Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What the next First Turning won't be like
#61
I look at the Capitol putsch, and I recognize how different the perceptions are in America. There really are people who  believe that President Trump was cheated out of not only a victory -- but also a landslide victory. Having driven through rural northwest Ohio,  where seemingly everyone had a Trump yard sign and banner, on the way to Dayton I can imagine that people who live in rural northwestern Ohio could believe that Trump would win a monumental landslide, perhaps a 48- or 49-state landslide in which the Democrats win the District of Columbia and.. what -- Maryland? Hawaii and Vermont? -- while Trump wins everything else because nobody else is so obviously the Best Thing to Ever Happen to American politics. After all that went on on January 6, Trump could still say that he had won in a landslide but that people like his supporters had been cheated. After all, they hardly knew anyone who would vote against their idol.

Counties through which I traveled included

Defiance 67.3 - 30.9
Paulding  74.7 - 23.3
Van Wert  77.7- 20.3
Allen 68.8 - 29.4
Mercer 81.8 - 16.9
Auglaize 80.5 - 18.8

Allen County includes the small, but economically-troubled city Lima, which used to be a prosperous hub of manufacturing.

...It is easy to develop a personality cult in a community that dreads the Sodom and Gomorrah that is Toledo, Dayton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago, or Detroit. People secure about being white, most likely born-again Christian, and not having had a mind polluted by crazy ideas at the "People's Democratic Republic of Columbus"... maybe their kids spent a semester there before flunking out and decided that it was more promising to be a barber, garage mechanic, or nurse's aide than be infected with 'that PC stuff' and end up with a huge amount of college debt. Trump appeals to such people.    

I suggested that it resembled the Bolshevik coup in 1917 in Russia, and someone suggested that the Beer Hall Putsch of 1922  better fit the takeover of the Capitol.  

About four years I saw an SNL sketch about a part of America in which Donald Trump was irrelevant. Brooklyn, in a hermetic bubble, where nobody knows anyone who voted for Trump, where educational levels are high, in which many people read the website of the Huffington Post for news and analysis, and where houses go for over a million dollars each. But people there could know well that with a few oases of urban civility (Boston, Philadelphia, and some West Coast Cities... maybe Chicago and Denver... the rest of America was where the buffalo roam, the deer and the antelope play. That is where the Gulags are for people who deal or use drugs. People in Brooklyn would likely feel more at home in Berlin or Barcelona than in Buffalo or Binghamton. But that was satire, and the SNL viewers (who despise Trump, as a demographic) know this. Figure that if you can afford to live in Brooklyn you were either born there or you are highly-educated. You could not otherwise live there. You

OK, OK, OK. Trump flooded rural America with farm subsidies as compensation for the effects of his trade war Know well: many of the people who do the actual farm work as employees are non-citizens who toil in factory-like conditions and form an honest-to-Marxist-dogma proletariat. Non-citizens almost exclusively, they do not vote. People such as schoolteachers and medical personnel who might find Trump offensive know enough to zip their lips on politics. Rational discussion of politics is tricky in rural areas. It is far easier to get right-wing political results in places in which those who do the real work do not vote.  

Will support of Donald Trump or of anyone who adopts his style become discreditable? We shall soon see. Things go fast toward the end  of a Crisis Era
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
#62
Hi Eric.  I appreciate your response, but I'm not going to respond point by point as I think it would take me down a rabbit hole I'm trying to avoid.  I would like to point out, though, that a large majority of it is exactly why I am worried about how the rest of this 4T will play out and what makes me think the high is going to look different from the most recent one in our national memory.

I take the evolutionary biology approach to human nature and believe 'tribalism' is embedded our nature.  Over history, the internalization of who is considered 'our tribe' (or our in-group) has changed multiple times.  Over the cycles, what changes is how strongly we identify with our tribe (in-group preference) and the bounds where we draw who is in and out of our tribe (social cohesion).  In all eras, different small 'tribes' form shifting coalitions with others to create a more global 'tribe' that represents a 'side' in a culture war. You are part of a tribe as well (as am I), if you weren't you would be either a psychopath or inhuman.

During a 4T in-group preference is at it's height and the bounds of who is in that in-group is at it's narrowest.  This is why 4Ts have the potential for some of the worst atrocities and injustices.  If we think of a human's ability to empathize as a mostly finite resource, strong in-group preference means they will only empathize with the members of their tribe.  Any group outside of their tribe is subject to marginalization (at best), discrimination, demonization, scapegoating, and destruction (at worst).   You illustrate this mindset with this quote:


Quote:The tribal Republicans are nothing that anyone should appease or include. They just need to go away, period.

I agree with your points about how the Right demonizes and scapegoats it's out-group (although you missed big tech, academia, and the media).  I pulled out the quote above because it illustrates the demonizing and scapegoating that is happening on the Left.  I ask you to consider how the in-group preference dynamic might work if the other side doesn't just simply slink away and what logical events might play out depending on who is acting as this turnings visionary leader.

In a 'best case' 4T (for the nation, not for a given out-group), one of the global in-groups grows large enough to encompass a super-majority of the population (at least 75+ percent I would say).  Those on the outer bounds of the global group may not feel 100% comfortable, but they are not subject to potential persecution.  In our last cycle, this is what occurred.  The out-group consisted of communists, fascists, and non-white Americans but generally included everybody else and explains why it wasn't marked by as much internecine struggle as the previous two turnings.  Conversely, this was also the model for Nazi Germany so the model doesn't say much about how the out-groups get treated or the morality of the ideology that wins.  

In a 'worst case' 4T, two roughly equal in-groups grow and both sides demonize and scapegoat the other.  They could resolve it through a contentious divorce (American Revolution where Canada became the alternative for those who wanted to remain part of Britain) or by attempting to thoroughly annihilate the losing out-group (Russian and French Revolutions).  That, sadly, has the strongest possibility to be happening here and the more intense it gets, the less I see a good outcome due to the factors I mentioned before about lack of an exit for those on the losing side. 

What makes the 4T particularly scary is the tendency to excuse moral violations (up to and including genocide) done by 'my tribe' against those in the out-group.  It was why it was deemed 'okay' for Sherman to raze Atlanta, for FDR to imprison American Citizens, for Truman to drop the bomb, for the guillotine, the gulags, the reeducation camps, and so on.  I just hope we stop at a place that future generations will still excoriate us for but falls far short of mass graves).

In the coming 1T, the bounds of the now victorious in-group will still be tightly drawn, but in-group preference will wane.  This allows the Artist generations to start reaching out to remaining members of the despised out-groups and begin broadening the in-group's bounds to gradually include them.  So, good news for cis-white-working-class men, I guess, in about 20 years people will start caring about you again.  

Honestly, at this point, it is entirely with the Left's control just how bad the 4T gets (in terms of, you know, outright killing or gulag-style imprisonment of American citizens).  From my perspective, the key is to stop demonizing and scapegoating every Republican, conservative, and/or person who voted for Trump.  They need to push the bounds of who is in the in-group out far enough to allow people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians and Jews, and civil libertarians back in (preferably without a struggle session).  Unfortunately, I really don't see that happening.  Instead, I see the farthest Left wing of the Democratic party tightening the 'in-group' even further which will open the door for increasing violence on both sides.
Reply
#63
(01-09-2021, 05:25 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Mamabug, I doubt that the next 1T will be a High like last time around.  This 4T is a Fracturing crisis rather than a Unifying crisis.  As I have indicated, I think that decentralization is the best case scenario for the USA, which....leads to a weak 1T, rather than a triumphant High.

As a libertarian, decentralization is always something I support.  However, I think that option is completely off the table and not desired by any of those at the center of the fight.
Reply
#64
(01-10-2021, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Will support of Donald Trump or of anyone who adopts his style become discreditable? We shall soon see. Things go fast toward the end  of a Crisis Era

FWIW, there are still four houses in my neighborhood displaying Trump flags even now.  In my immediate area, Trump signs and flags are still everywhere.  Don't assume the fever has passed, because it hasn't.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#65
(01-10-2021, 12:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Honestly, at this point, it is entirely with the Left's control just how bad the 4T gets (in terms of, you know, outright killing or gulag-style imprisonment of American citizens).  From my perspective, the key is to stop demonizing and scapegoating every Republican, conservative, and/or person who voted for Trump.  They need to push the bounds of who is in the in-group out far enough to allow people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians and Jews, and civil libertarians back in (preferably without a struggle session).  Unfortunately, I really don't see that happening.  Instead, I see the farthest Left wing of the Democratic party tightening the 'in-group' even further which will open the door for increasing violence on both sides.

I think you live in a dream world.  These folks are where they are because they've been living in the environment you suggest for decades -- centuries, for some.  If everything you "know" is factually wrong, does that make it less potent?  Of course not; in fact, quite the opposite.  I won't claim to have the magic potion that get's us where we need to be, but lowering inequality is a mandatory minimum, and within the scope of government. Start there.  This is the work of decades, and none of us is young enough to see the end ... with the possible exception of Camz.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#66
(01-11-2021, 11:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-10-2021, 12:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Honestly, at this point, it is entirely with the Left's control just how bad the 4T gets (in terms of, you know, outright killing or gulag-style imprisonment of American citizens).  From my perspective, the key is to stop demonizing and scapegoating every Republican, conservative, and/or person who voted for Trump.  They need to push the bounds of who is in the in-group out far enough to allow people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians and Jews, and civil libertarians back in (preferably without a struggle session).  Unfortunately, I really don't see that happening.  Instead, I see the farthest Left wing of the Democratic party tightening the 'in-group' even further which will open the door for increasing violence on both sides.

I think you live in a dream world.  These folks are where they are because they've been living in the environment you suggest for decades -- centuries, for some.  If everything you "know" is factually wrong, does that make it less potent?  Of course not; in fact, quite the opposite.  I won't claim to have the magic potion that get's us where we need to be, but lowering inequality is a mandatory minimum, and within the scope of government. Start there.  This is the work of decades, and none of us is young enough to see the end ... with the possible exception of Camz.
 Addressing economic inequality needs to be done first. All other forms of inequality rest on material conditions. 

It's pretty simple.
Reply
#67
(01-10-2021, 12:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Hi Eric.  I appreciate your response, but I'm not going to respond point by point as I think it would take me down a rabbit hole I'm trying to avoid.
Well, you just never know what might be lurking down in those holes Smile

Quote:  I would like to point out, though, that a large majority of it is exactly why I am worried about how the rest of this 4T will play out and what makes me think the high is going to look different from the most recent one in our national memory.

I take the evolutionary biology approach to human nature and believe 'tribalism' is embedded our nature.  Over history, the internalization of who is considered 'our tribe' (or our in-group) has changed multiple times.  Over the cycles, what changes is how strongly we identify with our tribe (in-group preference) and the bounds where we draw who is in and out of our tribe (social cohesion).  In all eras, different small 'tribes' form shifting coalitions with others to create a more global 'tribe' that represents a 'side' in a culture war. You are part of a tribe as well (as am I), if you weren't you would be either a psychopath or inhuman.

During a 4T in-group preference is at it's height and the bounds of who is in that in-group is at it's narrowest.  This is why 4Ts have the potential for some of the worst atrocities and injustices.  If we think of a human's ability to empathize as a mostly finite resource, strong in-group preference means they will only empathize with the members of their tribe.  Any group outside of their tribe is subject to marginalization (at best), discrimination, demonization, scapegoating, and destruction (at worst).   You illustrate this mindset with this quote:

The tribal Republicans are nothing that anyone should appease or include. They just need to go away, period.



Quote:I agree with your points about how the Right demonizes and scapegoats it's out-group (although you missed big tech, academia, and the media).  I pulled out the quote above because it illustrates the demonizing and scapegoating that is happening on the Left.  I ask you to consider how the in-group preference dynamic might work if the other side doesn't just simply slink away and what logical events might play out depending on who is acting as this turnings visionary leader.

In a 'best case' 4T (for the nation, not for a given out-group), one of the global in-groups grows large enough to encompass a super-majority of the population (at least 75+ percent I would say).  Those on the outer bounds of the global group may not feel 100% comfortable, but they are not subject to potential persecution.  In our last cycle, this is what occurred.  The out-group consisted of communists, fascists, and non-white Americans but generally included everybody else and explains why it wasn't marked by as much internecine struggle as the previous two turnings.  Conversely, this was also the model for Nazi Germany so the model doesn't say much about how the out-groups get treated or the morality of the ideology that wins.  

In a 'worst case' 4T, two roughly equal in-groups grow and both sides demonize and scapegoat the other.  They could resolve it through a contentious divorce (American Revolution where Canada became the alternative for those who wanted to remain part of Britain) or by attempting to thoroughly annihilate the losing out-group (Russian and French Revolutions).  That, sadly, has the strongest possibility to be happening here and the more intense it gets, the less I see a good outcome due to the factors I mentioned before about lack of an exit for those on the losing side. 

What makes the 4T particularly scary is the tendency to excuse moral violations (up to and including genocide) done by 'my tribe' against those in the out-group.  It was why it was deemed 'okay' for Sherman to raze Atlanta, for FDR to imprison American Citizens, for Truman to drop the bomb, for the guillotine, the gulags, the reeducation camps, and so on.  I just hope we stop at a place that future generations will still excoriate us for but falls far short of mass graves).

In the coming 1T, the bounds of the now victorious in-group will still be tightly drawn, but in-group preference will wane.  This allows the Artist generations to start reaching out to remaining members of the despised out-groups and begin broadening the in-group's bounds to gradually include them.  So, good news for cis-white-working-class men, I guess, in about 20 years people will start caring about you again.  

Honestly, at this point, it is entirely with the Left's control just how bad the 4T gets (in terms of, you know, outright killing or gulag-style imprisonment of American citizens).  From my perspective, the key is to stop demonizing and scapegoating every Republican, conservative, and/or person who voted for Trump.  They need to push the bounds of who is in the in-group out far enough to allow people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians and Jews, and civil libertarians back in (preferably without a struggle session).  Unfortunately, I really don't see that happening.  Instead, I see the farthest Left wing of the Democratic party tightening the 'in-group' even further which will open the door for increasing violence on both sides.

I agree that this best case scenario you mention could happen. My concern is that, if the double rhythm has any bearing on what happens, that this 4T may be more like the civil war 4T. The domestic emphasis and the greater division of the country in this 4T suggests it might not be easy for the country to come together. What I see though (and I also use planetary cycles as clue to what has and might happen, and I also agree with some of Bob Butler's analysis) is that an all-out total war like 1861-65 is less likely to happen today. I don't think you have to envision that the blue side would attempt all-out annihilation. That is not the nature of the Left today, and I don't know why you assume that it is. The Right wing, on the other hand, has a large group within it that, as we saw on Jan.6, would like nothing more than to assault and kill members of the other side. But the bright side of that is that there aren't enough numbers of them to actually win a fight, if the blue side controls enough of the levers of state power.

How the right-wing is thinking these days makes a difference. Right now they are moved by conspiracy theories and other exaggerated notions that could just melt away over time. Fantasies are more like bubbles that burst than bullets that get fired. Truth has a way of sinking in. QAnon is just the most ridiculous of these, but the Trump side really believe it won the election, and they really believe that the Left is a bunch of communists seeking to set up a new world order. Many also think that the black lives matter protests and antifa are violent, when this Summer the spontaneous violent outbursts only lasted a day or two after unjust police killings and maimings, and also included provocateurs of various sorts.

The most likely scenario I have already long predicted is what we have already seen now. The right-wing, out of power, seeks to take over the country violently, but they don't have nearly enough numbers to succeed. What needs to happen is certainly that the neo-liberal, libertarian-economics, pro-gun, anti-abortion, social-conservative, anti-immigrant, racist faction is defeated, but by triumph at the polls, as we saw in Georgia. That does not mean that "people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians" at al are no longer allowed to exist or be Americans, but just that they are no longer allowed to set policy in the USA in their dogmatic and obstructionist way, and certainly are not allowed to take over in a violent coup. The Left in the USA is naturally moderate and can work out workable and reasonable compromises. So, no, it is not up to the Left how the 4T goes. That ball is entirely in the Right-wing's Court. They are unwilling to compromise now, and their goal is to block all progress, which is what they have done for 40 years. It is time now for progress to return, or our nation and civilization in the world will be destroyed, not by some actions of the Left, but simply by allowing current powers and conditions to continue doing what they are now doing.

Depending on what happens, this might mean that the Left has to take some actions that might seem radical, such as putting more liberals on the supreme court, or making DC and PR states, and/or reducing or removing the filibuster. But that is a far cry from what you suggest the Left might do. Nevertheless, such actions might arouse the Right-wing to violently oppose them, and so might more gun control, higher taxes, health care for all, a green new deal, a more-lenient immigration policy, minimum wages and social safety nets, and so on. But these things may well be needed, and if the Right-wing can't accept them if they are duly and legally instituted, then that is on them, and if they act violently, they will be dealt with as needed.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#68
(01-11-2021, 11:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-10-2021, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Will support of Donald Trump or of anyone who adopts his style become discreditable? We shall soon see. Things go fast toward the end  of a Crisis Era

FWIW, there are still four houses in my neighborhood displaying Trump flags even now.  In my immediate area, Trump signs and flags are still everywhere.  Don't assume the fever has passed, because it hasn't.

We're now in the second half of the Crisis, and well, you know, Katy bar the door! But we are nowhere near the end. What Howe and I have suggested is most likely: the 4T ends in 2028-29.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#69
(01-11-2021, 01:37 PM)User3451 Wrote:
(01-11-2021, 11:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-10-2021, 12:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Honestly, at this point, it is entirely with the Left's control just how bad the 4T gets (in terms of, you know, outright killing or gulag-style imprisonment of American citizens).  From my perspective, the key is to stop demonizing and scapegoating every Republican, conservative, and/or person who voted for Trump.  They need to push the bounds of who is in the in-group out far enough to allow people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians and Jews, and civil libertarians back in (preferably without a struggle session).  Unfortunately, I really don't see that happening.  Instead, I see the farthest Left wing of the Democratic party tightening the 'in-group' even further which will open the door for increasing violence on both sides.

I think you live in a dream world.  These folks are where they are because they've been living in the environment you suggest for decades -- centuries, for some.  If everything you "know" is factually wrong, does that make it less potent?  Of course not; in fact, quite the opposite.  I won't claim to have the magic potion that get's us where we need to be, but lowering inequality is a mandatory minimum, and within the scope of government. Start there.  This is the work of decades, and none of us is young enough to see the end ... with the possible exception of Camz.
 Addressing economic inequality needs to be done first. All other forms of inequality rest on material conditions. 

It's pretty simple.
 
I would like to say that the lack of out-group empathy I am seeing on a board dedicated to analyzing a theory of history (which should be semi-objective at least) is just one more reason for my alarmism.

Every single one of the groups I've mentioned has valid concerns that are no less important or more despicable than those of urban blacks, the trans community, and environmental activists.  That each side is willing to dismiss those concerns out of hand as being 'wrong' because they come from the other side is definitely the Crisis Mindset at work.

I'm just going to sit back and wait for the Artists to come along and tell us how wrong we were for treating each other that way.
Reply
#70
Quote:Eric the Green
(01-10-2021, 12:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Hi Eric.  I appreciate your response, but I'm not going to respond point by point as I think it would take me down a rabbit hole I'm trying to avoid.
Well, you just never know what might be lurking down in those holes Smile

I've been trying to stay deliberately apolitical and stick to analyzing things from a more sociological perspective.  When the world is turning into Animal Farm, sometimes the best thing to be is the donkey - a natural Nomad if ever there was one. Big Grin 

Quote:I agree that this best case scenario you mention could happen. My concern is that, if the double rhythm has any bearing on what happens, that this 4T may be more like the civil war 4T. The domestic emphasis and the greater division of the country in this 4T suggests it might not be easy for the country to come together. What I see though (and I also use planetary cycles as clue to what has and might happen, and I also agree with some of Bob Butler's analysis) is that an all-out total war like 1861-65 is less likely to happen today. I don't think you have to envision that the blue side would attempt all-out annihilation. That is not the nature of the Left today, and I don't know why you assume that it is. The Right wing, on the other hand, has a large group within it that, as we saw on Jan.6, would like nothing more than to assault and kill members of the other side. But the bright side of that is that there aren't enough numbers of them to actually win a fight, if the blue side controls enough of the levers of state power.

I accept that all out annihilation is the absolute worst case and it isn't the nature of the Left I grew up with and that is represented by those in the older generations.  I don't see it happening unless it turns from a Civil War scenario to a Revolutionary one.  There are definitely elements within the Left that want a real revolution and they have been gaining power within the political establishment.  4Ts are genie's in a bottle and I could easily war game out a scenario where, after the 2022 election, they somehow manage to gain power.  Biden's election did nothing to affect the unrest in Portland, and trust me, you need to be seriously committed to your cause to protest during a Pac NW winter.  I don't even like walking my dog in it.

Quote:but the Trump side really believe it won the election, and they really believe that the Left is a bunch of communists seeking to set up a new world order. 

Yes there is a lot of out-grouping going on in both directions.  Many on the Left are convinced everyone on the right is a racist, homophobic, reactionary who wants to instill a fascist regime.  

Quote:Many also think that the black lives matter protests and antifa are violent, when this Summer the spontaneous violent outbursts only lasted a day or two after unjust police killings and maimings, and also included provocateurs of various sorts.

Umm... Portland has been protesting (often violently) for so long I lost count of the days and the Chaz lasted three weeks (so more than a day or two) and resulted in 4 deaths.  I agree there were a lot of provocateurs, most of which had to do with the 'hands off' approach of local government.  If you tell people there won't be consequences for looting and burning things down, don't be surprised if a bunch of sociopaths show up to take advantage of the situation.

Neither side has a monopoly on violent elements or people who just want to watch the world burn.  That people in both camps are loosing their perspective on that and turning shades of gray into black and white is what makes this a 4T. 

Quote:So, no, it is not up to the Left how the 4T goes. That ball is entirely in the Right-wing's Court.

Nope, the left is controlling the levers of power so it is up to them.  They can act proportionately and punish only those who commit acts of violence or they can continuously contract the definition of what is allowable to the point where they can justify assaulting, imprisoning, and impoverishing anyone who is perceived to be against their totally reasonable and unobjectionable agenda.  (cf. non-active British loyalists during the Revolution).  100 years from now their descendants may look back and talk about how horribly they acted, but it won't save your next door neighbor Gustav from being tarred and feathered while his property is looted and burned because he thinks the British Crown is a heck of a lot better than living back in Germany so why is this 'revolution' even needed?


Quote:Depending on what happens, this might mean that the Left has to take some actions that might seem radical, such as putting more liberals on the supreme court, or making DC and PR states, and/or reducing or removing the filibuster. But that is a far cry from what you suggest the Left might do. Nevertheless, such actions might arouse the Right-wing to violently oppose them, and so might more gun control, higher taxes, health care for all, a green new deal, a more-lenient immigration policy, minimum wages and social safety nets, and so on. But these things may well be needed, and if the Right-wing can't accept them if they are duly and legally instituted, then that is on them, and if they act violently, they will be dealt with as needed.

Mutters to self 'Be the donkey, mamabug, be the donkey.'
Reply
#71
Video 
(01-11-2021, 11:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-10-2021, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Will support of Donald Trump or of anyone who adopts his style become discreditable? We shall soon see. Things go fast toward the end  of a Crisis Era

FWIW, there are still four houses in my neighborhood displaying Trump flags even now.  In my immediate area, Trump signs and flags are still everywhere.  Don't assume the fever has passed, because it hasn't.


I can easily imagine that President Trump will make sure that he is no longer here to be kicked around (whether he goes into exile or seclusion will not matter) once he is the ex-President that he thought that he would not be. 

The core support of people who need someone like him to fully excite them will still be there. There could easily be another demagogue like Trump to excite the same people -- enough to get the GOP nomination. I too see occasional banners, but I see fewer.
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
#72
(01-11-2021, 08:51 PM)mamabug Wrote: I accept that all out annihilation is the absolute worst case and it isn't the nature of the Left I grew up with and that is represented by those in the older generations.  I don't see it happening unless it turns from a Civil War scenario to a Revolutionary one.  There are definitely elements within the Left that want a real revolution and they have been gaining power within the political establishment.  4Ts are genie's in a bottle and I could easily war game out a scenario where, after the 2022 election, they somehow manage to gain power.  Biden's election did nothing to affect the unrest in Portland, and trust me, you need to be seriously committed to your cause to protest during a Pac NW winter.  I don't even like walking my dog in it.

The protests in Portland made a good foil for Trump to exaggerate out of all proportion, and the slogan "defund the police" was easy to use too. But none of that means that protesters can carry out a revolution. I don't see millennials as passionate or radical enough to make the Left revolutionary. I think you are right that increasing numbers on the left want a real "revolution," but people like AOC and the Squad are not organizing battalions like the Right-wing is. Someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren just put out good common sense solutions which appeal to many people who think they can be enacted through winning elections.

Quote:
Quote:but the Trump side really believe it won the election, and they really believe that the Left is a bunch of communists seeking to set up a new world order. 

Yes there is a lot of out-grouping going on in both directions.  Many on the Left are convinced everyone on the right is a racist, homophobic, reactionary who wants to instill a fascist regime.  

Our description of the right-wing is much more accurate. After all, 90-95% of Republicans support Donald Trump, who IS a racist reactionary who wants to set up a fascist regime. I don't see them clamoring for his impeachment now either.
Quote:
Quote:Many also think that the black lives matter protests and antifa are violent, when this Summer the spontaneous violent outbursts only lasted a day or two after unjust police killings and maimings, and also included provocateurs of various sorts.

Umm... Portland has been protesting (often violently) for so long I lost count of the days and the Chaz lasted three weeks (so more than a day or two) and resulted in 4 deaths.  I agree there were a lot of provocateurs, most of which had to do with the 'hands off' approach of local government.  If you tell people there won't be consequences for looting and burning things down, don't be surprised if a bunch of sociopaths show up to take advantage of the situation.

Neither side has a monopoly on violent elements or people who just want to watch the world burn.  That people in both camps are loosing their perspective on that and turning shades of gray into black and white is what makes this a 4T. 
The stat is 90% of domestic terrorism in the USA comes from the right-wing. If neither side has a monopoly on violence, we can certainly say it has an oligarchy. And that's whom it supports, too. I don't know who told people "there won't be consequences for looting and burning things down," and very little has been burned down. But if police, with impunity, continue with this extremist violence of killing unarmed, innocent black men, such men and their supporters will continue to get mad and out of frustration burn down a building or two. Why not support police reform and decry this police violence? Why continue this systemic racism or make excuses for it?

Quote:
Quote:So, no, it is not up to the Left how the 4T goes. That ball is entirely in the Right-wing's Court.

Nope, the left is controlling the levers of power so it is up to them. 

The point is, the right-wing still has far too much power. They own the supreme court and have the filibuster, and the majority of states legislatures. Congress has been gerrymandered since 2010 in their favor. The only issue is whether they can keep their 40-year wall against all progress up another 10 or 20 years. They can only carry this stagnation on for so long before the nation collapses.

Quote:They can act proportionately and punish only those who commit acts of violence or they can continuously contract the definition of what is allowable to the point where they can justify assaulting, imprisoning, and impoverishing anyone who is perceived to be against their totally reasonable and unobjectionable agenda.

The Republican agenda is horrific and destructive. But prison will be reserved, as I said, for those who oppose the constructive agenda violently.

I don't know what groups or ideas you consider "totally reasonable and unobjectionable". You admit to being a "libertarian." I appreciate other views on a discussion board besides my own. Your posts are civil and idea-centered, and that's good IMO. But I admit that I don't consider libertarians to be very constructive these days. The word neo-liberal applies today to those who buy into Reaganomics. That means letting business do whatever it wants and lowering their taxes and cutting government programs, because "government is the problem." This approach has been in power for 40 years now, and it has failed. It is time for progress to resume after this 40-year regression back to the 18th century. Really, this is what today's political divide and all the noise amounts to. The issue you brought up about transgender people seems a distraction from facing it; a diversionary tactic at best.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#73
(01-11-2021, 10:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can easily imagine that President Trump will make sure that he is no longer here to be kicked around (whether he goes into exile or seclusion will not matter) once he is the ex-President that he thought that he would not be. 

The core support of people who need someone like him to fully excite them will still be there. There could easily be another demagogue like Trump to excite the same people -- enough to get the GOP nomination. I too see occasional banners, but I see fewer.

American's don't like losers. They particularly despise whiny losers.  For many Republicans, Trump was over the minute he lost the court cases, even for those who believe there was a lot of hinky stuff around how the election was run.  The number of people who even showed up in Washington D.C. for a legal, peaceful protest was something like 10,000 which is pretty tepid.  The March for Life gets at least 3 or 4 times that, even in a blizzard.

What I think many on the left fail to see is that a large percentage of Trump's support was less his rabid followers (although I know there are many of them) but more people who felt his policies/presidency would be less detrimental to them than the alternative.  The dems are 100% capable of pulling that group over to them.  They just have to give the impression that things are getting back to normal again, avoid passing any large-scale controversial legislation (i.e. make smaller changes or steal some of your opponents ideas and start touting them as your own a la Clinton.  You can save the GND for 2022 if the country decides to back you), stay the hell away from touching SCOTUS and increasing the number of states (you can nuke the filibuster if you want, nobody really knows what it is anymore, but it will come back to bite you someday), and (most importantly) try to find a way to draw a line between those who can be welcomed with open arms and those who are to be shunned that doesn't involve performative acts of repentance.  The last one is the hardest.
Reply
#74
(01-11-2021, 11:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know what groups or ideas you consider "totally reasonable and unobjectionable". You admit to being a "libertarian." I appreciate other views on a discussion board besides my own. Your posts are civil and idea-centered, and that's good IMO. But I admit that I don't consider libertarians to be very constructive these days. The word neo-liberal applies today to those who buy into Reaganomics. That means letting business do whatever it wants and lowering their taxes and cutting government programs, because "government is the problem." This approach has been in power for 40 years now, and it has failed. It is time for progress to resume after this 40-year regression back to the 18th century. Really, this is what today's political divide and all the noise amounts to. The issue you brought up about transgender people seems a distraction from facing it; a diversionary tactic at best.

I'm just going to respond to this point, not that your others aren't interesting I just feel that any discussion of them eventually boils down into the 'one screen, two movies' phenomena Scott Adams articulated.  Normally I'd say 'let's agree to disagree' but I'm pretty sure that option went away for all of us at the end of the 3T.   Wink  

Anyway, my 'totally reasonable and unobjectionable' comment was my snark coming out.  In a moral battle, everyone thinks their agenda is totally reasonable and unobjectionable, therefore anyone who opposes it must be evil and obstructionist.  From a somewhat objective standpoint, it is both funny and scary just how much the rhetoric and attitudes mirror each other.

On a side note - I recently googled the birth years of the people in the public arena I still listen to, all of whom tend to be thinkers that try to stay away from attributing moral failure to people as opposed to picking apart ideas for their good points and potential pit falls, and discovered that every last one of them was a Gen X'er.  Maybe that's why, when Nomads finally get dragged into the war, we end it so quickly.  We're the generation willing to compromise with the other side in order to achieve our prime objective at this point in our lifecycle - peace and stability for our Artist children.

Nobody thinks libertarians are constructive in a 4T. That's because, in the middle of the Holy War, we are the atheists.  Libertarianism asserts principles, a framework of ethics, and a model of how people, societies, and economies *actually* function that is wholly incompatible with a zero-sum, good vs. evil, utopia-is-nigh mindset.  It claims government is a necessary evil that, no matter the form, is structurally setup to incentivize corruption and rent-seeking and to perform every task it undertakes in the least efficient and equitable way possible.  In a 4T, the social desire is to use government to enforce conformity with the power of a gun in order to accomplish social change that could never occur as quickly if people actually had to sit down, talk to each other, and compromise.  Libertarians are the ultimate out-group and, thus, will eventually be up against the wall if an actual revolution comes.
Reply
#75
(01-12-2021, 12:43 PM)mamabug Wrote:
(01-11-2021, 11:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know what groups or ideas you consider "totally reasonable and unobjectionable". You admit to being a "libertarian." I appreciate other views on a discussion board besides my own. Your posts are civil and idea-centered, and that's good IMO. But I admit that I don't consider libertarians to be very constructive these days. The word neo-liberal applies today to those who buy into Reaganomics. That means letting business do whatever it wants and lowering their taxes and cutting government programs, because "government is the problem." This approach has been in power for 40 years now, and it has failed. It is time for progress to resume after this 40-year regression back to the 18th century. Really, this is what today's political divide and all the noise amounts to. The issue you brought up about transgender people seems a distraction from facing it; a diversionary tactic at best.

I'm just going to respond to this point, not that your others aren't interesting I just feel that any discussion of them eventually boils down into the 'one screen, two movies' phenomena Scott Adams articulated.  Normally I'd say 'let's agree to disagree' but I'm pretty sure that option went away for all of us at the end of the 3T.   Wink  

Anyway, my 'totally reasonable and unobjectionable' comment was my snark coming out.  In a moral battle, everyone thinks their agenda is totally reasonable and unobjectionable, therefore anyone who opposes it must be evil and obstructionist.  From a somewhat objective standpoint, it is both funny and scary just how much the rhetoric and attitudes mirror each other.

On a side note - I recently googled the birth years of the people in the public arena I still listen to, all of whom tend to be thinkers that try to stay away from attributing moral failure to people as opposed to picking apart ideas for their good points and potential pit falls, and discovered that every last one of them was a Gen X'er.  Maybe that's why, when Nomads finally get dragged into the war, we end it so quickly.  We're the generation willing to compromise with the other side in order to achieve our prime objective at this point in our lifecycle - peace and stability for our Artist children.

Nobody thinks libertarians are constructive in a 4T. That's because, in the middle of the Holy War, we are the atheists.  Libertarianism asserts principles, a framework of ethics, and a model of how people, societies, and economies *actually* function that is wholly incompatible with a zero-sum, good vs. evil, utopia-is-nigh mindset.  It claims government is a necessary evil that, no matter the form, is structurally setup to incentivize corruption and rent-seeking and to perform every task it undertakes in the least efficient and equitable way possible.  In a 4T, the social desire is to use government to enforce conformity with the power of a gun in order to accomplish social change that could never occur as quickly if people actually had to sit down, talk to each other, and compromise.  Libertarians are the ultimate out-group and, thus, will eventually be up against the wall if an actual revolution comes.

Maybe Generation X members in power will achieve the kinds of consensus and compromise you envision. Some nomads have filled that role in past first turnings. So far though, they are the most militant right-wingers and scarcely different from right-wing boomers in that regard. The late boomers through core Xers are the most conservative generation according to voting and poll stats I have seen, which does not appeal to me. Xers have been very critical of boomers in ways that seem unfair to me, a boomer. Of course, some of the most outspoken critics of boomers, are boomers.

Just my views: I don't see government as necessarily evil. It often can be, and often is, if it is run by corrupt tyrants. The aim as I see it is to have a government run of, by and for the people, not the powerful or the privileged. Therefore many civil, political and social freedoms are needed, and checks on corruption; and most of all a politically-informed and active citizenry. Government is needed to keep the greedy in bounds, while libertarians tend to think it is better to let them ply their evil trade, resulting in unfair poverty and harm to the people and their environment. It is also desirable to lead the nation toward what is in its interest, through investments in enterprises that require long-term support that capitalists alone will not provide. Most of our industries depend on such investment at least as much as they depend on entrepreneurs. Government can also do much to lift people out of poverty and disease, and create greater equality. Taxes on big money are necessary for this reason, and even more because excessive wealth means excessive power by the wealthy. Their sails need to be trimmed. And overall I prefer that government spending is not wasteful, and paid for, rather than borrowed forever. A mixed economy is best; some publically-owned, and probably most privately owned-- but kept smaller than is the case today.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#76
(01-11-2021, 07:37 PM)mamabug Wrote: I'm just going to sit back and wait for the Artists to come along and tell us how wrong we were for treating each other that way.

Eh. I don't see Artists having any respect for conservatives until they completely disown and despise Trump and re-invent themselves keeping the decent core values they had in the first place. That's inevitable, I think. At that point conservatives will become tolerable and even accepted by the public again, they might even be more popular with Artists than progressive liberals. That won't last tho. Only for one turning.

And no, evangelical cishet white men are not oppressed and will not be anytime soon :/
Reply
#77
(01-12-2021, 08:47 PM)Camz Wrote:
(01-11-2021, 07:37 PM)mamabug Wrote: I'm just going to sit back and wait for the Artists to come along and tell us how wrong we were for treating each other that way.

Eh. I don't see Artists having any respect for conservatives until they completely disown and despise Trump and re-invent themselves keeping the decent core values they had in the first place. That's inevitable, I think. At that point conservatives will become tolerable and even accepted by the public again, they might even be more popular with Artists than progressive liberals. That won't last tho. Only for one turning.

And no, evangelical cishet white men are not oppressed and will not be anytime soon :/

Getting the stench off the Republican Party is going to be a slow process. Doing so will require a nearly-complete turnover of Republican politicians and the development of a different agenda from what they now have. Artist generations do not become conservatives until they see their world under threat, typically when the excesses of an Awakening  Era arise. That won't be for perhaps twenty years.
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
#78
(01-12-2021, 08:47 PM)Camz Wrote: Eh. I don't see Artists having any respect for conservatives until they completely disown and despise Trump and re-invent themselves keeping the decent core values they had in the first place. That's inevitable, I think. At that point conservatives will become tolerable and even accepted by the public again, they might even be more popular with Artists than progressive liberals. That won't last tho. Only for one turning.

And no, evangelical cishet white men are not oppressed and will not be anytime soon :/

You're sort of assuming there is some universal accepted standard of what 'completely disown and despise etc...' even means.  What values, exactly, would conservatives have to hold or not hold for the vast institutional authorities on the left to no longer ostracize them yet still allow them to object to aspects of the Democratic platform?  If those values are the same as similar ones on the left, what level of disagreement over interpretation and prioritization is allowable?  Would every conservative in the country have to hold/not hold these values?  Just the politicians?  Just the majority?  What if groups who hold to one of the banned values has the audacity to vote for a Republican candidate because we live in a binary political landscape, does that now make every Republican evil again?  For whatever your own answers to these questions might be, would they be the same for all of your peers or might there be a significant enough minority that answers differently and will form the nucleus of the next counter culture?  Most importantly, how well would your generation's answers line up with our judgment happy Millennials?  FYI, if you really want to get some food for thought on how liberals and conservatives can have similar yet different core values, I suggest Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind

The 1T starts with a further codification of the social norms that come out of the previous 4T.  During that 4T, as I previously mentioned, the bounds around what ideological/racial/ethnic/gendered/etc. sub groups are or are not included within the dominant group that receives all the benefits of the new society shift and tighten, leaving many groups outside who are subject to scapegoating, marginalization, and discrimination to various extremes.   Examples from previous turnings (in the US and elsewhere) include communists, racial minorities, southerners, British loyalists, Catholics, monarchists, religious minorities, aristocrats, Orthodox Christians, and so on.  

During the 4T, the attitude you expressed prevails towards those not in the dominant tribe, which results in those groups being excluded from the public square and facing imprisonment, impoverishment, and/or death unless they repent of their sins and leave their group (if they can).  The assumption by the dominant tribe is that anyone who does not convert, is intrinsically evil and thus any punishment they face is just.

Artists, as they enter adulthood, look around them and see that the rights and benefits they are told are necessary to a good life, all of which are secured for the dominant tribe, are not available to other groups and that strikes them as unfair and unbefitting a just society.  Once you have won a war, it becomes easier to be merciful.  They will start with the people easiest to empathize with (closest in proximity to the dominant tribe) and gradually push the bounds outward until the Awakening hit where the Prophets reach out to everyone and try to pull them into a new configuration which will form the genesis of the next Crisis (and so on, and so on...).   

The act of seeing people were left out of the social compact and telling the Millenials that they should be let in is what I meant by 'artists telling us how wrong we were to treat each other that way.  Passions are running high and, right now, there is no way to know exactly which groups will be excluded and to what degree.  It is too chaotic to even try to predict what might happen.  The only thing I can guarantee is that, in about 15-20 years a new generation will arise who will start seeking social reconciliation for old enemies, justice for the groups the Millennials are oppressing, and fairness for those hurt by the new institutional norms.
Reply
#79
(01-11-2021, 01:37 PM)User3451 Wrote:
(01-11-2021, 11:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-10-2021, 12:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Honestly, at this point, it is entirely with the Left's control just how bad the 4T gets (in terms of, you know, outright killing or gulag-style imprisonment of American citizens).  From my perspective, the key is to stop demonizing and scapegoating every Republican, conservative, and/or person who voted for Trump.  They need to push the bounds of who is in the in-group out far enough to allow people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians and Jews, and civil libertarians back in (preferably without a struggle session).  Unfortunately, I really don't see that happening.  Instead, I see the farthest Left wing of the Democratic party tightening the 'in-group' even further which will open the door for increasing violence on both sides.

I think you live in a dream world.  These folks are where they are because they've been living in the environment you suggest for decades -- centuries, for some.  If everything you "know" is factually wrong, does that make it less potent?  Of course not; in fact, quite the opposite.  I won't claim to have the magic potion that get's us where we need to be, but lowering inequality is a mandatory minimum, and within the scope of government. Start there.  This is the work of decades, and none of us is young enough to see the end ... with the possible exception of Camz.

Addressing economic inequality needs to be done first. All other forms of inequality rest on material conditions. 

It's pretty simple.

In theory, that's true.  In reality, race and social status trumps inequality by a wide margin.  Of course, inequality is an amplifier, so lowering that factor makes the others less toxic -- less, but not zero. I lived through the '50s and '60s, and it was a wonderful time to be a kid -- at least a white kid.  It was the first attempt at resolving the race issue since Reconstruction marked the end of the 1T.  We should all hope it goes better this time.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#80
(01-11-2021, 02:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The most likely scenario I have already long predicted is what we have already seen now. The right-wing, out of power, seeks to take over the country violently, but they don't have nearly enough numbers to succeed. What needs to happen is certainly that the neo-liberal, libertarian-economics, pro-gun, anti-abortion, social-conservative, anti-immigrant, racist faction is defeated, but by triumph at the polls, as we saw in Georgia. That does not mean that "people like rural gun-owners, conservative Christians" at al are no longer allowed to exist or be Americans, but just that they are no longer allowed to set policy in the USA in their dogmatic and obstructionist way, and certainly are not allowed to take over in a violent coup. The Left in the USA is naturally moderate and can work out workable and reasonable compromises. So, no, it is not up to the Left how the 4T goes. That ball is entirely in the Right-wing's Court. They are unwilling to compromise now, and their goal is to block all progress, which is what they have done for 40 years. It is time now for progress to return, or our nation and civilization in the world will be destroyed, not by some actions of the Left, but simply by allowing current powers and conditions to continue doing what they are now doing.

Depending on what happens, this might mean that the Left has to take some actions that might seem radical, such as putting more liberals on the supreme court, or making DC and PR states, and/or reducing or removing the filibuster. But that is a far cry from what you suggest the Left might do. Nevertheless, such actions might arouse the Right-wing to violently oppose them, and so might more gun control, higher taxes, health care for all, a green new deal, a more-lenient immigration policy, minimum wages and social safety nets, and so on. But these things may well be needed, and if the Right-wing can't accept them if they are duly and legally instituted, then that is on them, and if they act violently, they will be dealt with as needed.

I think you have the essence down pretty well, with the obvious caveat that the reactionary right may resort to violence sooner than later.  They already assume that one is naked without a firearm, so all that's needed is a spark to ignite violence literally anywhere.  If that happens, the Right to Bear Arms will be challenged yet again in the Supreme Court, using the argument that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact--and argument that has prevailed in the past.  Will this radical court accept it?  If not, does the violence just continue to escalate?  Packing the court may be necessary but impossible.  So where does that lead?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  First Turning "purge" Teejay 67 14,751 01-17-2021, 08:42 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  The Civil War 4th turning Eric the Green 3 1,178 11-04-2020, 04:51 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  I'm a sceptic that the 4th Turning started in 2008 Isoko 295 28,433 10-29-2020, 05:09 PM
Last Post: ragnarkar
  In What Turning do Neighborhood Communities come back? AspieMillennial 7 1,442 05-05-2020, 10:15 PM
Last Post: beechnut79
  War & Military Turning & Generational Issues JDG 66 4 3,014 03-03-2020, 03:30 PM
Last Post: Warren Dew
  Why does the Fourth Turning seem to take Forever? AspieMillennial 22 3,234 01-19-2020, 03:30 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Does the UK disprove the Fourth Turning? AspieMillennial 14 2,286 01-02-2020, 12:14 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  What will happen when this turning ends? AspieMillennial 25 3,290 12-30-2019, 02:24 PM
Last Post: David Horn
  Turning-dependent jokes Hintergrund 15 3,189 11-08-2019, 07:52 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  First Turning "purge" Teejay 49 14,599 11-14-2018, 09:51 PM
Last Post: Marypoza

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)