had a few scuffles, but nothing on the scale of Bleeding Kansas yet.  So, as a thesis, not impossible but not proven.

[SomeGuy]

(02-07-2017, 02:35 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 06:57 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: You've become MORE tolerant of neoconservatism in recent years?  That's an interesting position, could you elaborate?


Pat Buchanan is, to my immense surprise, consistently an enjoyable and interesting read.  The whole The American Conservative site is one of my primary news sources these days.

I used to be somewhat aligned with Paleocons, especially in the realms of Borders, Language and Culture. Where they started to lose me was when they got into the "Russia is the great outpost of White Christian civilization against the Muslim masses" bull shit. Also, way back when, I had a real hatred of globalism. That has become tempered. I now accept that we do need globalism in certain areas. But it needs to be toned down from the Thomas L Friedman extremist version. We need NATO and something like the UN. But that something needs to be of lesser scope and more practical. Regarding the EU, they should drop the economic standardization and continue with some other forms of cooperation that actually have an ROI.

Regarding so called wars of choice that Paleocons, Leftist extremists and other factions love to criticize, I provide the following defense. Granted, the Iraq War was not well executed. However, America First isolationism is not the answer. My view is, let us be proactive. Let us try to keep things like WW2 from happening again. By that I mean, while we may not always prevent a war, we can at least position ourselves so that when such a war arises, we have really great field position already, and, we are not asleep.

So, this is a thoughtful answer, but if you will excuse me for pointing this out, it looks like you switched sides when one became more rabidly anti-Russian than the other.

Also, out of curiosity, in what areas do you think we need "globalization"?  Are you using that term to mean simply trade, or something else?

[SomeGuy]

Quote:In terms of irregulars, the Trump crowd are generally well armed meanwhile most (but not all) of "The Establishment" crowd would not be able to be competent with my old single shot .22.

A single shot .22?  What are you hunting, particularly feeble squirrels? 

[beneficii]

(02-07-2017, 11:56 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 01:14 AM)beneficii Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 12:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Are you complaining that you posted something on a discussion forum and people had the temerity to disagree with it?  Appealing to the authority of the publishers, where every interpretation of events they publish must be true?  Anxious that there might be people who feel they "won the argument"? WTF?

I hope you feel better soon, and that you feel up to participating in future discussions on a more even footing.

I'm mad that I can't defend it better. I also feel like I'm betraying the author by making his position look weaker than it is.

You misunderstand me. I am making no appeal to authority. Rather, I am saying it might be worth your time to look at the argument more in-depth. If it was just some guy with a blog, people would probably think it was a waste of their valuable time, but that Kim's book was published by such presses might assure more people they might get greater value out of spending their time reading and considering it.

That's why we have printing presses with such good reputations in the first place.

Fair enough.  I remain skeptical, and between studying for work (and future work) related stuffs and my existing reading list, I won't be checking it out soon.  

But I will keep an eye out.  Thanks!

I appreciate the understanding.

[David Horn]

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

... or not.  He's still leading a minority charge, and part of the minority has stated their interest in him and his ideas are all about themselves, their lives and, most importantly, their jobs.  He still has to deliver on something that is highly unlikely to happen.

[David Horn]

(02-07-2017, 01:11 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Increasingly, I can no longer dismiss out of hand the possibility of a cold civil war, roughly along red and blue lines, and perhaps leading to the dissolution of our republic, much as happened with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.  And even that seems farfetched.

But armed conflict?  Are we indeed nearing the flashpoint--like the parlays of old--where the generals of two sides arrayed for battle finally say to one another, "Enough talk, it's war now!"

Do you discount violence entirely, or only the potential for an armed conflict?  There's a lot of anger out there, and Trump has working the audience.  I still don't see him succeeding, but I think he can trigger a mess if he wishes.  As a professional glad-hander, he seems ill suited to the task.

[SomeGuy]

(02-07-2017, 04:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

... or not.  He's still leading a minority charge, and part of the minority has stated their interest in him and his ideas are all about themselves, their lives and, most importantly, their jobs.  He still has to deliver on something that is highly unlikely to happen.

Whereas all people on the other side are motivated solely by a higher purpose?  It's always a minority that is active.  It is a minority actively opposing him.  It is a minority actively supporting him.  That's how politics works, always has.

If he succeeds, or if his election was the catalyst for a coalition that opposes him and goes on to succeed itself, that could be the social moment.  Or, it could be something else, in which case Trump's election and subsequent success or failure is not terribly important.

Did you have a point other than virtue-signalling again?

[TeacherinExile]

(02-07-2017, 04:06 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 01:11 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Increasingly, I can no longer dismiss out of hand the possibility of a cold civil war, roughly along red and blue lines, and perhaps leading to the dissolution of our republic, much as happened with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.  And even that seems farfetched.

But armed conflict?  Are we indeed nearing the flashpoint--like the parlays of old--where the generals of two sides arrayed for battle finally say to one another, "Enough talk, it's war now!"

Do you discount violence entirely, or only the potential for an armed conflict?  There's a lot of anger out there, and Trump has working the audience.  I still don't see him succeeding, but I think he can trigger a mess if he wishes.  As a professional glad-hander, he seems ill suited to the task.

I would never discount the potential for violence.  After all, I'm old enough to remember the "revolutionary" violence of the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers (the latter "more sinned against than sinning," perhaps.)  Indeed, in order to refresh my teenage memory and gain a more mature perspective, I watched the recent documentaries about these two militant groups. 

As for armed conflict, I'm not hearing the calls for violence, much less the kind of eliminationist rhetoric, that might spark an outright civil war.  It takes a militant leader with a "megaphone" to begin an insurrection against the state.  I don't see any Mark Rudds and Huey Newtons on the horizon.  Do you?

[TeacherinExile]

(02-07-2017, 02:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Generally skirmishes precede full-scale war.  We have had a few scuffles, but nothing on the scale of Bleeding Kansas yet.  So, as a thesis, not impossible but not proven.

True, thankfully, so far...yet here's the big "but":  This article in USA Today, a newspaper that I normally bypass, got me to thinking about the prospect of this fourth turning playing out as an internal conflict:

"Trump's divided inauguration day recalls Lincoln's in 1861, Nixon's in 1973"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../96829858/

As the news article rightly points out, the inaugural protest against Nixon suffers as a comparison to the demonstrations staged during Trump's swearing-in.  Nixon had been re-elected by a landslide, both in the popular vote and the Electoral College.  And by 1973, anti-war protests had become almost passe.   The social mood now, however, does bear some resemblance to that of Lincoln's day.  Our country has been more or less evenly divided for years between competing values regimes--characterize them how you will.

I would cite one passage in particular from Kaiser's Time article: "What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

...Many people in the major media, academia and Democratic politics cannot imagine alternatives to the status quo. They simply could not believe that something like Trump’s immigration order would go through, because it was antithetical to their values. The election, however, already showed that their values, while shared by most of the population in the blue states, are not consensus values. Some polls have shown that a majority of American voters supported the idea of Trump’s immigration order. Trump’s opponents are now in a fight for their political lives.

Maybe I'm reaching here, but substitute the words "Trump's immigration order" with "Lincoln's abolitionist stance" and carry the analogy through by substituting where appropriate, and what do we get?  Glimmers, I know.  Immigration is not the singularly divisive issue that slavery was.  Still...    

You may recall I had a semantic quibble with some on this forum about the use of the word consensus, especially if by consensus it was meant as a prerequisite for regeneracy, or as a marker for the "social moment" having arrived.  Obviously, no such consensus existed in 1861, which is why a civil war was fought over the issue of slavery.  Rather Lincoln imposed a new social order on the restored Union by dint of superior military force.  (It's telling that the legal objections to Trump's immigration order at the state level align with a "blue/red" map.  That sure looks like some kind of developing "civil war" to me.)

I have argued that the phrase critical mass seems more appropriate than consensus.  No such consensus of values will ever exist during a Trump presidency, despite his token appeals for unity.  (Of that I am convinced.)  And yet, much like Lincoln, Trump does not require a consensus to forge a new political order, only a critical mass of support. 

Which he now has, in spades...any way you look at it: (1) conservatives in control of all three branches of government; (2) the GOP in control of 69 out of 99 statehouses, nearing the threshold to call for a constitutional convention; (3) ideological alignment with certain foreign leaders, to be determined; and (4) not to be overlooked, a plethora of partisan media outlets sympathetic to his policies.  It all adds up (potentially) to a president with maximal--but hopefully not, absolute--power.

After Trump's election a deflated James Carville, former political strategist for Bill Clinton, told a Book TV audience, "Get ready, the Republicans are getting ready to ride roughshod over you."

[Eric the Green]

(02-07-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: David Kaiser wrote this column for Time magazine last week that ties in directly with Fourth Turning theory, and seems to imply that Steve Bannon is using the theory as some kind of policy "playbook."  Kaiser draws some very interesting conclusions about where we are in the crisis turning, and provides some very speculative conjecture, in my opinion.

"What's Next for Steve Bannon and the Crisis in American Life"
http://time.com/4659390/howe-strauss-steve-bannon/

And he seems to answer the question of whether America has reached that "social moment," which some posters have been debating here.

Trump's election very much looks like it could be the beginning of a social moment, which would last until the end of the 4T.

And if so, it is the resistance awakening to Drump that is the essence of any such social moment.

[SomeGuy]

Which is the point I was making to Dave above.  "Patriots" in the lead-up to the Revolution or Abolitionists in the 1850s were never an absolute majority of the population.  Likewise for secessionist firebrands in the Confederacy, if your sensibilities were hurt by the above comparison.  They were just dominant among the people with the power and inclination to actually do something (for values that do not include posting on the internet).

As Samuel Adams once said,

Quote:It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Right at the moment the "red" faction has just won a major victory, and appears to be spurring a reaction amongst the "blues".  It remains to be seen how that plays out.  We've seen some violence, but not much.  If it increases, why, there's your social moment.  

Still lots of ways this could play out.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-07-2017, 05:52 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Which is the point I was making to Dave above.  "Patriots" in the lead-up to the Revolution or Abolitionists in the 1850s were never an absolute majority of the population.  Likewise for secessionist firebrands in the Confederacy, if your sensibilities were hurt by the above comparison.  They were just dominant among the people with the power and inclination to actually do something (for values that do not include posting on the internet).

As Samuel Adams once said,

Quote:It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Right at the moment the "red" faction has just won a major victory, and appears to be spurring a reaction amongst the "blues".  It remains to be seen how that plays out.  We've seen some violence, but not much.  If it increases, why, there's your social moment.  

Still lots of ways this could play out.

I think it's a contest with this:




Anarcho-communists


vs. ?