The 4T Generational Constellations - Red v Blue

[sbarrera]

(09-26-2020, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2020, 10:48 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Isn't this what is meant by the "constellation"? You put it in derisory terms - the Idealists brainwash the Civics - but it could also be described as giving them their vision (via the memes...) which they then act upon as a united front. It's just that there are two fronts and there is conflict in the streets.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a constellation; that's basic to generational theories discussed here.  I'm disagreeing with the idea that there are two separate constellations, one Red and one Blue.  The fundamental grievances of the Millenials have nothing to do with the Red v Blue arguments.  Of course, that makes it difficult for the Millenials to express them, since Boomers are all about Red v Blue arguments.

But I do see that some Millennials are heeding the call of their elders to take a particular side in the Red v Blue argument. I'm thinking of the more fervent participants in street unrest, like the 17 year old who showed up in Michigan with a rifle to do battle with the protesters. And if most Millennials need some vision that goes beyond the Red v Blue, is there any Prophet providing it? I can't think of one.

[pbrower2a]

No two Crisis Eras are alike. Recognizing the ages of the Adaptive (A), Idealist (I), Reactive ®, and Civic ©, generations of the times of the Crises of 1780, 1869, 1940, and 2040  we find the following:

\\\ 1780... 1860... 1940 ... 2020
A   >80      >69     >81     >78  
I    57-79   39-68  58-80   60-78
R   38-56   18-38  40-57   39-59
C   14-37   <18     16-39    <39

The Civil War Crisis was the most destructive in American history, as Howe and Strauss put it, because the Crisis came too early. The generations in place (the Progressive Generation is excused for obvious reasons) were at their worst at their roles in a Crisis. The Compromise Generation still had influence and used that influence to use process to support compromises that had worked well into the 1850's but could no longer work as their generation had largely lost political power. The Transcendental Generation was still polarized into opposing camps that had opposite ways of seeing slavery -- one as progress toward empire in pushing a plantation society into a larger domain, and one side seeing slavery as an abomination. The Gilded on both sides saw war as a lucrative adventure that would finance settlement of the West for themselves instead of the carnage that it would become.

Typically the Adaptive generation is no longer on the scene to get in the way of decisive action, only to find that all is spiraling out of any control or design. (OK, I doubt that the Progressive Generation would have told Americans to be nice to Hitler and Tojo so that they might be 'nice' to us). By 1780 any Tories had decided that sticking around in an independent America was a bad idea, and by 1940 American political life could have hardly been more placid.

The Crisis of 1940 had the Missionary Generation setting the agenda and supplying the intellectual purpose. The Lost were astute administrators who had just gotten through the harshest times that Americans then living knew and provided shrewd administration of the war machine and generalship over the troops. The GI Generation was perfectly fit to turn technology and muscle into victory.  

So the generational constellation of 2020 looks much like that of 1940. Not so fast! The GI generation set a pattern for extending lifespans, which was to give up tobacco, drink moderately if at all, stay as physically fit as possible (think of George Romney, father of Mitt, dying while working out on an exercise machine at age 89), and connected as long as possible... and one might get to act at age 70 as one does at 50. Still, 80 is undeniably old, and anyone who fails to take care of himself can be old before his time.

The Silent, the current adult Adaptive generation, has followed the GI lead. Joe Biden shows all 60 of his 78 years, so to speak... and I would not be surprised if he outlasted Trump. Obviously I cannot expect Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi to hammer out compromises on anything... The Silent can mess things up if they take the Compromise role of James Buchanan.

A bad set of purposes can make an Idealist agenda a disaster.  Neoliberal economics got us into the economic mess that we now have of extreme and pointless inequality of economic opportunity and economic results. 95% of the people suffering for 2% is precisely what one needs -- for a successful revolution whose purpose is overthrowing a rapacious elite whose sole principle is taking everything possible. The biggest factor in how this Crisis will end for us is how well the Idealist (Boom) Generation does. Yes, Donald Trump is an unmitigated disaster as a leader, the sort who seeks to turn everyone against everyone except that the economic royalists of our time prove themselves the only ones with solid organization. 

I see Generation X well tested, one that will cast off whatever unnecessary fluff America has in entrenched interests and questionable traditions of recent vintage. These are the sorts who, should there be a revolution, would insist on plenty of room for small business which can get much done without the need for bloated bureaucracies, rent-seeking behavior, and interference in the political process. If the economic reformation culminates in large businesses becoming "too big to save" instead of "to big to fail", then we will need small business to operate among the skeletons of dinosaurs after the economic equivalent of the K-T boundary.

(We can even think on to the time when Generation X starts taking the upper leadership of Nation and executive ranks. With Barack Obama we have seen the typical leader of the "Mature Reactive" type, the 60-something leader who insists upon precedent and protocol, doesn't shake things up too much, and defers to the experts. Obama fits the pattern well, so guess what sort of leadership we can expect. More of the same, but that sort will not scare me). But we are not there yet. 

The Civic Generation (this time the Millennial Generation) has no stake in an economic order that so far has given them little more than low pay for their competence, heavy debt, and the highest real rents ever. I expect it to seek and support rational decisions, whatever the source. Maybe the solution to high real rents is to revitalize "Flyover Country".

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-26-2020, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2020, 10:48 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Isn't this what is meant by the "constellation"? You put it in derisory terms - the Idealists brainwash the Civics - but it could also be described as giving them their vision (via the memes...) which they then act upon as a united front. It's just that there are two fronts and there is conflict in the streets.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a constellation; that's basic to generational theories discussed here.  I'm disagreeing with the idea that there are two separate constellations, one Red and one Blue.  The fundamental grievances of the Millenials have nothing to do with the Red v Blue arguments.  Of course, that makes it difficult for the Millenials to express them, since Boomers are all about Red v Blue arguments.

What do you see as the fundamental grievances of the Millennials?  

I can see the increased cost of college.  I remember 'hat day' with my college band.  Each band member was requested to put together a strange hat.  One was a graduation hat with a bunch of tuition bills attached by string.  His quarterly freshmen tuition bills were in the mid hundreds, his senior bills in the mid thousands.  It has only got worse since then.  I would consider it a honest grievance.  I was in a co op plan as an engineer.  As I approached graduation, I could afford a new car, a new organ, soon to be followed by a new fangled widget called a personal computer, all paid for in cash.  Once upon a time towards the end of the progressive era, you could get in the professional elite group by just committing some scholarly effort.  That ended.

But what other issues?  The poor economy, the division of wealth, the racial violent policing all fold into the Red Blue.

[pbrower2a]

(09-27-2020, 02:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-26-2020, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2020, 10:48 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Isn't this what is meant by the "constellation"? You put it in derisory terms - the Idealists brainwash the Civics - but it could also be described as giving them their vision (via the memes...) which they then act upon as a united front. It's just that there are two fronts and there is conflict in the streets.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a constellation; that's basic to generational theories discussed here.  I'm disagreeing with the idea that there are two separate constellations, one Red and one Blue.  The fundamental grievances of the Millenials have nothing to do with the Red v Blue arguments.  Of course, that makes it difficult for the Millenials to express them, since Boomers are all about Red v Blue arguments.

What do you see as the fundamental grievances of the Millennials?  

I can see the increased cost of college.  I remember 'hat day' with my college band.  Each band member was requested to put together a strange hat.  One was a graduation hat with a bunch of tuition bills attached by string.  His quarterly freshmen tuition bills were in the mid hundreds, his senior bills in the mid thousands.  It has only got worse since then.  I would consider it a honest grievance.  I was in a co op plan as an engineer.  As I approached graduation, I could afford a new car, a new organ, soon to be followed by a new fangled widget called a personal computer, all paid for in cash.  Once upon a time towards the end of the progressive era, you could get in the professional elite group by just committing some scholarly effort.  That ended.

But what other issues?  The poor economy, the division of wealth, the racial violent policing all fold into the Red Blue.

Plutocracy -- and make no mistake, the USA is a plutocracy and has been since the "Reagan Revolution" -- operates on the basis that the worker exists to make life plush for the elites while becoming helpless in improving or maintaining his condition. If Friedrich Hayek saw socialism (all of which led in his mind toward Stalinism) as a Road to Serfdom. he failed to recognize that for-profit entities could have bloated bureaucracy whose purpose was to control the worker as rigidly as Soviet-style central planners. If Marxism-Leninism denied one the freedom to choose careers except to those willing to become toadies of the regime and made sure that nobody can slip through the system as an owner of a store or a plot of land, the current system ensures that one can get nothing without paying a high price in debt that compels one to serve creditors just to survive at terms of the creditors' choosing. Survival becomes a privilege, but also at the same time a questionable blessing. The common man finds himself in the position in which he owes everything to economic elites who act as if they owe him nothing other than what keeps that person working.

It is not enough to say that the economic elites seek a return to the Gilded Age, which at the least was a time of a wide-open frontier of innovation and enterprise, the current system reeks of a command system in which owners dictate what everyone else does... or else. Consequences are cruel, which may make it easy to ascribe the fault with such a pathology of economic sadism.  Of course it is easy to make Donald Trump a scapegoat, as he exemplifies just about everything wrong with America except for alcoholism.  (Supposedly he is a tee-totaler, having been scared of the alcoholic demise of a brother).

[David Horn]

(09-26-2020, 04:58 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-26-2020, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-25-2020, 10:48 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Isn't this what is meant by the "constellation"? You put it in derisory terms - the Idealists brainwash the Civics - but it could also be described as giving them their vision (via the memes...) which they then act upon as a united front. It's just that there are two fronts and there is conflict in the streets.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a constellation; that's basic to generational theories discussed here.  I'm disagreeing with the idea that there are two separate constellations, one Red and one Blue.  The fundamental grievances of the Millennials have nothing to do with the Red v Blue arguments.  Of course, that makes it difficult for the Millennials to express them, since Boomers are all about Red v Blue arguments.

But I do see that some Millennials are heeding the call of their elders to take a particular side in the Red v Blue argument. I'm thinking of the more fervent participants in street unrest, like the 17 year old who showed up in Michigan with a rifle to do battle with the protesters. And if most Millennials need some vision that goes beyond the Red v Blue, is there any Prophet providing it? I can't think of one.

That 17-yearold is now a cult hero to the Proud Boys, among other cults.   It's a self-perpetuating cycle that can lead to real violence given the wrong actor in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

This guy is just a poster boy for reckless behavior so far, but he is still awaiting legal action. Let's see where that takes us when it happens.  If he walks, the rules are no longer in force.

[Warren Dew]

(09-26-2020, 04:58 PM)sbarrera Wrote: But I do see that some Millennials are heeding the call of their elders to take a particular side in the Red v Blue argument.

Sure.  BLM and Antifa are out there smashing store windows when it's convenient for their Boomer backers, for example.  It doesn't help at all to give Millenials a future, but it does help Boomer factions channel Millenial aggression away from themselves.

The Millenials' actual problems stem from concentration of wealth and power in upper age bracket.  That's only going to be fixed when enough Boomers, and maybe X, are ruined or dead, one way or anther.  Boomers are too rigid to permit a more rational solution to emerge, and Millenials don't have the experience even to understand what's really going on.  Any "vision" involved in what will ultimately become the solution will only emerge from trying to make sense after the fact of how we stumbled into it.

[sbarrera]

(09-27-2020, 02:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2020, 04:58 PM)sbarrera Wrote: But I do see that some Millennials are heeding the call of their elders to take a particular side in the Red v Blue argument.

Sure.  BLM and Antifa are out there smashing store windows when it's convenient for their Boomer backers, for example.  It doesn't help at all to give Millenials a future, but it does help Boomer factions channel Millenial aggression away from themselves.

The Millenials' actual problems stem from concentration of wealth and power in upper age bracket.  That's only going to be fixed when enough Boomers, and maybe X, are ruined or dead, one way or anther.  Boomers are too rigid to permit a more rational solution to emerge, and Millenials don't have the experience even to understand what's really going on.  Any "vision" involved in what will ultimately become the solution will only emerge from trying to make sense after the fact of how we stumbled into it.

Almost all are marching only, not destroying anything, but the point is they are clearly energized and on one side of the red v. blue divide. The whole conflict over racial injustice in policing is the most obvious manifestation of the divide. One side insists that the there is racial injustice in policing and demands change, the other side that we should support police and that they aren't at fault in these cases of POC dying at the hands of law enforcement. Sometimes there are physical confronations that end badly and its always hard to be sure who is at fault, but probably the police will take the red zone side. Which is logical if you think about the nature of the split. If this is all a distraction to keep Millennials from being aware of their real problem (Marx would have said they have false consicousness instead of the correct class consciouness) then so be it. But the red and blue constellations are still there.

[pbrower2a]

(09-27-2020, 02:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2020, 04:58 PM)sbarrera Wrote: But I do see that some Millennials are heeding the call of their elders to take a particular side in the Red v Blue argument.

Sure.  BLM and Antifa are out there smashing store windows when it's convenient for their Boomer backers, for example.  It doesn't help at all to give Millenials a future, but it does help Boomer factions channel Millenial aggression away from themselves.

My suggestion to protesters -- visit the small restaurants near the protest and enjoy a sandwich, salad, and drinks (including a brew or a wine if possible). Visit a small shop and buy a souvenir. Businesses in the area are not the enemy. Oh, by the way -- if you see someone committing a crime, report it to the police or the local prosecuting attorney. 
  

Quote:The Millenials' actual problems stem from concentration of wealth and power in upper age bracket.  That's only going to be fixed when enough Boomers, and maybe X, are ruined or dead, one way or anther.  Boomers are too rigid to permit a more rational solution to emerge, and Millenials don't have the experience even to understand what's really going on.  Any "vision" involved in what will ultimately become the solution will only emerge from trying to make sense after the fact of how we stumbled into it.

Most likely much of the great wealth of recent origin that is the rationale for treating people badly has as its basis loose fiscal policy and low taxes that will not be preserved after some economic meltdown. If the last High is any indication, taxes will be higher and money will be tighter. Such will favor shoe-string businesses over bureaucratic giants, the latter depending heavily upon loose money and low taxes to reward monopolization and bureaucratic bloat. X will be the executives, and they will not be able to get away making millions for treating subordinates badly or offshoring jobs as Boomers did. 

Executive pay will be low enough to be attractive as a reward for long, devoted, competent service, ideally by people who started at the bottom and worked their way up from the shop floor to the sales floor or decided to take some college courses in accounting or engineering while working in the mail room... or whatever. If one wants to make real money one will need to start a business. (That's how it was for twenty years or so after WWII. I miss that). The typical executive was still with his high-school sweetheart, had his household mortgage paid off, and had no idea of what to do with a sports  car because he was already too old to appreciate it.

As I see it, a good definition of valid capitalism is that the only way in which to get rich (OK, I will make some exceptions for film stars, some super-valuable professionals, and the like) is to be a capitalist. Not a bureaucrat; not a corrupt politician; not a speculator; and certainly not as a criminal. Maybe life can be comfortable for a skilled tradesman, a college professor, a good salesman, a research scientist,  or perhaps a K-12 teacher. Ideally, doing well must depend upon doing good; a market must put that above rewarding people for power or birth.

[Warren Dew]

(09-27-2020, 02:56 PM)sbarrera Wrote: If this is all a distraction to keep Millennials from being aware of their real problem (Marx would have said they have false consicousness instead of the correct class consciouness) then so be it. But the red and blue constellations are still there.

If it's a distraction, it may well be a distraction by both the Red and Blue Boomers in collusion - or perhaps the whole Red v Blue thing is a smokescreen to aid with the distraction.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-27-2020, 02:56 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-27-2020, 02:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2020, 04:58 PM)sbarrera Wrote: But I do see that some Millennials are heeding the call of their elders to take a particular side in the Red v Blue argument.

Sure.  BLM and Antifa are out there smashing store windows when it's convenient for their Boomer backers, for example.  It doesn't help at all to give Millenials a future, but it does help Boomer factions channel Millenial aggression away from themselves.

The Millenials' actual problems stem from concentration of wealth and power in upper age bracket.  That's only going to be fixed when enough Boomers, and maybe X, are ruined or dead, one way or anther.  Boomers are too rigid to permit a more rational solution to emerge, and Millenials don't have the experience even to understand what's really going on.  Any "vision" involved in what will ultimately become the solution will only emerge from trying to make sense after the fact of how we stumbled into it.

Almost all are marching only, not destroying anything, but the point is they are clearly energized and on one side of the red v. blue divide. The whole conflict over racial injustice in policing is the most obvious manifestation of the divide. One side insists that the there is racial injustice in policing and demands change, the other side that we should support police and that they aren't at fault in these cases of POC dying at the hands of law enforcement. Sometimes there are physical confronations that end badly and its always hard to be sure who is at fault, but probably the police will take the red zone side. Which is logical if you think about the nature of the split. If this is all a distraction to keep Millennials from being aware of their real problem (Marx would have said they have false consicousness instead of the correct class consciouness) then so be it. But the red and blue constellations are still there.

I mostly agree with Sbarrera on the racial issues.  I think both the Black Lives Matter and Boogaloo Boys motives exist and are real, and that the Black Lives Matter is by far the dominant movement.  Still, I have noted several conservatives that deliberately confuse the two motivations, will attribute the Boogaloo motivation to Black Lives matter.  This seems to contain more than a little not so hidden racism.  They think deliberately confusing motivation justifies continued use of violence against against minorities.  When you see folks insisting on misunderstanding motives it is just to perpetuate racism.

As for the financial problems, this is classic red and blue.  During the time of conservative dominance during the unravelling, the red have been cutting benefits, cutting the effectiveness of labor unions, shipping jobs abroad, increasing the division of wealth and cutting domestic spending.  This effected later generations more heavily as the policies continued.  We boomers caught the last leftover benefits of the progressive time, the time under progressive leadership when tax and spend liberalism made America great, but the millennials caught it bad and need to wake up.  The racist attempts to hurt minorities came to hurt workers, while the red were acting in the elite’s interest.

It is all very real and very red - blue.

[sbarrera]

(09-27-2020, 09:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-27-2020, 02:56 PM)sbarrera Wrote: If this is all a distraction to keep Millennials from being aware of their real problem (Marx would have said they have false consicousness instead of the correct class consciouness) then so be it. But the red and blue constellations are still there.

If it's a distraction, it may well be a distraction by both the Red and Blue Boomers in collusion - or perhaps the whole Red v Blue thing is a smokescreen to aid with the distraction.

Red and Blue Boomers are not in collusion. They are in conflict. That is the Boomers' modus operandi.

[pbrower2a]

Red and blue constellations are parallel in some ways, but quite different in composition and methods. They are much more different than what I see between Marxists and their mirror images, the latter the people who act as Marx says that capitalists act but consider such behavior either admirable or inevitable (the latter rationalizing themselves by suggesting that everyone is a greedy, conniving bastard if given a chance).

The Red side has little youth appeal or intellectual appeal. Like most right-wing tendencies, the Red side of American politics attempts to protect moribund traditions, practices, and ideals even from demographic and technological (including medical) change. Much more than the Blue side it sees Humanity concerned with its own greed, appetites, and lusts and unable to control those. It is of course for elite dominance of the economy, seeking controlled markets, lax regulation, and cheap labor. It often makes specious arguments such as "union dues take food off your table and Christmas presents from under the tree on Christmas Day". (To which I say, "collective bargaining is all that protects you from an employer exploiting your weakness in pressing your case for a living wage").

[David Horn]

(09-28-2020, 01:13 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-27-2020, 09:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-27-2020, 02:56 PM)sbarrera Wrote: If this is all a distraction to keep Millennials from being aware of their real problem (Marx would have said they have false consicousness instead of the correct class consciouness) then so be it. But the red and blue constellations are still there.

If it's a distraction, it may well be a distraction by both the Red and Blue Boomers in collusion - or perhaps the whole Red v Blue thing is a smokescreen to aid with the distraction.

Red and Blue Boomers are not in collusion. They are in conflict. That is the Boomers' modus operandi.

Red and Blue may be adversaries, but neither can exist without the other. It's a kind of codependency.  Eliminating the Blue faction would codify a preference for the private over the public, and keep government small and ineffective -- but no one would care all that much.  Those of us in the downscale section of society would laud our betters for how clever and hardworking they are, and the upscale crowd would feel  comfortable knowing that they deserved every dollar and perk they have.  If Red disappeared, something more akin to true socialism might emerge organically, and we would all be one and happy.

Of course, neither of these scenarios is possible if there are thoughtful people who are not just cookie-cutter copies of each other.  That's truer when societal norms shift too far either way, like they have now.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-29-2020, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: Red and Blue may be adversaries, but neither can exist without the other. It's a kind of codependency.  Eliminating the Blue faction would codify a preference for the private over the public, and keep government small and ineffective -- but no one would care all that much.  Those of us in the downscale section of society would laud our betters for how clever and hardworking they are, and the upscale crowd would feel  comfortable knowing that they deserved every dollar and perk they have.  If Red disappeared, something more akin to true socialism might emerge organically, and we would all be one and happy.

Of course, neither of these scenarios is possible if there are thoughtful people who are not just cookie-cutter copies of each other.  That's truer when societal norms shift too far either way, like they have now.

The Red Blue divide is at core the old and new values.  This time around the flaws in the old values are in elitism and racism.  Even if those go away or are much reduced in this crisis, other side issues such as global warming will step up to take their place.  I could see the elites and conservative thinkers deciding they would rather be rich than save the planet, the urban crowd more effected by the problem be the more willing to address the problem.

But even if all the specific odd issues were to be handled, there would still be a stay the same against fix the problem conflict.  The S&H cycles might be less strident.  There wouldn't be as much of a crisis.  Every time around the cycle the worst problems of the culture get addressed, one would eventually run out of serious problems?  It is a while before we have to address The Last Question, the heat death of the universe.  Still, there would be an element of selfishness in the unraveling followed by an element of sacrificing for the common good in the crisis.

What would be the odd issue that would break the cycles?  What problem would show up that the conservatives would not wish to bother to solve, but the progressives would be ready to address?  I'm not sure I see it.

[beechnut79]

(09-29-2020, 02:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: Red and Blue may be adversaries, but neither can exist without the other. It's a kind of codependency.  Eliminating the Blue faction would codify a preference for the private over the public, and keep government small and ineffective -- but no one would care all that much.  Those of us in the downscale section of society would laud our betters for how clever and hardworking they are, and the upscale crowd would feel  comfortable knowing that they deserved every dollar and perk they have.  If Red disappeared, something more akin to true socialism might emerge organically, and we would all be one and happy.

Of course, neither of these scenarios is possible if there are thoughtful people who are not just cookie-cutter copies of each other.  That's truer when societal norms shift too far either way, like they have now.

The Red Blue divide is at core the old and new values.  This time around the flaws in the old values are in elitism and racism.  Even if those go away or are much reduced in this crisis, other side issues such as global warming will step up to take their place.  I could see the elites and conservative thinkers deciding they would rather be rich than save the planet, the urban crowd more effected by the problem be the more willing to address the problem.

But even if all the specific odd issues were to be handled, there would still be a stay the same against fix the problem conflict.  The S&H cycles might be less strident.  There wouldn't be as much of a crisis.  Every time around the cycle the worst problems of the culture get addressed, one would eventually run out of serious problems?  It is a while before we have to address The Last Question, the heat death of the universe.  Still, there would be an element of selfishness in the unraveling followed by an element of sacrificing for the common good in the crisis.

What would be the odd issue that would break the cycles?  What problem would show up that the conservatives would not wish to bother to solve, but the progressives would be ready to address?  I'm not sure I see it.

P1:  the global warming issue should be having its turn in the batter's box now, but it is being overshadowed not only by the COVID pandemic but by all those barons who want to keep things the way they are, at least on that particular issues. Environmental concerns were hip in the late 60s and most of the 70s but got pushed aside when Reagan (in)famously took down the solar panels in the White House which his predecessor had installed.

P2:  So often it seems, to me at least, than we have the tendency to fix what isn't broke and not fix what is.

P3:  Jury still out on this one except to say that it still does, in many ways, feel as though we are spinning our wheels and getting nowhere.  We many not know for several more years whether COVID will be the central issue of this 4T.  The common men and women seem to know what they want to do but feel like they’re blocked at every turn.

[Marypoza]

(09-29-2020, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: Red and Blue may be adversaries, but neither can exist without the other. It's a kind of codependency.  Eliminating the Blue faction would codify a preference for the private over the public, and keep government small and ineffective -- but no one would care all that much.  Those of us in the downscale section of society would laud our betters for how clever and hardworking they are, and the upscale crowd would feel  comfortable knowing that they deserved every dollar and perk they have.  If Red disappeared, something more akin to true socialism might emerge organically, and we would all be one and happy.

-- l'm a socialist so that couldn't come soon enough 4 me

[Eric the Green]

(09-28-2020, 01:13 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-27-2020, 09:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-27-2020, 02:56 PM)sbarrera Wrote: If this is all a distraction to keep Millennials from being aware of their real problem (Marx would have said they have false consicousness instead of the correct class consciouness) then so be it. But the red and blue constellations are still there.

If it's a distraction, it may well be a distraction by both the Red and Blue Boomers in collusion - or perhaps the whole Red v Blue thing is a smokescreen to aid with the distraction.

Red and Blue Boomers are not in collusion. They are in conflict. That is the Boomers' modus operandi.

The reds of all generations are the problem Millennials are facing. There is no other problem, as I see it. Of course there is conflict between red and blue boomers. But that conflict is happening among all generations. Some younger people like to say that if it weren't for boomers, we would not be in conflict and not polarized, because prophets get into conflicts. I disagree. 

Many Boomers may indeed be stubborn and self-righteous and clingy and bossy today, no longer the love generation of Woodstock days. But the nub of the conflict is one of ideologies and values, and is stoked by fears and prejudices. The problem is the "red" side entirely. The ideology to which they cling for dear life is basically neo-liberalism, the idea that the market should be left to its own devices and benefits will trickle down. This is quite strongly allied with the racist elements, often closeted, which have bedeviled Americans since Columbus sailed the ocean blue, due to scapegoating of welfare recipients and other benefits provided to "those lazy people" by the neo-liberal enemy, "big government." And traditional religious dogma and prejudice plays a big part in holding up these old values too. Super-patriot militarism, gun obsession, and opposition to environmentalism are all part of the red mix. These ideologies have been around much longer than boomers, and in youth boomers spoke and acted against these same old values and ideologies in virtually the same way that Millennial youth are doing now.

It IS a political conflict of ideas, and not a generational conflict; although as the graph I just posted and many others I have posted in these forums for years show, there are differences in levels of support for red and blue among various age groups, with some of the oldest group, plus the core boomers, and especially the millennials, supporting liberals and Democrats, while late boomers through core Xers, as well as the oldest boomer/war baby cuspers and many Silents, are the most Republican and conservative. But there are plenty on all sides from all generations. White Millennials seem almost evenly divided at times, despite the strong liberal tilt overall of this most-diverse generation. And it's true as I have said that many people have loyalties and opinions from both sides, in varying degrees. But the hope for "bipartisan get together" has passed. As problems remained un-addressed during the 3T by Republicans' power, and their fears of change have grown, while the need to address the problems has grown more urgent, polarization is natural.

The red vs. blue battle is THE thing. It is NOT a distraction or a Boomer pre-occupation. And the nation must make a decision now between them. It is a life and death decision.

[Eric the Green]

"It is a while before we have to address The Last Question, the heat death of the universe."

Ah, now there's a long-term issue! I'm not sure a political party can address it. ha ha.

Only spirit provides a solution to entropy and its destination. What philosophers have called negentropy, or radiant energy; it is the love that makes the world go round in the first place. But the idea of heat death does play into the way we see the world, as left over materialist, physicalist ideologies are quite influential and detrimental as I see it to the unfolding of life, whereas a more balanced view sees consciousness emerging from a universe powered by an innate order unfolding itself. Physics shows that the universe is in a delicate balance that could only be provided by a universal cohesion within it.

Call it what you will, but it's also clear that life is a spontaneous and free miracle that can't be explained by mechanical cause and effect, and which has evolved not just through natural selection but by the will to live and grow. The world is an organism, not a mechanism, and that's an alternative to heat death. Inherent in the world is this seeking, groping and unfolding of life, love and light. So the destiny we share is not heat death, but light life. But it is our choice of how we see our lives, and it makes a difference in how we live and how we view and value ourselves and our innate, intimate relationship with all being.

The Awakening provided the chance for many in the West to rediscover the spirit that powers civilization and the world. We keep needing these Awakening periods, and I hope someday Americans realize that it has to be on-going. For this new Awakening to take root, as it has grown since the Romantic and Transcendentalist Awakenings, the old dogmas of both science and religion have to be transcended, and science and spirit integrated, practiced and valued together.

[David Horn]

(10-08-2020, 10:19 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: Red and Blue may be adversaries, but neither can exist without the other. It's a kind of codependency.  Eliminating the Blue faction would codify a preference for the private over the public, and keep government small and ineffective -- but no one would care all that much.  Those of us in the downscale section of society would laud our betters for how clever and hardworking they are, and the upscale crowd would feel  comfortable knowing that they deserved every dollar and perk they have.  If Red disappeared, something more akin to true socialism might emerge organically, and we would all be one and happy.

-- l'm a socialist so that couldn't come soon enough 4 me

Don't sell everything on the expectation that we're getting there soon, but something like that is inevitable in the long term.  We've been on the way for over 100 years, so it may be longer than either us will be around.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I was browsing on YouTube yesterday. At one point, instead of the usual ad, there was this commentary that stated that America is almost two nations now, Red and Blue.

The commentary went on to list contrasting differences between red and blue. Such as small government and lower taxes in red, versus larger government and higher taxes in blue.