Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Political Cycle Article
#21
(01-28-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: I have to agree that we are a long distance from being a predictable result of our hormonal stew.  Life is far more complicated than that.

On a generational scale it actually isn't complicated when you think about the average generational behavioral traits that Strauss & Howe have listed. The cyclical gender gap is a good example.

Think of a man that starts taking testosterone supplements. He will become more masculine, his muscles will grow, his sex drive increases, etc. But not only that, his behavior becomes more manly too as risk taking increases, but he will also think more about sex. This is what young men in the 1960s were very much about. But if a man has low testosterone levels, he will automatically be less masculine, have a less muscular body, and his sex drive is lower. Once again, the behavior is also different, less impulsive and risks are avoided more, and he will think of sex less. This is what the young men in the 2010s have been: well behaving but sometimes weak in willpower. (Willpower is another thing that testosterone levels modulate.) Some call them "soy boys", but soy, pollution, chemicals, obesity, etc. reasons are highly insufficient to explain the population-wide generational changes to both testosterone and estrogen levels.

So the hormone levels modulate not only generational biological properties/traits, but behavior and thoughts too. Now take this to a societal level and you have different generations with different behavioral traits due to varying hormone levels between them. It is quite simple: generationally varying sex hormone levels affect how generations look, act, and also think. The varying gender gap in the 80 year cycle is thus due to generationally varying sex hormone levels, and the proxy statistics for the sex hormones correlate with the 80 year cycle. I find it hard to believe that this could be a mere coincidence.

The social/group cohesion that tightens during a 4th turning is presumably due to increasing levels of social hormones that modulate group behavior (oxytocin and vasopressin). Oxytocin levels can be seen in several different proxy statistics from several Western nations, and they basically all correlate with the Strauss-Howe generational theory when it comes to the parenting intensity cycle presented in Generations, page 99. This is another coincidence. In addition, Eastern Europe lags by about 10-15 years in those proxy statistics, but so do their generations.

Another coincidence is that the animal population cycles correlate with the changing hormone levels human populations are experiencing. In other words: the Strauss-Howe generational theory describes the generational hormone levels of cyclical lemming and vole populations for example. I'm just finding it extremely hard to believe that all of these coincidences could be mere coincidences.
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#22
(01-29-2020, 07:35 PM)Ldr Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: I have to agree that we are a long distance from being a predictable result of our hormonal stew.  Life is far more complicated than that.

On a generational scale it actually isn't complicated when you think about the average generational behavioral traits that Strauss & Howe have listed. The cyclical gender gap is a good example.

Think of a man that starts taking testosterone supplements. He will become more masculine, his muscles will grow, his sex drive increases, etc. But not only that, his behavior becomes more manly too as risk taking increases, but he will also think more about sex. This is what young men in the 1960s were very much about. But if a man has low testosterone levels, he will automatically be less masculine, have a less muscular body, and his sex drive is lower. Once again, the behavior is also different, less impulsive and risks are avoided more, and he will think of sex less. This is what the young men in the 2010s have been: well behaving but sometimes weak in willpower. (Willpower is another thing that testosterone levels modulate.) Some call them "soy boys", but soy, pollution, chemicals, obesity, etc. reasons are highly insufficient to explain the population-wide generational changes to both testosterone and estrogen levels.

So the hormone levels modulate not only generational biological properties/traits, but behavior and thoughts too. Now take this to a societal level and you have different generations with different behavioral traits due to varying hormone levels between them. It is quite simple: generationally varying sex hormone levels affect how generations look, act, and also think. The varying gender gap in the 80 year cycle is thus due to generationally varying sex hormone levels, and the proxy statistics for the sex hormones correlate with the 80 year cycle. I find it hard to believe that this could be a mere coincidence.

The social/group cohesion that tightens during a 4th turning is presumably due to increasing levels of social hormones that modulate group behavior (oxytocin and vasopressin). Oxytocin levels can be seen in several different proxy statistics from several Western nations, and they basically all correlate with the Strauss-Howe generational theory when it comes to the parenting intensity cycle presented in Generations, page 99. This is another coincidence. In addition, Eastern Europe lags by about 10-15 years in those proxy statistics, but so do their generations.

Another coincidence is that the animal population cycles correlate with the changing hormone levels human populations are experiencing. In other words: the Strauss-Howe generational theory describes the generational hormone levels of cyclical lemming and vole populations for example. I'm just finding it extremely hard to believe that all of these coincidences could be mere coincidences.

None of this makes hormones determinant on a generational basis.  Unless natural hormone levels can be shown to follow a generational pattern, count me out on this one.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#23
(01-30-2020, 10:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 07:35 PM)Ldr Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: I have to agree that we are a long distance from being a predictable result of our hormonal stew.  Life is far more complicated than that.

On a generational scale it actually isn't complicated when you think about the average generational behavioral traits that Strauss & Howe have listed. The cyclical gender gap is a good example.

Think of a man that starts taking testosterone supplements. He will become more masculine, his muscles will grow, his sex drive increases, etc. But not only that, his behavior becomes more manly too as risk taking increases, but he will also think more about sex. This is what young men in the 1960s were very much about. But if a man has low testosterone levels, he will automatically be less masculine, have a less muscular body, and his sex drive is lower. Once again, the behavior is also different, less impulsive and risks are avoided more, and he will think of sex less. This is what the young men in the 2010s have been: well behaving but sometimes weak in willpower. (Willpower is another thing that testosterone levels modulate.) Some call them "soy boys", but soy, pollution, chemicals, obesity, etc. reasons are highly insufficient to explain the population-wide generational changes to both testosterone and estrogen levels.

...also surrogates for sexuality such as video games, addictive TV-watching and Internet use, and pornography (and those three can overlap). Add to this, the economy is fcuked up for anyone not already rich. Pay your student loan or have a child, if middle class? Wait until you have a living wage if you have a working-class job to even contemplate marriage and children?

It may be that economic reality is emasculating young men and pushing them toward surrogates such as pornography and video games.    


Quote:So the hormone levels modulate not only generational biological properties/traits, but behavior and thoughts too. Now take this to a societal level and you have different generations with different behavioral traits due to varying hormone levels between them. It is quite simple: generationally varying sex hormone levels affect how generations look, act, and also think. The varying gender gap in the 80 year cycle is thus due to generationally varying sex hormone levels, and the proxy statistics for the sex hormones correlate with the 80 year cycle. I find it hard to believe that this could be a mere coincidence.

One problem with a theory that risk-taking and 'manliness' go together is that economic realities of certain phases of the generational cycle favor and disfavor certain risks. I would guess that many GI men got more risks than they needed for a lifetime if they served, like "Archie Bunker" kept reminding his son-in-law "Michael Stivik", in Double-you-Double-you-Two. They might have a love for doing things on a big scale with little reflection, which is itself risky... but only after the consequences are known. 

Silent men after "The Big One" participated heavily in siring babies in the late 1940's through the early 1960's... which may reflect the economic reality of more living space per family than at any time in American history as the suburbs mushroomed with family-friendly tract housing (as opposed to the crowded flats normal for working-class and middle-class people in the cities in the 1930's). On the other hand, the Silent as a whole shunned such economic risk as starting new businesses. The Silent starting new businesses that eventually became big employers is a rather small one, including Dave Thomas (Wendy's) and Mike Illich (Little Caeasar's Pizza), T. Boone Pickens (oil wild-catting), and Warren Buffett (venture capital). If they did start businesses, such businesses were more typically professional practices which do not become mass-hiring entities. It is safe to say that the GI Sam Walton created more employment through Wal*Mart than Thomas, Illich, Pickens, and Buffett combined. 

(I could make the case that the paucity of businesses formed by the Silent led to high unemployment and depressed wages just as Generation X was entering the workforce. When the biggest employers that a generation founds are Wendy's and Little Caesar's, then the opportunities for young workers to have living wages are themselves depressed. But that is more economics than anything else). Video games and pornography flourished in the 1980's, and neither is something likely to lead to, coincide with, or follow sex. Substitutes are at best surrogates. 

On the other side -- little makes one seem more attractive as a sexual partner than does the air of economic success, which explains why dating often involves expensive shopping and travel. and which partially explains the commonplace incompatibility between poverty and marital stability. (Of course, divorce is negatively associated with social-economic status [SES] -- low SES often corresponding to low intelligence, low educational attainment, and low vocational attainment).                    


Quote:The social/group cohesion that tightens during a 4th turning is presumably due to increasing levels of social hormones that modulate group behavior (oxytocin and vasopressin). Oxytocin levels can be seen in several different proxy statistics from several Western nations, and they basically all correlate with the Strauss-Howe generational theory when it comes to the parenting intensity cycle presented in Generations, page 99. This is another coincidence. In addition, Eastern Europe lags by about 10-15 years in those proxy statistics, but so do their generations.


...and usually the stress upon the social order from inner and outer threats. Such includes political polarization, international wars, independence struggles, military and political coups, economic collapses, plagues, persecutions... I would expect the former Soviet bloc except in the old USSR to be at most three years behind the USA with Commie takeovers in the late 1940's as definitive ends to the Crisis Era in such countries. China is about five years behind the USA and Japan. A Commie takeover and collectivization is usually a Crisis event in itself for a society, although the end of Commie rule might not be a Crisis event. 

Quote:Another coincidence is that the animal population cycles correlate with the changing hormone levels human populations are experiencing. In other words: the Strauss-Howe generational theory describes the generational hormone levels of cyclical lemming and vole populations for example. I'm just finding it extremely hard to believe that all of these coincidences could be mere coincidences.

None of this makes hormones determinant on a generational basis.  Unless natural hormone levels can be shown to follow a generational pattern, count me out on this one.

Humans are not lemmings or voles. The closest animal as an equal to us in the food chain is the dog, which has a lifespan much shorter than ours. Where creatures are on the food chain does more to define their behavior than anything else. (I am not certain whether dogs are above us or below us in the food chain). 

Coincidences happen. Years of Presidential elections in the USA are also years of the Summer Olympic games. Years of American midterm elections are also years of Winter Olympic games. Such was never intended.
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
#24
(01-30-2020, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 10:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 07:35 PM)Ldr Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: I have to agree that we are a long distance from being a predictable result of our hormonal stew.  Life is far more complicated than that.

On a generational scale it actually isn't complicated when you think about the average generational behavioral traits that Strauss & Howe have listed. The cyclical gender gap is a good example.

Think of a man that starts taking testosterone supplements. He will become more masculine, his muscles will grow, his sex drive increases, etc. But not only that, his behavior becomes more manly too as risk taking increases, but he will also think more about sex. This is what young men in the 1960s were very much about. But if a man has low testosterone levels, he will automatically be less masculine, have a less muscular body, and his sex drive is lower. Once again, the behavior is also different, less impulsive and risks are avoided more, and he will think of sex less. This is what the young men in the 2010s have been: well behaving but sometimes weak in willpower. (Willpower is another thing that testosterone levels modulate.) Some call them "soy boys", but soy, pollution, chemicals, obesity, etc. reasons are highly insufficient to explain the population-wide generational changes to both testosterone and estrogen levels.

...also surrogates for sexuality such as video games, addictive TV-watching and Internet use, and pornography (and those three can overlap). Add to this, the economy is fcuked up for anyone not already rich. Pay your student loan or have a child, if middle class? Wait until you have a living wage if you have a working-class job to even contemplate marriage and children?

It may be that economic reality is emasculating young men and pushing them toward surrogates such as pornography and video games.    


Quote:So the hormone levels modulate not only generational biological properties/traits, but behavior and thoughts too. Now take this to a societal level and you have different generations with different behavioral traits due to varying hormone levels between them. It is quite simple: generationally varying sex hormone levels affect how generations look, act, and also think. The varying gender gap in the 80 year cycle is thus due to generationally varying sex hormone levels, and the proxy statistics for the sex hormones correlate with the 80 year cycle. I find it hard to believe that this could be a mere coincidence.

One problem with a theory that risk-taking and 'manliness' go together is that economic realities of certain phases of the generational cycle favor and disfavor certain risks. I would guess that many GI men got more risks than they needed for a lifetime if they served, like "Archie Bunker" kept reminding his son-in-law "Michael Stivik", in Double-you-Double-you-Two. They might have a love for doing things on a big scale with little reflection, which is itself risky... but only after the consequences are known. 

Silent men after "The Big One" participated heavily in siring babies in the late 1940's through the early 1960's... which may reflect the economic reality of more living space per family than at any time in American history as the suburbs mushroomed with family-friendly tract housing (as opposed to the crowded flats normal for working-class and middle-class people in the cities in the 1930's). On the other hand, the Silent as a whole shunned such economic risk as starting new businesses. The Silent starting new businesses that eventually became big employers is a rather small one, including Dave Thomas (Wendy's) and Mike Illich (Little Caeasar's Pizza), T. Boone Pickens (oil wild-catting), and Warren Buffett (venture capital). If they did start businesses, such businesses were more typically professional practices which do not become mass-hiring entities. It is safe to say that the GI Sam Walton created more employment through Wal*Mart than Thomas, Illich, Pickens, and Buffett combined. 

(I could make the case that the paucity of businesses formed by the Silent led to high unemployment and depressed wages just as Generation X was entering the workforce. When the biggest employers that a generation founds are Wendy's and Little Caesar's, then the opportunities for young workers to have living wages are themselves depressed. But that is more economics than anything else). Video games and pornography flourished in the 1980's, and neither is something likely to lead to, coincide with, or follow sex. Substitutes are at best surrogates. 

On the other side -- little makes one seem more attractive as a sexual partner than does the air of economic success, which explains why dating often involves expensive shopping and travel. and which partially explains the commonplace incompatibility between poverty and marital stability. (Of course, divorce is negatively associated with social-economic status [SES] -- low SES often corresponding to low intelligence, low educational attainment, and low vocational attainment).                    


Quote:The social/group cohesion that tightens during a 4th turning is presumably due to increasing levels of social hormones that modulate group behavior (oxytocin and vasopressin). Oxytocin levels can be seen in several different proxy statistics from several Western nations, and they basically all correlate with the Strauss-Howe generational theory when it comes to the parenting intensity cycle presented in Generations, page 99. This is another coincidence. In addition, Eastern Europe lags by about 10-15 years in those proxy statistics, but so do their generations.


...and usually the stress upon the social order from inner and outer threats. Such includes political polarization, international wars, independence struggles, military and political coups, economic collapses, plagues, persecutions... I would expect the former Soviet bloc except in the old USSR to be at most three years behind the USA with Commie takeovers in the late 1940's as definitive ends to the Crisis Era in such countries. China is about five years behind the USA and Japan. A Commie takeover and collectivization is usually a Crisis event in itself for a society, although the end of Commie rule might not be a Crisis event. 

Quote:Another coincidence is that the animal population cycles correlate with the changing hormone levels human populations are experiencing. In other words: the Strauss-Howe generational theory describes the generational hormone levels of cyclical lemming and vole populations for example. I'm just finding it extremely hard to believe that all of these coincidences could be mere coincidences.

None of this makes hormones determinant on a generational basis.  Unless natural hormone levels can be shown to follow a generational pattern, count me out on this one.

Humans are not lemmings or voles. The closest animal as an equal to us in the food chain is the dog, which has a lifespan much shorter than ours. Where creatures are on the food chain does more to define their behavior than anything else. (I am not certain whether dogs are above us or below us in the food chain). 

Coincidences happen. Years of Presidential elections in the USA are also years of the Summer Olympic games. Years of American midterm elections are also years of Winter Olympic games. Such was never intended.
And also the World Cup of soccer.
Reply
#25
Lets look at some statistics. Are you saying that for instance Sweden and Australia just happen to have nearly identical breastfeeding statistics by chance? Australia lags by about 3 years, but the curves are nearly identical.

[Image: breatsfeeding-australia-1950-1992.jpg]

[Image: breastfeeding-sweden.png]
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#26
Similar pattern, with people deciding that commercial formulas fit 'scientific' attitudes toward raising children better than did 'primitive' breast-feeding and then eventually finding that breast-feeding is better for developing a mother-child bond.
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
#27
I liked this cycle idea though I don't see how the author offered any explanation of why a progressive era was the next logical step.

I checked out the Twitter thread and it was disheartening how mean so many of the responses were. But I guess that's Twitter for you.
Steve Barrera

[A]lthough one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. - Hagakure

Saecular Pages
Reply
#28
Each era is a repudiation of the staleness or pathology of the preceding time. Should Democrats get the win of their dreams in November (Trump defeated in a landslide, with several Republican Senators going down with him), then it will be obvious that America has had enough of neoliberal economics, let alone the sick personality of Donald Trump.

Just look at Donald Trump and see what he is and think of the antithesis. Trump represents the most exaggerated vices of the Boom Generation -- the ruthlessness, arrogance, and narcissism -- with none of the virtues. He is obviously not learned; he is no visionary; he has no principles beyond himself; his culture is schlock. There may be room for Boomer virtues after Trump, but not for Boom vices that Trump so exemplifies.

Much will change. The economy will be more covenant-like in nature; go by the rules and you will be fine. Education will have as an objective the improvement of a person instead of fitting someone to a narrow role that one is expected to stick to for lack of anything better until that role disappears. (Note that the recent emphasis in education has been on education for a job. But start as a retail clerk or a hairdresser and you remain such. Note also that in the 3T some bad vocational schools that took students' money (and federal loans) and prepared students for jobs that did not exist.

In a more rational society one might start as a fast-food worker and then decide that becoming a machinist or a medical technician is a good idea when the opportunity arises. The cult of expertise in which those in extant elites keep raising qualifications faster than people can achieve them will be gone. We will be less averse to taxes so long as we believe that we are getting something out of the government for the taxes.

In view of the first President who has shown huge deficits of sanity, we might pay more attention to mental health. Casting people out of asylums and into the mainstream is fine only if people are ready for such. Ronald Reagan introduced such as Governor of California, and other states followed suit. We have more than our share of people incapable of coping. Although many of the homeless are consequences of poverty and economic imbalance, many have serious problems of mental health (not that homelessness does not contribute to mental illness).

We are going to abandon the idea that the only people who matter are the economic elites -- that if they are happy with political and social reality, then all is well.
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
#29
pbrower2a, that's a wonderful vision of a better future, but how does switching power to the Democrat party get us there? It seems like a huge structural change is required. That is what Warren/Sanders are promising, I will say. But it seems so far out of reach.

The coming week will be very telling, I think.
Steve Barrera

[A]lthough one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. - Hagakure

Saecular Pages
Reply
#30
(02-02-2020, 02:07 PM)sbarrera Wrote: pbrower2a, that's a wonderful vision of a better future, but how does switching power to the Democrat party get us there? It seems like a huge structural change is required. That is what Warren/Sanders are promising, I will say. But it seems so far out of reach.

The coming week will be very telling, I think.

I look at the struggle among Southern blacks for basic decencies -- not having to give up a seat on a bus  for a white person who wants it, not having to drink from a 'colored' water fountain or have to have food as take-out instead of at a dinner table, having educational opportunities for their children just as good as those for white kids, and getting to participate in a political process that neglected them badly. It was time. 

Many black men had come back from military service, and some actually made rank. A white private salutes a black corporal in accordance with military custom. Some had encountered the arrogant racism of Germans intoxicated with "Aryan" supremacy... that was something that was to be broken among Germans. Nazi racism was wrong, so why was all-American racism any more excusable? Black women who had gotten industrial work in war plants got a taste of equality in the workplace, and found it a revelation. 

If people want something that they see as their right... they do what they can to get it if they have a chance. 

All adults know better than Donald Trump from first-hand experience. They see the consequences of a President who fosters anger, vilifies science, acts corruptly, lies shamelessly, takes credit for the successes of people whose success is something having nothing to do with political choices (such as learning, work, and business formation), and makes a shamble of foreign policy. 

So we hit bottom with Trump. We went into a drunken binge and have ended up broke, disheveled, and with a nasty hangover. That is often when people go into rehab. This nation needs rehab, and it will seek 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
#31
(02-03-2020, 12:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-02-2020, 02:07 PM)sbarrera Wrote: pbrower2a, that's a wonderful vision of a better future, but how does switching power to the Democrat party get us there? It seems like a huge structural change is required. That is what Warren/Sanders are promising, I will say. But it seems so far out of reach.

The coming week will be very telling, I think.

I look at the struggle among Southern blacks for basic decencies -- not having to give up a seat on a bus  for a white person who wants it, not having to drink from a 'colored' water fountain or have to have food as take-out instead of at a dinner table, having educational opportunities for their children just as good as those for white kids, and getting to participate in a political process that neglected them badly. It was time. 

Many black men had come back from military service, and some actually made rank. A white private salutes a black corporal in accordance with military custom. Some had encountered the arrogant racism of Germans intoxicated with "Aryan" supremacy... that was something that was to be broken among Germans. Nazi racism was wrong, so why was all-American racism any more excusable? Black women who had gotten industrial work in war plants got a taste of equality in the workplace, and found it a revelation. 

If people want something that they see as their right... they do what they can to get it if they have a chance. 

All adults know better than Donald Trump from first-hand experience. They see the consequences of a President who fosters anger, vilifies science, acts corruptly, lies shamelessly, takes credit for the successes of people whose success is something having nothing to do with political choices (such as learning, work, and business formation), and makes a shamble of foreign policy. 

So we hit bottom with Trump. We went into a drunken binge and have ended up broke, disheveled, and with a nasty hangover. That is often when people go into rehab. This nation needs rehab, and it will seek it.

I hope we're ready for rehab, but there are still tens of millions o diehard Trump supporters.
Steve Barrera

[A]lthough one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. - Hagakure

Saecular Pages
Reply
#32
(02-02-2020, 02:07 PM)sbarrera Wrote: pbrower2a, that's a wonderful vision of a better future, but how does switching power to the Democrat party get us there? It seems like a huge structural change is required. That is what Warren/Sanders are promising, I will say. But it seems so far out of reach.

The coming week will be very telling, I think.

Don't count on hyper-progressivism succeeding this cycle.  The demagoguery against it has been too overwhelming for too long to be shunted aside in one election cycle, unless the world is falling apart.  Right now, there are storm clouds on the horizon, but things are still pretty good for most people.  Check back when the storm arrives.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#33
I wouldn't count on anything except that Donald Trump is not going to lead Americans into an enthusiastic move toward absolute plutocracy with despotic government enforcing such. At this point the rapacious, despotic ruling elite of the last forty years has the possibility of continuing its power and dominion over all economic matters only if it resorts to violence that, if successful, destroys American democracy. It may not have 45% support in the electoral choice, if only because of much-younger, more Democratic-leaning voters supplanting Republican-leaning voters dying off. As I have suggested elsewhere, that is about a 1.5% shift of the popular vote, and if nothing else changes from November 2016 to November 2020 than that, then Trump does not get re-elected in a free and fair election. A 1.5% shift in the popular vote in states flips Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to the Democratic nominee. (I have my doubts of Florida, which tends to collect older and more Republican-leaning voters, and that might be enough to allow Trump to win Florida -- in which case he might lose Ariczna or North Carolina instead).

I would not be surprised if economic elites who see an end to extreme privilege resort to intimidation of voters (as in giving the warning "Vote Republican if you want to keep your job")... Employers will know by people showing delight or despair depending upon how the election went. The economic elites have become increasingly ruthless.

But -- should the Skowronek cycle hold, then Trump is the last gasp of an era of rugged individualism that crushed individuality. Such took about 40 years from the Reagan victory over Carter for its flaws go overwhelm its cultural support, in contrast to nearly fifty years for the New Deal agenda to go stale. It is not simply that Trump is so awful; he would be in trouble if he showed Carter's virtues.

The cycle suggests that a President antithetical to Trump will be highly successful by simply repudiating the Reagan-Bush-Trump agenda that took forty years to turn out so badly and going along with significant change in American political and economic institutions.
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
#34
(02-03-2020, 02:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ... The cycle suggests that a President antithetical to Trump will be highly successful by simply repudiating the Reagan-Bush-Trump agenda that took forty years to turn out so badly and going along with significant change in American political and economic institutions.

This should be the case, but look at what's actually happening.  The leading candidate of the progressive wing of the less conservative party is being labeled "socialist", and the money that backs that party is going into apoplectic fits.  Now it's Mike Bloomberg to the rescue!  Why?  Because demagoguery is still possible on the left, even though it has no purchase at all on the right.  That will end at some point, but this doesn't seem to be the time.  Trump is the bully the fearful white guys have ben looking for, and the economy is strong, on paper at least.  That's not to say that Trump is invincible, but a counterattack from the far(ish) left will only trigger a third party run by <insert the terribly rich guy of your choice>, or some other poison pill to delay the inevitable.

I was hoping for better myself.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  the generational cycle, progress, and the perception of mass death pbrower2a 0 142 03-26-2020, 04:15 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Prabhat Sarkar and his social cycle pbrower2a 35 5,000 10-30-2019, 09:09 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  A broken cycle? Bill the Piper 69 5,517 08-22-2019, 08:18 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)