Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Neil Howe: Where did Steve Bannon get his worldview? From my book.
#1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...79f55ae791


Quote:The headlines this month have been alarming. “Steve Bannon’s obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome” (Business Insider). “Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable” (the Huffington Post). “Steve Bannon Wants To Start World War III” (the Nation). A common thread in these media reports is that President Trump’s chief strategist is an avid reader and that the book that most inspires his worldview is “The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy.”

I wrote that book with William Strauss back in 1997. It is true that Bannon is enthralled by it. In 2010, he released a documentary, “Generation Zero,” that is structured around our theory that history in America (and by extension, most other modern societies) unfolds in a recurring cycle of four-generation-long eras. While this cycle does include a time of civic and political crisis — a Fourth Turning, in our parlance — the reporting on the book has been absurdly apocalyptic.

I don’t know Bannon well. I have worked with him on several film projects, including “Generation Zero,” over the years. I’ve been impressed by his cultural savvy. His politics, while unusual, never struck me as offensive. I was surprised when he took over the leadership of Breitbart and promoted the views espoused on that site. Like many people, I first learned about the alt-right (a far-right movement with links to Breitbart and a loosely defined white-nationalist agenda) from the mainstream media. Strauss, who died in 2007, and I never told Bannon what to say or think. But we did perhaps provide him with an insight — that populism, nationalism and state-run authoritarianism would soon be on the rise, not just in America but around the world. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...79f55ae791
Reply
#2
My comment on the Washington Post blog:

I have read much of the Howe and Strauss canon, and the one conclusion that I can derive from such reading, is that history gets much more fearsome about 80 years after a Crisis Era. Howe and Strauss could never say what the Crisis would be except to say that it would shake many of the political, cultural, and economic assumptions of most people. Spanish Armada in Britain, chaos of the late 17th century in Britain, American Revolution, Civil War, Great Depression and World War II -- why should we expect placid times now? We had a President who tried to keep things as placid as possible, and now we have a President who shakes the foundations of American democracy.

Howe and Strauss did not say that the Crisis would be benign. Crises in some other countries (think of Spain and all Axis Powers except perhaps Finland) could culminate in the destruction of democracy and even with genocide. As in Spain the winners could be brutal tyrants. As in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia the Crisis could end with the replacement of one form of tyranny (fascism) with another (Communism).

The most salubrious result is that America solves its problems with a combination of moral probity, economic reform, a leveling of inequality, and a general consensus that such is right. Barack Obama had his virtues, but he was not the one to achieve this when he had resolute opposition to everything that he stood for. That opposition has taken over America and has an agenda of hierarchy, repression, inequality, conformity, and perhaps even tyranny. We could have a single-Party political system in which anyone who runs afoul of the official ideology faces ruin, torture, or murder if he does not flee. America could be the sort of place that imaginative and creative people want to escape much like the Soviet Union or Franco's Spain.

Only fools believe that history is a benign force in life.
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
#3
(02-27-2017, 11:46 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Obama's problem was he poked a few too many Red hornets' nests. The worst one was poking gun owners and those who support gun owners. He also poked a few other ones that were bound to get the Red factions up in arms.

Don't assume this is a dead issue.   If the 2nd Amendment folks get sideways with law enforcement, and a gun battle ensues, that may be the trigger that finally turns the mildly anti-gun crowd as vehement as the pro-gun crowd.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#4
(02-27-2017, 12:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-27-2017, 11:46 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Obama's problem was he poked a few too many Red hornets' nests. The worst one was poking gun owners and those who support gun owners. He also poked a few other ones that were bound to get the Red factions up in arms.

Don't assume this is a dead issue.   If the 2nd Amendment folks get sideways with law enforcement, and a gun battle ensues, that may be the trigger that finally turns the mildly anti-gun crowd as vehement as the pro-gun crowd.

I dunno, Dave, lotsa militia groups have done that, and nothing has happened.  Did the murder of cops by black militants (well, mostly just random losers) turn you against BLM?

At the end of the day the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, with centuries of case law behind it, and the only way to really get the restrictions you seek is with a constitutional amendment.

Which, you know, you don't really have the votes for.  Sorry.
Reply
#5
Neil Howe's recent article in The Washington Post has triggered responses here and there.  I thought this discussion on sott.net made some good points:

Trump, Bannon and the danger of self-fulfilling prophecies

And here are two companion articles (with a third to follow) that relate the study of how evil arises in a society to Fourth Turning theory:

The Fourth Turning and Steve Bannon Pt. 1: Why He's Wrong, Even Though He's Right

The Fourth Turning and Steve Bannon Pt. 2: Happiness, Hedonism, Horror - Repeat
Reply
#6
https://www.sott.net/article/343533-The-...-Hes-Right
Reply
#7
Sorokin ... identified a cycle of 80 to 100 years that ping-pongs between spiritual and materialistic mindsets, roughly corresponding to the awakening and crisis turnings. For Howe and Strauss, the second and fourth turnings - spiritual awakening and secular crisis - form the key moments in the larger cycle of cultural trends.

There's another source, however, that I think rounds out generational theory even more and provides the perspective we need in order to prevent the current crisis from progressing to a reign of terror. Readers familiar with Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology (which cites Sorokin's work as a source) know that one of main points of the book is that some psychopaths strive for political power, and create societal nightmares once they achieve it. But equally important is his focus on the historical cycles that make such a thing possible. The two are intimately tied together.

In PP, Lobaczewski describes this cycle in terms of "good times" and "bad times". Bad times contain within them the seeds of good times, because they provide the hard lessons that force people to rediscover what really matters, prompting a spiritual awakening for society to rebuild. But good times also contain the seed of bad times, because they tend to lead to hedonism, complacency, and stagnation, where past lessons are forgotten and written off as a waste of time. But the hedonistic pursuit of happiness only leads to misery, because it lacks any meaning or sense of purpose. And by ignoring the lessons learned in the past, societies open themselves up to the same "infection". They lose their "immunity". Their defenses are weakened, and another crisis becomes inevitable.

Already we see aspects of Howe and Strauss's "high" (good times), "awakening" (rediscovery of lost values), and "unraveling" (stagnation and hedonism), which lead to "crisis" (bad times).

Lobaczewski admitted that the two key "danger" phases were well recognized by historians. The first is a spiritual crisis where moral, religious, and intellectual values atrophy and cease to nourish a society. If the correct measures aren't taken, this leads to a secular crisis: economic collapse, revolution, war, the fall of empires. That's pretty standard stuff in history, but what's not understood very well are the specific dynamics that govern why and how this happens - and therefore give a clue as to how to prevent the worst from happening. Left only with Howe & Strauss's theory, we'd be in the same boat as any other generation, albeit with the advantage of knowing we're navigating a crisis. Luckily, we have PP to help us out.

https://www.sott.net/article/343841-The-...ror-Repeat#
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
#8
And another national "newspaper of record" weighs in on Steve Bannon, with a nod to Fourth Turning theory:

What Does Steve Bannon Want? - The New York Times
Reply
#9
(02-27-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(02-27-2017, 12:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-27-2017, 11:46 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Obama's problem was he poked a few too many Red hornets' nests. The worst one was poking gun owners and those who support gun owners. He also poked a few other ones that were bound to get the Red factions up in arms.

Don't assume this is a dead issue.   If the 2nd Amendment folks get sideways with law enforcement, and a gun battle ensues, that may be the trigger that finally turns the mildly anti-gun crowd as vehement as the pro-gun crowd.

I dunno, Dave, lotsa militia groups have done that, and nothing has happened.  Did the murder of cops by black militants (well, mostly just random losers) turn you against BLM?

At the end of the day the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, with centuries of case law behind it, and the only way to really get the restrictions you seek is with a constitutional amendment.

Which, you know, you don't really have the votes for.  Sorry.

Don't be too smug.  This is exactly what happened to create the whole gun control movement.  Today conservatives are pro-gun because gun enthusiasts are overwhelmingly white. Back in the 1960's most white gun enthusiasts were hunters, good folks like the guys I work with. But there were some gun enthusiasts who were more interested in using guns against people (as protection).  These enthusiasts were black, which scared the shit out of white folks who pressed for gun control. Charles Manson did not come up with Helter Skelter ab nihilio.

Later on as the non-violent ethos of MLK became enshrined with righteousness and the "by any means necessary" ethos of Malcolm X was discredited, non-criminal blacks eschewed guns and white activists picked up on them. And now cavorting with guns like the Panthers did is A-OK as long as you are a right-thinking white man.
Reply
#10
(02-27-2017, 06:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Sorokin ... identified a cycle of 80 to 100 years that ping-pongs between spiritual and materialistic mindsets, roughly corresponding to the awakening and crisis turnings. For Howe and Strauss, the second and fourth turnings - spiritual awakening and secular crisis - form the key moments in the larger cycle of cultural trends.

Did you read Sorokin's massive work?  I've used his method for measuring sociopolitical instability in my first paper, but never engaged with his thesis.
Reply
#11
(03-25-2017, 03:48 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(02-27-2017, 06:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Sorokin ... identified a cycle of 80 to 100 years that ping-pongs between spiritual and materialistic mindsets, roughly corresponding to the awakening and crisis turnings. For Howe and Strauss, the second and fourth turnings - spiritual awakening and secular crisis - form the key moments in the larger cycle of cultural trends.

Did you read Sorokin's massive work?  I've used his method for measuring sociopolitical instability in my first paper, but never engaged with his thesis.

No. I simply cut and pasted.

I got only to the academic level in which one gets a feel for the academic and some conception of waht to trust and what not to trust.
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
#12
Steve Bannon is often labelled a "populist" by the media. I find this hard to stomach. In what sense is he a "populist?"

He does not favor or act in the interests of the people, but only for the rich and powerful. He is "deconstructing the administrative state," which means, deconstructing the public-interest state. He is destroying the organs of government that protect the people from a dictatorship by the bosses. Bannon is the opposite of a populist. He is an elitist, pure and simple. He upholds absolute rule by the bosses.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#13
(04-11-2017, 12:26 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 11:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Steve Bannon is often labelled a "populist" by the media. I find this hard to stomach. In what sense is he a "populist?"

He does not favor or act in the interests of the people, but only for the rich and powerful. He is "deconstructing the administrative state," which means, deconstructing the public-interest state. He is destroying the organs of government that protect the people from a dictatorship by the bosses. Bannon is the opposite of a populist. He is an elitist, pure and simple. He upholds absolute rule by the bosses.

He's a populist for angry white people. He harnesses their anger and hatred of Latino illegal immigrants, blacks, Muslims, and globalism.

But then what does the word "populist" mean? Just that he appeals to some popular opinions? That doesn't mean a thing. Every politician seeks the approval of enough of the populace to get elected. "The elite," then, means nothing except those who don't vote for the winner. In Bannon/Trump's case, I guess this means "Latinos, blacks, Muslims, and globalists."

Nope, that's not populism. Populism extols and advocates the interests of most of the people against the elites. NO Republican or neo-liberal today can be a populist, because they represent the power of wealth, which is the elite of this country, and which owns and runs it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#14
(02-27-2017, 12:47 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
(02-27-2017, 12:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-27-2017, 11:46 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Obama's problem was he poked a few too many Red hornets' nests. The worst one was poking gun owners and those who support gun owners. He also poked a few other ones that were bound to get the Red factions up in arms.

Don't assume this is a dead issue.   If the 2nd Amendment folks get sideways with law enforcement, and a gun battle ensues, that may be the trigger that finally turns the mildly anti-gun crowd as vehement as the pro-gun crowd.

I dunno, Dave, lotsa militia groups have done that, and nothing has happened.  Did the murder of cops by black militants (well, mostly just random losers) turn you against BLM?

At the end of the day the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, with centuries of case law behind it, and the only way to really get the restrictions you seek is with a constitutional amendment.

Which, you know, you don't really have the votes for.  Sorry.

At the risk of beating a dead horse....

I'd say, that Obama poked the gun lovers because some young people in Newtown CT got seriously poked, and that poked Obama's feelings. Before Newtown (Dec.14, 2012), Obama was going easy on the gun lovers and gun pokers.

I suspect David is exactly right, and this is basically the scenario I predicted to happen late in the 4T, on a much larger scale than we have seen so far.

And the constitution does not need to be amended; only the recent Scalia interpretation, and perhaps not even a change to that (which may be relevant with the new Gorsuck Court). Fully-constitutional gun controls could ignite the gun nuts anyway, who have no understanding of the constitution. They think the 2nd amendment means that no regulation is needed of the militia, which is patently false and ignores the 2nd.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#15
(04-11-2017, 01:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <snip>

And the constitution does not need to be amended; only the recent Scalia interpretation, and perhaps not even a change to that (which may be relevant with the new Gorsuck Court). Fully-constitutional gun controls could ignite the gun nuts anyway, who have no understanding of the constitution. They think the 2nd amendment means that no regulation is needed of the militia, which is patently false and ignores the 2nd.

Look, Eric. Why the fuck are the "urban Liberals"  having such a cow on the 2nd amendment?
Now, if the Democrats want to achieve anything, they need to let go of all of these culture wars issues.
If you want Democrats to win in say , Oklahoma, concentrate on economics like Sanders did. He won Oklahoma, remember. If you want Red States to have Democratic wins, the party needs to defer to local wishes on crap like gun control and unite on economic issues. Here's the thing, Red states can be in the Democratic column is they discard the losing deuce of clubs [gun control] and keep the Ace of economic issues. I know this. A practical economic issue campaign will be the winning formula. I'd also include anything that reduces the costs of jail birds.  IOW, just buy off the gun folks with a common economic agenda and the Democrats will go far.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#16
(04-11-2017, 05:08 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 01:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <snip>

And the constitution does not need to be amended; only the recent Scalia interpretation, and perhaps not even a change to that (which may be relevant with the new Gorsuck Court). Fully-constitutional gun controls could ignite the gun nuts anyway, who have no understanding of the constitution. They think the 2nd amendment means that no regulation is needed of the militia, which is patently false and ignores the 2nd.

Look, Eric. Why the fuck are the "urban Liberals"  having such a cow on the 2nd amendment?
Now, if the Democrats want to achieve anything, they need to let go of all of these culture wars issues.
If you want Democrats to win in say , Oklahoma, concentrate on economics like Sanders did. He won Oklahoma, remember. If you want Red States to have Democratic wins, the party needs to defer to local wishes on crap like gun control and unite on economic issues. Here's the thing, Red states can be in the Democratic column is they discard the losing deuce of clubs [gun control] and keep the Ace of economic issues. I know this. A practical economic issue campaign will be the winning formula. I'd also include anything that reduces the costs of jail birds.  IOW, just buy off the gun folks with a common economic agenda and the Democrats will go far.

No, the question always is, why are rural conservatives having such a cow over it.

Gun control is not a culture war issue. Duh.

I don't expect Democrats to ever win in OK, and if they did, they would very likely be DINOs anyway like Manchin.

The conservative idea of "compromise" on the gun issue is just to have their way. They are not interested in any rural/urban deference. It won't work. Massacres continue, and many concerned citizens will continue to demand action. Democrats must answer these concerns, like it or not. The NRA is really the main culprit here. Politicians bow to this pressure group in spite of a strong majority in favor of gun regulation.

I have to wonder, in fact, whether if Trump can have such a rapid and total turnabout on Syria's use of chemical weapons, what happens when the next Newtown hits? Will Trump have a change of heart on that too? I wouldn't bet on it; but with Trump, just about anything is possible, even if unlikely.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#17
People can read into Howe and Strauss whatever they want. Howe and Strauss try to evade partisan politics, a reasonable thing to do in history. Who knows how the Parties will align? Selfish, cruel, corrupt, and rapacious people in extant elites are unlikely to read the canon with the expectation of seeing their demise -- even though such people are the first people to be put in front of the firing squad or be led to the guillotine in the wake of a Crisis that overthrows them. Such people might see a Crisis as the perfect time for intensifying the inequity within the society with greater brutality and repression.  

Obviously we do not live in the dying days of the Ancien Régime or the dying days of the Romanov dynasty. Even so there are people who dream of a return to the Gilded Age, a time in which a primitive industrialism by modern standards was forcing rapid economic growth and technological innovation because of the harsh discipline in the sweatshops of the time and because higher profits allowed greater investment in plant and equipment. Of course the assumptions of such a time cannot be met in reality.

But if the brutal conditions of early industrialism can't be restored, then perhaps racism and religious bigotry can be. Thus Wilder, LePen, and... Trump, whose "Make America Great Again" suggests that the way to make things good for people who have been enduring some distress as they see people unlike them shoot past them in economic reality is to cut down those that those in distress resent. Back to the stereotyped lives of poverty, people with such sentiments have, so that the noble white people can prevail even if they are ignoramuses with horrid habits.

In most times the solution is incremental improvements.  People get more formal education, have unions looking out for their economic interests, and insist upon some steady improvements in infrastructure.

Donald Trump does not have a consensus on his side. He is unlikely to form one.  He is an unconvincing speaker; it's not that he says the wrong things for my sensibilities -- unlike Ronald Reagan he says them awkwardly. He has abysmal ratings of his approval.  He has only one way to tell people who didn't vote for him to participate in decision-making: give up your old beliefs and join him.
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
#18
(04-12-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 05:08 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 01:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: <snip>

And the constitution does not need to be amended; only the recent Scalia interpretation, and perhaps not even a change to that (which may be relevant with the new Gorsuck Court). Fully-constitutional gun controls could ignite the gun nuts anyway, who have no understanding of the constitution. They think the 2nd amendment means that no regulation is needed of the militia, which is patently false and ignores the 2nd.

Look, Eric. Why the fuck are the "urban Liberals"  having such a cow on the 2nd amendment?
Now, if the Democrats want to achieve anything, they need to let go of all of these culture wars issues.
If you want Democrats to win in say , Oklahoma, concentrate on economics like Sanders did. He won Oklahoma, remember. If you want Red States to have Democratic wins, the party needs to defer to local wishes on crap like gun control and unite on economic issues. Here's the thing, Red states can be in the Democratic column is they discard the losing deuce of clubs [gun control] and keep the Ace of economic issues. I know this. A practical economic issue campaign will be the winning formula. I'd also include anything that reduces the costs of jail birds.  IOW, just buy off the gun folks with a common economic agenda and the Democrats will go far.

No, the question always is, why are rural conservatives having such a cow over it.

Gun control is not a culture war issue. Duh.

I don't expect Democrats to ever win in OK, and if they did, they would very likely be DINOs anyway like Manchin.

The conservative idea of "compromise" on the gun issue is just to have their way. They are not interested in any rural/urban deference. It won't work. Massacres continue, and many concerned citizens will continue to demand action. Democrats must answer these concerns, like it or not. The NRA is really the main culprit here. Politicians bow to this pressure group in spite of a strong majority in favor of gun regulation.

I have to wonder, in fact, whether if Trump can have such a rapid and total turnabout on Syria's use of chemical weapons, what happens when the next Newtown hits? Will Trump have a change of heart on that too? I wouldn't bet on it; but with Trump, just about anything is possible, even if unlikely.

The NRA used to be non partisan. But the urban left have irrational gun phobia, and over time, the NRA became more and more aligned with the Alt-Right. Things came to a head in 2016. On the one side you had Clinton, professing her hatred of the 2nd Amendment, which was inviting the NRA to embrace an "anti Clinton."

The "anti Clinton" was Trump.

If the Left do not want to face the NRA every election, the Left should stop giving the NRA "ammo" (pun intended) that will be used to shoot the Left.

I guess there's something about a gun that transfers to its lovers, that makes them exaggerate. Clinton made no proposals to overturn the 2nd; just some sensible gun control proposals.

Fear of guns is perfectly rational. Such a killing machine should be restricted to the battlefield. I understand your approach; people disagree. But I can hope someday that the Right and the NRA will regret giving the Left ammo. It's only a matter of time, perhaps, before sense prevails on this issue.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#19
(04-12-2017, 03:20 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-12-2017, 12:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(04-12-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(04-11-2017, 05:08 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Look, Eric. Why the fuck are the "urban Liberals"  having such a cow on the 2nd amendment?
Now, if the Democrats want to achieve anything, they need to let go of all of these culture wars issues.
If you want Democrats to win in say , Oklahoma, concentrate on economics like Sanders did. He won Oklahoma, remember. If you want Red States to have Democratic wins, the party needs to defer to local wishes on crap like gun control and unite on economic issues. Here's the thing, Red states can be in the Democratic column is they discard the losing deuce of clubs [gun control] and keep the Ace of economic issues. I know this. A practical economic issue campaign will be the winning formula. I'd also include anything that reduces the costs of jail birds.  IOW, just buy off the gun folks with a common economic agenda and the Democrats will go far.

No, the question always is, why are rural conservatives having such a cow over it.

Gun control is not a culture war issue. Duh.

I don't expect Democrats to ever win in OK, and if they did, they would very likely be DINOs anyway like Manchin.

The conservative idea of "compromise" on the gun issue is just to have their way. They are not interested in any rural/urban deference. It won't work. Massacres continue, and many concerned citizens will continue to demand action. Democrats must answer these concerns, like it or not. The NRA is really the main culprit here. Politicians bow to this pressure group in spite of a strong majority in favor of gun regulation.

I have to wonder, in fact, whether if Trump can have such a rapid and total turnabout on Syria's use of chemical weapons, what happens when the next Newtown hits? Will Trump have a change of heart on that too? I wouldn't bet on it; but with Trump, just about anything is possible, even if unlikely.

The NRA used to be non partisan. But the urban left have irrational gun phobia, and over time, the NRA became more and more aligned with the Alt-Right. Things came to a head in 2016. On the one side you had Clinton, professing her hatred of the 2nd Amendment, which was inviting the NRA to embrace an "anti Clinton."

The "anti Clinton" was Trump.

If the Left do not want to face the NRA every election, the Left should stop giving the NRA "ammo" (pun intended) that will be used to shoot the Left.

I guess there's something about a gun that transfers to its lovers, that makes them exaggerate. Clinton made no proposals to overturn the 2nd; just some sensible gun control proposals.

Fear of guns is perfectly rational. Such a killing machine should be restricted to the battlefield. I understand your approach; people disagree. But I can hope someday that the Right and the NRA will regret giving the Left ammo. It's only a matter of time, perhaps, before sense prevails on this issue.

Define sensible gun control.

Is California an example?

In order for my Mom to pass along some family heirlooms she'd need to get a FFL.

In order for me to buy a box of ammo I need to pay for an annual license then undergo a background check as if I were buying a complete firearm.

These are examples of non sensible controls.

To listen to the gun grabbers' schtick, California is the benchmark. So, I conclude the gun grabbers want to nullify the 2nd, without having to win enough support for a Constitutional Convention.

From my point of view, California is making great progress, and those procedures you have to observe seem fine and sensible to me. Everyone who wants a gun should be as thoroughly vetted as immigrants, perhaps. Mr. X must be licensed! Well and good. Inconvenience for gun buyers does not nullify the 2nd's requirement for a well-regulated militia, and I think "gun grabbing" in CA is limited to those who should not have guns. But, I'm a green liberal, ya know. Smile

But California IIRC has now gone further than the "sensible gun control" that Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed nationally.

As with most things rightist and alt-rightist, right-wing legal approaches to guns are more available in red states than in blue states.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#20
(04-11-2017, 05:08 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Now, if the Democrats want to achieve anything, they need to let go of all of these culture wars issues.

If you want Democrats to win in say , Oklahoma, concentrate on economics like Sanders did. He won Oklahoma, remember. If you want Red States to have Democratic wins, the party needs to defer to local wishes on crap like gun control and unite on economic issues. Here's the thing, Red states can be in the Democratic column is they discard the losing deuce of clubs [gun control] and keep the Ace of economic issues. I know this. A practical economic issue campaign will be the winning formula. I'd also include anything that reduces the costs of jail birds.  IOW, just buy off the gun folks with a common economic agenda and the Democrats will go far.
Just a nit. Sanders won in the Democratic primary, not in a full general election. He won among Democratic voters and among independents (assuming it was an open primary). One would assume that the Christian Right, the conventional conservatives (the John Kasich crowd), and the Trump fans voted in the GOP primary. It is hard to know how well Sanders would have done in the general election against Donald Trump; I'm assuming that he would not get the Christian Right or the Kasich Republicans but he might have peeled off some Trump support and he would have gotten all of the Democrats and progressives.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump, Bannon and the Coming Crisis TeacherinExile 234 63,214 08-21-2017, 03:42 PM
Last Post: Kinser79
  Steve Bannon is obsessed with The Fourth Turning Dan '82 17 5,452 02-06-2017, 02:27 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)