Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So....is Biden the "grey champion"
#1
Greetings. I stumbled upon this site after not recieving much replies on the strausshowe sub-reddit forum in which I posed the same question. By process of elimination, it appears that Biden is the grey champion even though it seems his qualities would contradict the whole theory:

Biden is a Silent Gen which doesnt quite fit the bill and his youth support is quite anemic (in the primaries he was polling at what 10% among the youth vote?). Yes, the young will vote for him, not out of enthusiasm, but since they hate the GOP.

On the flip side, Trump, despite being a Boomer, seems utterly doomed in his re-election chances and is beginning to be despised like Hoover and Carter.

By default, does that make Biden the grey champion?
Reply
#2
FDR too was considered a nobody who got elected on vague promises and that his predecessor (Hoover) had demonstrated the old values didn’t work.  The election was a referendum on the incumbent.  I have often wondered if the Grey Champion is a great man, or if he presides over a great shift in values that has been long defined.  The combination of capitalism and democracy came real close to failing.  What to do about it?  The New Deal was FDR’s answer.

Biden doesn’t have a history that would suggest readiness for the role.  The question is whether the role will be thrust on him, and whether or not he will be ready for it.
Reply
#3
Honestly, my belief is that Biden was only selected because the Democrats want to lose this round. They know Biden is a senile old fool and that he will lose the election quite easily. The Democrats simply do not want to end up embarrassed and challenge Trump. 

Put simply, the Democrats are stuck in an ideological civil war between the far left of the party (The Squad) and the centrists (like Kamala Harris). They want to get this sorted out and find which is the winning side and go for a 2024 win.

I think there is a chance they will go further to the left and nominate AOC for for the candidacy. First woman president, Latino, can win a lot of votes with the diverse America crowd and has the energy for it. They want another Obama moment and AOC is it.
Reply
#4
(04-28-2020, 08:39 AM)Isoko Wrote: Honestly, my belief is that Biden was only selected because the Democrats want to lose this round. They know Biden is a senile old fool and that he will lose the election quite easily. The Democrats simply do not want to end up embarrassed and challenge Trump. 

Put simply, the Democrats are stuck in an ideological civil war between the far left of the party (The Squad) and the centrists (like Kamala Harris). They want to get this sorted out and find which is the winning side and go for a 2024 win.

I think there is a chance they will go further to the left and nominate AOC for for the candidacy. First woman president, Latino, can win a lot of votes with the diverse America crowd and has the energy for it. They want another Obama moment and AOC is it.

I think this falls into the wishful-thinking category.  If the Dems fail to win this round, then the next will be headed by a fire-breathing left by default.  Though that's fine by me, it's definitely not OK with the monied neoliberal faction.  But if they lose two in a row to the same brainless narcissist, they're done …. and they know it.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#5
(04-28-2020, 10:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: Though that's fine by me, it's definitely not OK with the monied neoliberal faction.  But if they lose two in a row to the same brainless narcissist, they're done …. and they know it.

That's exactly it.  Biden doesn't have enough of a brain left to oppose the deep state - the bureaucracy - so with Biden, the elites will have complete control.  Trump is a bit of a problem for them, but has been manageable so far.  Sanders was an unknown, and might not have been manageable.

Biden is less likely to be a Grey Champion than Trump is.  I'm starting to believe the "whoever gets elected in 2028" theory, though.
Reply
#6
(04-28-2020, 11:13 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-28-2020, 10:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: Though that's fine by me, it's definitely not OK with the monied neoliberal faction.  But if they lose two in a row to the same brainless narcissist, they're done …. and they know it.

That's exactly it.  Biden doesn't have enough of a brain left to oppose the deep state - the bureaucracy - so with Biden, the elites will have complete control.  Trump is a bit of a problem for them, but has been manageable so far.  Sanders was an unknown, and might not have been manageable.

Biden is less likely to be a Grey Champion than Trump is.  I'm starting to believe the "whoever gets elected in 2028" theory, though.

The entire 'deep state' conspiracy theory is the single, most effective tool the monied élite have had at their disposal.  If government is gutted, then what counter force can oppose aggregated wealth?  None! Biden is very familiar with the government bureaucracy, so some ratcheting-up of the regulatory framework seems a given.  Will it be effective?  TBD, but unlikely.

We're at a point that a wholesale reimagining of government is needed, but the US Constitution is designed to make that all but impossible. We may have more crisis than COVID-19 immediately ahead.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#7
(04-28-2020, 12:10 PM)David Horn Wrote: We're at a point that a wholesale reimagining of government is needed, but the US Constitution is designed to make that all but impossible.

The civil war completely changed the US government, and the US Constitution was flexible enough to survive that.  WWII also resulted in huge changes.  The Constitution isn't the issue here.
Reply
#8
(04-28-2020, 02:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-28-2020, 12:10 PM)David Horn Wrote: We're at a point that a wholesale reimagining of government is needed, but the US Constitution is designed to make that all but impossible.

The civil war completely changed the US government, and the US Constitution was flexible enough to survive that.  WWII also resulted in huge changes.  The Constitution isn't the issue here.

The Constitution still has a lot of the old slavery compromises, which give the rural states artificially more power.  The original intent was to avoid threatening the practice of slavery.  Today, is does a significant amount to let the rural population block the urban areas from solving problems.  Some view this as the base cause of many problems.  Whether this crisis, and the rural party’s prevention of a clean solution to the COVID 19 crisis, is enough to make the general population change this is still a question.  We will see how badly they mess it up.
Reply
#9
(04-28-2020, 02:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-28-2020, 12:10 PM)David Horn Wrote: We're at a point that a wholesale reimagining of government is needed, but the US Constitution is designed to make that all but impossible.

The civil war completely changed the US government, and the US Constitution was flexible enough to survive that.  WWII also resulted in huge changes.  The Constitution isn't the issue here.

The ACW amendments were voted into existence before the Sothern states were admitted to the Union. The post-WW-II changes didn't require Constitutional change.  Neither case is similar to the one we have today.  Like the post-ACW, the Red/Blue animosity is extreme, but we don't have a subset of states outside the Union.  No change will be made when the weak are in control by definition. The 10% of the population living in the smallest states has 46% of the Senate representation.  The 10%living in California has 2%. That, short of war or some alternate crisis than this one, is permanent.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#10
Not charismatic enough to be a grey champion. Bernie probably is one, even if he never had significant political power, he is still a focal point for the millennial Left.
Reply
#11
(04-29-2020, 10:14 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Not charismatic enough to be a grey champion. Bernie probably is one, even if he never had significant political power, he is still a focal point for the millennial Left.

First, the Grey Champion is a role, not a person.  Second, many have filled that role with little obvious political power: in the emerging US, it was Benjamin Franklin and, arguably, Samuel Adams, among others.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#12
(04-28-2020, 05:55 AM)Klinton Wrote: Greetings. I stumbled upon this site after not recieving much replies on the strausshowe sub-reddit forum in which I posed the same question. By process of elimination, it appears that Biden is the grey champion even though it seems his qualities would contradict the whole theory:

Biden is a Silent Gen which doesnt quite fit the bill and his youth support is quite anemic (in the primaries he was polling at what 10% among the youth vote?). Yes, the young will vote for him, not out of enthusiasm, but since they hate the GOP.

On the flip side, Trump, despite being a Boomer, seems utterly doomed in his re-election chances and is beginning to be despised like Hoover and Carter.

By default, does that make Biden the grey champion?

Biden is technically a Silent, but being born in late November 1942 is close to being a boomer, and originally considered himself a representative and champion of the boomer generation, elected to the senate thanks to the McGovern boomer activism in 1972.

I think it has been established here, and in the previous forum now archived, that there is not ONE grey champion, and (s)he is not necessarily a president of the USA. So yes, Biden could be a VERY "grey" champion, if he is elected and does enough of the right things. And if the Democrats manage to get a great nominee, with a high-enough horoscope score, to win in 2024 and succeed Biden, then (s)he could be another grey champion.

And (s)he might not be a boomer. And Bernie already IS a grey champion. The best such possible boomers or boomer/Xers for that role would be Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe, but they won't be Biden's VP.

The best possibilities for a vice president whom Biden might appoint as VP, and who might then run and be elected in 2024, are Susan Rice and Stacey Abrams. They are both women of color with much higher scores than Pence, and probably higher than Tom Cotton. But Kamala Harris? Forget it; she will never be elected president.

Certainly both Lincoln and FDR were questionable for actually being from prophet generations. They were likely prophet-nomad cuspers or hybrids, much like Obama. The authors stretched the length of the Transcendental Generation beyond any credible bounds so that it would include Lincoln.

I would say, if Biden is elected, and then Kamala as his VP runs as the Democratic nominee in 2024, we'll have a Republican president in Jan.2025 just at the time when rebellion looms at the climax of the 4T. That would mean the almost-certain end of the USA as we know it today, and likely the doom of human civilization.

Unless in the unlikely event there is some kind of liberal or left-wing third-party or independent candidate charismatic enough to win and bring about the end of the 2-party duopoly. And it won't be AOC.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#13
(04-29-2020, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(04-28-2020, 02:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-28-2020, 12:10 PM)David Horn Wrote: We're at a point that a wholesale reimagining of government is needed, but the US Constitution is designed to make that all but impossible.

The civil war completely changed the US government, and the US Constitution was flexible enough to survive that.  WWII also resulted in huge changes.  The Constitution isn't the issue here.

The ACW amendments were voted into existence before the Sothern states were admitted to the Union. The post-WW-II changes didn't require Constitutional change.  Neither case is similar to the one we have today.  Like the post-ACW, the Red/Blue animosity is extreme, but we don't have a subset of states outside the Union.  No change will be made when the weak are in control by definition. The 10% of the population living in the smallest states has 46% of the Senate representation.  The 10%living in California has 2%. That, short of war or some alternate crisis than this one, is permanent.

Yes, although this Crisis itself (meaning this 4th Turning era) may become that alternative crisis. Once a 4T really gets going, changes could go beyond what we expect. Already even I didn't expect the crisis I foresaw for these months that we are currently in (indicated by Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto all aligned in a very significant place in March-April 2020) to have such an impact, forcing fanatical, right-wing, neo-liberal Republicans to vote for left-wing Keynesian measures. 

So, perhaps the split in the union between red and blue that I have foreseen for decades now as possible in the 2025 era is still in the wings. Or, even Republicans seeing the light again; who knows!

If you get up early in the morning well before sunrise, and it's not cloudy, you can still see Mars, Jupiter and Saturn still fairly-close together in the sky.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#14
(04-29-2020, 02:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: forcing fanatical, right-wing, neo-liberal Republicans to vote for left-wing Keynesian measures. 

Establishment Republican Senators, which still includes most of them, have always been willing to give away taxpayer money to their special interests, just like the Democrats.  And at this point, the big banks and other monopolists have the establishment of both parties in their pockets, so the majority of the "stimulus" that went to bail out big business, and indirectly, banks, is hardly surprising.

Neoliberals love government spending - as long as it goes into their pockets and not someone else's.
Reply
#15
(04-29-2020, 03:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-29-2020, 02:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: forcing fanatical, right-wing, neo-liberal Republicans to vote for left-wing Keynesian measures. 

Establishment Republican Senators, which still includes most of them, have always been willing to give away taxpayer money to their special interests, just like the Democrats.  And at this point, the big banks and other monopolists have the establishment of both parties in their pockets, so the majority of the "stimulus" that went to bail out big business, and indirectly, banks, is hardly surprising.

Neoliberals love government spending - as long as it goes into their pockets and not someone else's.

The economic Right used to be for small government until they discovered that they could graft profitably from Big Government and use the power of government to impose the will of elites upon everyone else. Mussolini may have been a bit ahead of the time when he said that the twentieth century would be the era of Big Government. 

As Friedrich Hayek said of socialism, the worst thing that any socialist can face is the 'wrong' sort of socialism. We can say much the same of an activist government that has a role in managing the economy.
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
#16
(04-29-2020, 03:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-29-2020, 02:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: forcing fanatical, right-wing, neo-liberal Republicans to vote for left-wing Keynesian measures. 

Establishment Republican Senators, which still includes most of them, have always been willing to give away taxpayer money to their special interests, just like the Democrats.  And at this point, the big banks and other monopolists have the establishment of both parties in their pockets, so the majority of the "stimulus" that went to bail out big business, and indirectly, banks, is hardly surprising.

Neoliberals love government spending - as long as it goes into their pockets and not someone else's.

The Democrats did not vote for the money to go to the big companies. The Republicans are the neo-liberals, and neo-liberals claim to be against government spending and taxes, but neo-liberal presidents like Reagan, Bush and Trump end up bankrupting the state. That is their aim, in the hope that a bankrupt government won't be able to spend money for the benefit of certain ethnic groups. The COVID relief money was voted by congress but administered by the neo-liberal Trump and his admin, and that's why the money went to the big banks and corporations.

Remember, the proper definition of neo-liberal often gets confusing, just like the definition of populist. The most common definition of neo-liberal equates to libertarian economic policies, and these are the main plank in Republican platforms. Neo-liberals are classical liberals on economics, and that's where the name comes from. Their ideological heroes are Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan was the most enthusiastic promoter of neo-liberalism in the congress, even personally distributing the literature of these theorists to other members. Neo-liberals propose lower taxes and regulations on business in hope that their benefits will trickle down from the "job creaters." But there is no trickle; it is only a tinkle. Democrats are not neo-liberals per se, despite the confusing name, but establishment and "new" Democrats often compromise with neo-liberal policies, because of the power of neo-liberals in our rigged and corrupt political system.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#17
(04-29-2020, 03:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(04-29-2020, 02:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: forcing fanatical, right-wing, neo-liberal Republicans to vote for left-wing Keynesian measures. 

Establishment Republican Senators, which still includes most of them, have always been willing to give away taxpayer money to their special interests, just like the Democrats.  And at this point, the big banks and other monopolists have the establishment of both parties in their pockets, so the majority of the "stimulus" that went to bail out big business, and indirectly, banks, is hardly surprising.

Neoliberals love government spending - as long as it goes into their pockets and not someone else's.

Prior to Reagan, both parties treated deficit spending in a similar manner: tax less and/or spend more when the economy was weak and the opposite when it was strong.  Now, the GOP uses its magic tax cuts to deficit spend in good times, and bemoan Democrats use of deficits to revive the economy after the GOPpers have done it in.  But no one touched Trump for overboard tax cutting and idiot spending.  He's in his own class -- joined by the lemmings in his party. of course. For all of that wasted money, we could have finally gotten some infrastructure improvements -- projects that could be the catalyst back after the COVID mess subsides a bit.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#18
Eric, the key marker of neoliberals is that they favor globalism.  That's much more the Democrats than the Republicans at present.
Reply
#19
(04-30-2020, 11:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Eric, the key marker of neoliberals is that they favor globalism.  That's much more the Democrats than the Republicans at present.

I doubt that.  Yes, the most vocal Republicans are acting all protectionist, but the business community (overwhelming Republican) likes the cheap labor and the ability to arbitrage everything.  I don't see that being thrown away just because DJT is President.  At most, he'll be gone in 4 and half years.  The business vultures are here for the duration, unless the Democrats defang them.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#20
(04-30-2020, 11:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 11:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Eric, the key marker of neoliberals is that they favor globalism.  That's much more the Democrats than the Republicans at present.

I doubt that.  Yes, the most vocal Republicans are acting all protectionist, but the business community (overwhelming Republican) likes the cheap labor and the ability to arbitrage everything.  I don't see that being thrown away just because DJT is President.  At most, he'll be gone in 4 and half years.  The business vultures are here for the duration, unless the Democrats defang them.

Immigration restriction, which like protectionism is anathema to globalists, became a Republican issue before Trump, as early as 2010.  Democrats are very much on the side of neoliberal globalists there. I agree there are both Republicans and Democrats who oppose the trade wars, but in the case of the Republicans, it's not at all clear they will last 4.5 years.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)