Things Trump Is Doing Right

[Eric the Green]

(05-11-2017, 07:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 03:21 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 06:35 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 03:57 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-08-2017, 06:47 AM)Odin Wrote: The Non-Aggression Principle can simply be dismissed as naive nonsense, it's basically throwing up ones hands and going "why can't we all be nice to each other and sing kumbaya and everyone will be happy???", it's the domestic equivalent of naive pacifists carrying cute signs like "what if they ordered a war and nobody came?".

The non-aggression principle does allow for self-defense since it is the initiation of force that is disallowed.  As usual you have failed to do even the most basic research.

Once again you missed the point since you think I was only talking about self-defense, I wasn't. There are a lot of situations where the initiation of force is necessary to stop a greater evil. Then again, IIRC you are one of those deranged Isolationists who think the US should have stayed out of WW2 and that Pearl Harbor was all FDR's fault, so I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Considering the consequences of the embargo on Japan it is clear that Pearl Harbor was FDR's fault.  I learned about all of this in a class on World War II history in the eighties and The Rising Sun by John Toland touched on the subject.  His later book Infamy is devoted to just that subject.

I would have preferred that the US would have stayed out of the First World War which would most likely led to a more equitable peace and probably avoided World War II which was in many ways a continuation of World War I.  It is worth noting that without US entry into that war both sides would have had to sue for peace and neither could have impose anything like the terms of the Treaty of Versailles since they were simply running out of men to throw into the trenches.  It is also very likely that the German High Command would not felt compelled to send Lenin back to Russia and there might never have been a Soviet Union.

You might actually want to spend some time with actual history rather than the comic book version we all get from the public schools.

If Japan didn't want to be embargoed maybe it shouldn't have been engaging in an imperialistic war of conquest in China. So no, it is 100% not FDR's fault.

It's always fun to speculate about what might have been. We can't know for sure, by any means. I think Germany was on the way to winning World War I without US involvement. They had already defeated Russia, and had turned their might against France, hoping to wrap things up. They had broken through the trenches and the stalemate. Would it have been better if Germany had won? The German empire was retrograde in many ways, and it might have gotten even more oppressive. On the other hand, socialism was getting stronger then, and it might have taken over. And this would have been good, since German socialism was democratic; not the Leninist type that was strong over in Russia. If Germany somehow got more liberal, and reformed their junker-based empire, maybe WWII would have been avoided.

The problem was that this outdated, warlike eastern aristocracy was well-entrenched. If the German Empire had been allowed to triumph, it's possible that WWII might have happened anyway, not because of revenge and resentment over the German loss, but because of what happened with Hitler in the late 30s; allowing them to win might have whetted their appetite for more conquests. There is some value in a balance of power, in case the powers get greedy.

Now the USA has its own entrenched aristocracy: corporate libertarian oligarchy. It has installed an oligarch as president who is now engaged in increasing our military involvement, with the aim of winning so much that we get tired of winning.

[Odin]

(05-11-2017, 11:31 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 07:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 03:21 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 06:35 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 03:57 AM)Galen Wrote: The non-aggression principle does allow for self-defense since it is the initiation of force that is disallowed.  As usual you have failed to do even the most basic research.

Once again you missed the point since you think I was only talking about self-defense, I wasn't. There are a lot of situations where the initiation of force is necessary to stop a greater evil. Then again, IIRC you are one of those deranged Isolationists who think the US should have stayed out of WW2 and that Pearl Harbor was all FDR's fault, so I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Considering the consequences of the embargo on Japan it is clear that Pearl Harbor was FDR's fault.  I learned about all of this in a class on World War II history in the eighties and The Rising Sun by John Toland touched on the subject.  His later book Infamy is devoted to just that subject.

I would have preferred that the US would have stayed out of the First World War which would most likely led to a more equitable peace and probably avoided World War II which was in many ways a continuation of World War I.  It is worth noting that without US entry into that war both sides would have had to sue for peace and neither could have impose anything like the terms of the Treaty of Versailles since they were simply running out of men to throw into the trenches.  It is also very likely that the German High Command would not felt compelled to send Lenin back to Russia and there might never have been a Soviet Union.

You might actually want to spend some time with actual history rather than the comic book version we all get from the public schools.

If Japan didn't want to be embargoed maybe it shouldn't have been engaging in an imperialistic war of conquest in China. So no, it is 100% not FDR's fault.

Galen portrays himself as a Libertarian but in reality he's a warmed over Coughlinian American Firster. That's why he loved and apparently still loves Trump. Nearly all of the warmed over Coughlinian American Firsters love Trump. He's their Lindburgh. But this time around, he won. We have no FDR. Ruminate on that. Fr. Coughlin's spawn got their guy in the WH. This sort of thing "trumps" party affiliations. It's a historical "bug" of immense proportions, the operating system is hung, the enemies are at the gate. The fate of The West hangs in the balance. Some may claim I am overly dramatic stating such. History will prove who is right and who is wrong.

We got supremely lucky with FDR. The party alignments of the time and the depth of the economic crisis meant that he was able to keep Southern conservatives on board for at least a while (thought at the price of throwing Southern blacks under the bus), and that meant all the difference.

[Odin]

(05-11-2017, 12:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-11-2017, 07:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 03:21 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 06:35 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-09-2017, 03:57 AM)Galen Wrote: The non-aggression principle does allow for self-defense since it is the initiation of force that is disallowed.  As usual you have failed to do even the most basic research.

Once again you missed the point since you think I was only talking about self-defense, I wasn't. There are a lot of situations where the initiation of force is necessary to stop a greater evil. Then again, IIRC you are one of those deranged Isolationists who think the US should have stayed out of WW2 and that Pearl Harbor was all FDR's fault, so I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Considering the consequences of the embargo on Japan it is clear that Pearl Harbor was FDR's fault.  I learned about all of this in a class on World War II history in the eighties and The Rising Sun by John Toland touched on the subject.  His later book Infamy is devoted to just that subject.

I would have preferred that the US would have stayed out of the First World War which would most likely led to a more equitable peace and probably avoided World War II which was in many ways a continuation of World War I.  It is worth noting that without US entry into that war both sides would have had to sue for peace and neither could have impose anything like the terms of the Treaty of Versailles since they were simply running out of men to throw into the trenches.  It is also very likely that the German High Command would not felt compelled to send Lenin back to Russia and there might never have been a Soviet Union.

You might actually want to spend some time with actual history rather than the comic book version we all get from the public schools.

If Japan didn't want to be embargoed maybe it shouldn't have been engaging in an imperialistic war of conquest in China. So no, it is 100% not FDR's fault.

It's always fun to speculate about what might have been. We can't know for sure, by any means. I think Germany was on the way to winning World War I without US involvement. They had already defeated Russia, and had turned their might against France, hoping to wrap things up. They had broken through the trenches and the stalemate. Would it have been better if Germany had won? The German empire was retrograde in many ways, and it might have gotten even more oppressive. On the other hand, socialism was getting stronger then, and it might have taken over. And this would have been good, since German socialism was democratic; not the Leninist type that was strong over in Russia. If Germany somehow got more liberal, and reformed their junker-based empire, maybe WWII would have been avoided.

The problem was that this outdated, warlike eastern aristocracy was well-entrenched. If the German Empire had been allowed to triumph, it's possible that WWII might have happened anyway, not because of revenge and resentment over the German loss, but because of what happened with Hitler in the late 30s; allowing them to win might have whetted their appetite for more conquests. There is some value in a balance of power, in case the powers get greedy.

Now the USA has its own entrenched aristocracy: corporate libertarian oligarchy. It has installed an oligarch as president who is now engaged in increasing our military involvement, with the aim of winning so much that we get tired of winning.

Even if the Central Powers would have won it would have been a Pyrrhic victory for them in the long term because they were so exhausted by the time. As you already mentioned, leftist revolutionary activity was already starting to break out in Germany. I think Austria-Hungary was doomed no matter what.

[Eric the Green]

At the least, the Serbs and maybe others would have continued to be restive there. They would no longer have had their Russian champions, but perhaps Germany would have been a less effective champion of the Hapsburgs.

[pbrower2a]

(05-10-2017, 02:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 01:55 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: In view of the generational cycle, I 'm beginning to think that President Trump is doing something positive, if without intention -- by showing how to do so many things wrong and to show the consequences of such, that he is setting up the next President -- someone better than any President since FDR (sorry, President Obama!) who gets away with being a great President in the time that quality matters more than partisanship and identity.  The generational cycle can work that way. Maybe it took the forgettable figures of the time of the French and Indian War to set up the principled leadership of the American colonies on the eve of the American Revolution. Maybe it took the awful Presidencies of Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan to make Lincoln look good as a prospective leader. Maybe it took the twelve-year disaster of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover to make FDR presentable. Obama, good as he was, may have simply delayed the Crisis; he certainly was not the one to set up a Lincoln or FDR and he was not that great.  Obama reminds me of the sort of leadership that a country usually gets after a Crisis is decisively over -- the mature Reactive like Truman or Eisenhower.

We have had a very good President sandwiched between two of the worst in American history (Dubya  looks good in contrast to Trump, but that isn't saying much)... but even if we end up with an Obama-like President following Trump, we are likely to give him more of a chance than we as a nation gave Obama. That will be the difference between an Obama... and a Lincoln or FDR. Of course, if the political institutions that we have are ripped asunder and must be remade we might end up with another Washington. Obama's personality with the cloak of military success?

The two term rule is now biting us. In the case of FDR, I wonder how it would have been if he'd been two terms and out. Heck, versus the crash of '29, the equivalent for FDR vs Obama would have been not even two terms and out ... it would have been 1.5 terms and out. Obama = last two years of Hoover + FDR 1st term + FDR 1st two years of 2nd term.

Nothing says that Donald Trump will get a second term. He has bungled so many things that he is practically setting up his own defeat in 2020. The opposing constituencies that he offended remain offended, and lots of people who voted for him have good cause to abandon him. Having gotten a just-slightly-higher percentage of raw vote as Dukakis in 1988 and McCain in 2008, he would not have to lose much to lose the next election. The liberals have started their own version of a Tea Party -- maybe not as acrimonious, but probably no less effective.  But could he lose one House of Congress and convince Americans that he is a counterbalance to extremism as Obama was? I doubt that. Donald Trump is not simply a mirror image of Barack Obama; he is deep into nepotism and cronyism, and he has tolerated one scandal after another.

I expect a decline in living standards for most Americans under Trump, whether through an economic meltdown or through policies that enrich elites at the expense of everyone else. Ronald Reagan did get away with cutting expectations (which put an end to Nixon-Ford-Carter inflation); he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan.

I have seen polls suggesting that President Trump has the sort of approval ratings characteristic of Jimmy Carter late in 1980.   Such is unstable. He might have some good luck and get within range of winning in 2020 if he has a solid campaign for re-election. Maybe he moderates a bit and causes people to forget how awful he was at the outset. On the other side, his policies could have catastrophic effects.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-13-2017, 10:06 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I expect a decline in living standards for most Americans under Trump, whether through an economic meltdown or through policies that enrich elites at the expense of everyone else. Ronald Reagan did get away with cutting expectations (which put an end to Nixon-Ford-Carter inflation); he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan.

While Trump has been telling extreme red partisans what they want to hear very well, I'd nominate "he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan" as quite an understatement. It's still early to dismiss his hold on the red extreme base, though. The unraveling memes are set hard in parts of the population.

[pbrower2a]

Commitment to Unraveling and especially Degeneracy memes into the most dangerous part of the Crisis Era  is bad for one's credibility and perhaps even survival. When things get truly dangerous, the Degeneracy meme implies culpability or even disloyalty for affiliation to the proximate cause of the greatest dangers. Loyalty to the Unraveling meme is simply reactionary -- out of sync with the general trend.

At this point, prediction of what will prevail is risky in the extreme. Should we have a New Feudalism, then liberal ideas might be good for getting one exiled, imprisoned, or killed. People who believe that no human suffering can be in excess so long as it indulges the elites and have the power to impose such suffering will treat anyone who disagrees with mass suffering as a mass virtue as a heretic or traitor upon which to impose the worst possible suffering. Marxism-Leninism? We all know the record, including the body count. Liberalism? If not perfect, it probably serves more people better than does anything else (although I can easily see liberalism circa 2030 having some socialistic elements).

[pbrower2a]

(05-13-2017, 01:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 10:06 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I expect a decline in living standards for most Americans under Trump, whether through an economic meltdown or through policies that enrich elites at the expense of everyone else. Ronald Reagan did get away with cutting expectations (which put an end to Nixon-Ford-Carter inflation); he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan.

While Trump has been telling extreme red partisans what they want to hear very well, I'd nominate "he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan" as quite an understatement.  It's still early to dismiss his hold on the red extreme base, though.  The unraveling memes are set hard in parts of the population.

Ronald Reagan is the minimum standard for a successful 4T President.

America will need a President capable of convincing people to make great sacrifices for the Nation, if not for Humanity as a whole. We are going to need a President capable of telling youth that they need to risk sudden death or crippling injury to fend off a real threat to America and its allies... Great leaders can keep convincing people that there are fates worse than battlefield death -- like enslavement -- so long as they keep their integrity intact or have victory in sight. Great leaders can convince people to sacrifice hedonism for preservation of traditions of political decency. That's a tough standard, but I see it in Disraeli, Lincoln, Juarez, Garibaldi, Churchill, FDR, and Mannerheim. (Mannerheim? The one Axis leader that I wish were on our side).

Maybe there are leaders capable of such who miss the opportunity because of timing. Let's see how Presidents going back 120 years.

22/24 Cleveland -- Unlikely.

25. McKinley -- Too much focus on economic growth as an objective. Economic growth obviously falters in a Crisis.

26. Theodore Roosevelt -- Generally in the top of Presidents just below the conventionally three best (Washington, Lincoln, and FDR in some order) in the league with Jefferson. Right for the time, but perhaps a bit reckless for a Crisis.

27. Taft -- No. Too much concern for process.

28. Wilson -- Almost. His health failed him as he tried to promote a great new world that without him would prove fatally flawed.

29. Harding -- Utterly undistinguished.

30. Coolidge -- Snore.

31. Hoover -- Bungled the economy. Not a convincing speaker.

32. FDR -- enough said.

33. Truman -- the sort to try to connect the loose ends after a messy victory.

34. Eisenhower -- not really. Great general, competent president for a High.

35. Kennedy -- His big strides are easily achieved when dangers of a Crisis are abated.

36. LBJ -- too conflicted.

37. Nixon -- too amoral. Indeed far too amoral despite his brilliant mind.

38. Ford -- inadequate preparation.

39. Carter -- didn't handle the mess that he got. Too much emphasis on process which would be irrelevant in a Crisis.

40. Reagan -- already mentioned.

41. George H W Bush -- basically a caretaker in a safe time.

42. Clinton -- good for a discussion.

43. Dubya -- weak leader, more of a follower and followed some of the wrong people.

44. Obama. maybe.  Mercifully an ex-President can have much of a role in American life. Irrelevant until 2021 even as "President Emeritus". That could be an even bigger role in the wake of what I see as a sure failure by Donald Trump.

If Carter and the elder Bush had bigger roles in American history as ex-Presidents, then why not he?

45. Trump. Disaster time. James Buchanan without the legacy of a lifetime of achievements in political office.  A hint: it wasn't the "Buchanan Highway" that connected San Francisco with Greater New York City through Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, Greater Chicago, Omaha, Salt Lake City, and Sacramento.

The 46th President (if not Pence) or the 47th President (if Pence is "46") will spend much effort undoing the damage that Trump has done.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-13-2017, 09:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 01:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 10:06 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I expect a decline in living standards for most Americans under Trump, whether through an economic meltdown or through policies that enrich elites at the expense of everyone else. Ronald Reagan did get away with cutting expectations (which put an end to Nixon-Ford-Carter inflation); he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan.

While Trump has been telling extreme red partisans what they want to hear very well, I'd nominate "he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan" as quite an understatement.  It's still early to dismiss his hold on the red extreme base, though.  The unraveling memes are set hard in parts of the population.

Ronald Reagan is the minimum standard for a successful 4T President.

America will need a President capable of convincing people to make great sacrifices for the Nation, if not for Humanity as a whole. We are going to need a President capable of telling youth that they need to risk sudden death or crippling injury to fend off a real threat to America and its allies... Great leaders can keep convincing people that there are fates worse than battlefield death -- like enslavement -- so long as they keep their integrity intact or have victory in sight. Great leaders can convince people to sacrifice hedonism for preservation of traditions of political decency. That's a tough standard, but I see it in Disraeli, Lincoln, Juarez, Garibaldi, Churchill, FDR, and Mannerheim. (Mannerheim? The one Axis leader that I wish were on our side).

Part of what is needed for a great 4T leader is a great 4T problem situation.  Generally, by the time the country is about to enter full fledged crisis, many people have a good idea as to what has to be done.  The storm can be seen rolling over the horizon well in advance.  The potential grey champion has to be able to articulate the problem and the answers very well, formulate them in terms of both deep seated values and practical actionable plans, build a coalition, jump off a cliff and get the country to follow one over the cliff.

It is hard to do all that if there isn't a very real and visible need.  It is too tempting for the typical individual to keep riding the old values of the last crisis.  Thus, the Democrats might still be thinking somewhat from an FDR New Deal perspective, while the Republicans are trying to take Reagan's unraveling ideals to new extremes.  What sort of politician can build a new economy while taking climate change seriously?  Bernie and Elizabeth are laying the groundwork, but might be too old to do the implementation.  Meanwhile, while the people don't see the need for a different future, no new future will come, no matter how brilliant the politician.  Folks like Lincoln and Churchill made some grand speeches that caught oh so well the issues of their time, but could those speeches be written and truly heard before their time had come?

Reagan had a feel for where the country was at.  He could deliver a speech.  He packaged together a world view and value set that took deep hold on a significant part of the country.  As much as I believe his message has lived beyond its time, he found and/or built a wave that is only now hitting the beach and starting to roll back out to sea.  No small player he.

But how much was he tied to the unraveling values he is identified with?  If a young Reagan clone were moving into politics today, what set of ideas would he try to run with?  As a youngster, he was a Democrat, a new dealer, one who tried to make America great.  He changed, becoming a champion of unraveling.  What would he see today?  I truly don't know.

[pbrower2a]

(05-14-2017, 11:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 09:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 01:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-13-2017, 10:06 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I expect a decline in living standards for most Americans under Trump, whether through an economic meltdown or through policies that enrich elites at the expense of everyone else. Ronald Reagan did get away with cutting expectations (which put an end to Nixon-Ford-Carter inflation); he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan.

While Trump has been telling extreme red partisans what they want to hear very well, I'd nominate "he isn't as good a communicator as Reagan" as quite an understatement.  It's still early to dismiss his hold on the red extreme base, though.  The unraveling memes are set hard in parts of the population.

Ronald Reagan is the minimum standard for a successful 4T President. ...

Part of what is needed for a great 4T leader is a great 4T problem situation.  Generally, by the time the country is about to enter full fledged crisis, many people have a good idea as to what has to be done.  The storm can be seen rolling over the horizon well in advance.  The potential grey champion has to be able to articulate the problem and the answers very well, formulate them in terms of both deep seated values and practical actionable plans, build a coalition, jump off a cliff and get the country to follow one over the cliff.

I am tempted to believe that the neglectful depravity so characteristic of the latter part of a 3T itself magnifies the danger of a 4T.  I thought that Dubya was the expression of a phase of the generational cycle, a phase that I termed a Degeneracy (in opposition to the Regeneracy). Obama seemed to be doing a few things right before the most selfish, ruthless, and corrupt figures in American life put a stop to it. But if Dubya was incompetent with generally good intentions, Donald Trump adds some malign intent.

Quote:It is hard to do all that if there isn't a very real and visible need.  It is too tempting for the typical individual to keep riding the old values of the last crisis.  Thus, the Democrats might still be thinking somewhat from an FDR New Deal perspective, while the Republicans are trying to take Reagan's unraveling ideals to new extremes.  What sort of politician can build a new economy while taking climate change seriously?  Bernie and Elizabeth are laying the groundwork, but might be too old to do the implementation.  Meanwhile, while the people don't see the need for a different future, no new future will come, no matter how brilliant the politician.  Folks like Lincoln and Churchill made some grand speeches that caught oh so well the issues of their time, but could those speeches be written and truly heard before their time had come?

Just because a city has a good fire department does not mean that there will be fires to put out. If anything, a really good fire department will be adept at fire prevention. The fire chief may be appearing at garden parties and telling people not to store oily rags and may be working with insurance companies to thwart fires set for insurance fraud. For the fire brigade to be effective, it had better do some training and it had better keep its equipment well maintained.

Quote:Reagan had a feel for where the country was at.  He could deliver a speech.  He packaged together a world view and value set that took deep hold on a significant part of the country.  As much as I believe his message has lived beyond its time, he found and/or built a wave that is only now hitting the beach and starting to roll back out to sea.  No small player he.

He set much of the tone of the 3T. But only the first ten years or so. Others went further in pushing an every-man-for-himself ethos and putting venom into the 'conservative' message to the extent that it calls for a sharp division between winners for whom unlimited indulgence is the purpose of the lives of everyone else who, of course, are to suffer for the 'winners'. That is no way in which to create the solidarity necessary for meeting the evident dangers of a Crisis Era; that is instead one way to damn ourselves to catastrophic failure.

Quote:But how much was he tied to the unraveling values he is identified with?  If a young Reagan clone were moving into politics today, what set of ideas would he try to run with?  As a youngster, he was a Democrat, a new dealer, one who tried to make America great.  He changed, becoming a champion of unraveling.  What would he see today?  I truly don't know.

If Reagan is an example of anything, it is of an ideological chameleon, someone whose rhetoric fits whatever time in which he lives. Such may be the leadership that we get in a Crisis. I can easily imagine worse. More precisely, with Donald Trump as President, we need imagine little worse.

[Bob Butler 54]

Reagan's being perfectly able to sense and articulate the nation's mood as it entered a 3T mood is a dubious gift.  It changed the country profoundly and earned him the illusion of sainthood.  It prolonged and deepened the unraveling.  Trump is still riding his rails, borrow and spend, trickle down, the government is the problem and strengthen the military.

But unravelings don't or shouldn't last forever.  There comes a time when new problems have to be solved.  The conservative attachment to the ways things are is a formidable inertia that Reagan made more formidable.  I'm not sure where the faint praise 'sensed the mood of the country well' should give way to the raging frustration at conservative selfishness, and refusal to see oncoming problems.

[pbrower2a]

(05-15-2017, 05:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Reagan's being perfectly able to sense and articulate the nation's mood as it entered a 3T mood is a dubious gift.  It changed the country profoundly and earned him the illusion of sainthood.  It prolonged and deepened the unraveling.  Trump is still riding his rails, borrow and spend, trickle down, the government is the problem and strengthen the military.

He is driving the train faster into a zone of steep grades and sharp curves. I want off that train, but he faults me for my lack of faith in him.

Quote:But unravelings don't or shouldn't last forever.  There comes a time when new problems have to be solved.  The conservative attachment to the ways things are is a formidable inertia that Reagan made more formidable.  I'm not sure where the faint praise 'sensed the mood of the country well' should give way to the raging frustration at conservative selfishness, and refusal to see oncoming problems.

Unraveling eras eventually go too far in their destruction of basic human decencies. President Trump has offered a return to the 3T as a path to happiness. It's a path to ruin, nearly an assurance that when the real Crisis hits we will be bereft of the means with which to do something about it. Can you imagine an adequate leader  for the 4T being corrupt, vindictive, autocratic, and incoherent? Can you imagine Americans being satisfied with the idea that they will be subjects of people whose sole claim to political authority and economic dominion is that those making such claims have simply taken such roles and the perquisites thereof for themselves and their heirs forever?

I wonder how things were in late Roman times. Maybe there were few freehold farmers left due to the harsh taxation that brought ruin to the last remaining ones. Meanwhile the aristocrats waxed fat.  I'm guessing that as the barbarians moved in on the rotting edifice of a bad political order, they found that the peasants and proles were glad to accept this offer:

"Show me where your masters are, where the gems and precious metals are, and where the princesses are. We will take the gold and the jewels, and  ravage their virgin daughters. After we kill the lords who have enslaved you, we will give you freedom and a plot of land. Any takers?"

That is how one of the most destructive 4Ts ever ended. Let's not take that course.

[David Horn]

(05-15-2017, 05:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Reagan's being perfectly able to sense and articulate the nation's mood as it entered a 3T mood is a dubious gift.  It changed the country profoundly and earned him the illusion of sainthood.  It prolonged and deepened the unraveling.  Trump is still riding his rails, borrow and spend, trickle down, the government is the problem and strengthen the military.

But unravelings don't or shouldn't last forever.  There comes a time when new problems have to be solved.  The conservative attachment to the ways things are is a formidable inertia that Reagan made more formidable.  I'm not sure where the faint praise 'sensed the mood of the country well' should give way to the raging frustration at conservative selfishness, and refusal to see oncoming problems.

Kurt Horner covered this on the old forum.  If he was right, and it looks possible that he was, we are due for a libertarian era that will continue through the 4T.  How that correlates with anything like a resolution of the crisis is hard to know.  More to the point, what does the 1T look like? 

Reagan had few ideas of his own,  His most important mentor was William F. Buckley, who sold him on many of the ideas that are still carrying forth.  I don't see Trump as ideological, so his embrace of those ideas is more a mater of tactics than true belief.  In any case, it presents a dilemma that is hard to rectify.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-15-2017, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 05:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Reagan's being perfectly able to sense and articulate the nation's mood as it entered a 3T mood is a dubious gift.  It changed the country profoundly and earned him the illusion of sainthood.  It prolonged and deepened the unraveling.  Trump is still riding his rails, borrow and spend, trickle down, the government is the problem and strengthen the military.

But unravelings don't or shouldn't last forever.  There comes a time when new problems have to be solved.  The conservative attachment to the ways things are is a formidable inertia that Reagan made more formidable.  I'm not sure where the faint praise 'sensed the mood of the country well' should give way to the raging frustration at conservative selfishness, and refusal to see oncoming problems.

Kurt Horner covered this on the old forum.  If he was right, and it looks possible that he was, we are due for a libertarian era that will continue through the 4T.  How that correlates with anything like a resolution of the crisis is hard to know.  More to the point, what does the 1T look like? 

At this point, each faction is still seeing a triumph of their own faction.  My own angle is that you can't have a resolution of the 4T problems unless you can see and address the 4T problems.  However, those with other world views are quite capable of convincing themselves that only their approach can work.

(05-15-2017, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: Reagan had few ideas of his own,  His most important mentor was William F. Buckley, who sold him on many of the ideas that are still carrying forth.  I don't see Trump as ideological, so his embrace of those ideas is more a mater of tactics than true belief.  In any case, it presents a dilemma that is hard to rectify.

Amen.

[Eric the Green]

(05-15-2017, 12:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 05:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Reagan's being perfectly able to sense and articulate the nation's mood as it entered a 3T mood is a dubious gift.  It changed the country profoundly and earned him the illusion of sainthood.  It prolonged and deepened the unraveling.  Trump is still riding his rails, borrow and spend, trickle down, the government is the problem and strengthen the military.

But unravelings don't or shouldn't last forever.  There comes a time when new problems have to be solved.  The conservative attachment to the ways things are is a formidable inertia that Reagan made more formidable.  I'm not sure where the faint praise 'sensed the mood of the country well' should give way to the raging frustration at conservative selfishness, and refusal to see oncoming problems.

Kurt Horner covered this on the old forum.  If he was right, and it looks possible that he was, we are due for a libertarian era that will continue through the 4T.  How that correlates with anything like a resolution of the crisis is hard to know.  More to the point, what does the 1T look like? 

At this point, each faction is still seeing a triumph of their own faction.  My own angle is that you can't have a resolution of the 4T problems unless you can see and address the 4T problems.  However, those with other world views are quite capable of convincing themselves that only their approach can work.

And that's the situation of all 4Ts. One side represents the future, the other the past, and one side wins. A 4T is a battle, not a compromise. Only one side's resolution will be adopted. Only one's side's approach will address the problems, and it alone will work.

The artist archetype is the compromiser. They are virtually absent. Nope. Neither side will compromise now. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-15-2017, 02:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 12:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: At this point, each faction is still seeing a triumph of their own faction.  My own angle is that you can't have a resolution of the 4T problems unless you can see and address the 4T problems.  However, those with other world views are quite capable of convincing themselves that only their approach can work.

And that's the situation of all 4Ts. One side represents the future, the other the past, and one side wins. A 4T is a battle, not a compromise. Only one side's resolution will be adopted. Only one's side's approach will address the problems, and it alone will work.

The artist archetype is the compromiser. They are virtually absent. Nope. Neither side will compromise now. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.

Yes and no. Part of the Grey Champion's role is to build as large a coalition as he can, to bring as much of the country into the new values as possible.

This doesn't mean he can compromise the key values of the transition. The isn't also to say there won't be fire breathing extreme partisans about who will reject with prejudice and scorn any trace element at all of the old values. It's just that if you want to win, you want very broad acceptance of what you want to do. At lower ranks, sure, there are going to be fire breathers, and they indeed have a role to play. I just don't think you want fire breathers all the way at the top.

Oliver Cromwell might stand as an example of a fire breather on top. He oversold his values, which were overturned by the Glorious Revolution. The royalty returned. A wee bit of prudence can be prudent. It is easy for extreme partisan movements to become carried away by success and do more than the culture can absorb. The combination of the New Deal with the Awakening push for civil rights, gender rights, peace and environmental action might well be another example. It isn't these weren't worthy causes, and that the Democrats of the time America was Great shouldn't have struck when the iron was hot. The GIs had an outstanding can do attitude to fix things, and boy did they go about it.

They just gave the conservatives a heavy overdose of Future Shock. The conservatives wanted and to a great extent got a Glorious Revolution style setting back of the clock to an earlier set of values. I can only hope that Trump will be the dying gasp of that.

[pbrower2a]

Emeritus?

The elder Bush and Carter are probably too old to have much of a future in the role of President Emeritus.

Clinton is in bad health.

The younger Bush is practically a recluse for having lied to get America into the Second Gulf War -- there are many places in which he could be arrested for war crimes.

It might not be long before the only President Emeritus relevant to American politics of foreign policy is Obama... and in view of the demonization that the Republican party has of him, he is unlikely to have much of a role in political life until Donald trump is gone.

[pbrower2a]

(05-15-2017, 03:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 02:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-15-2017, 12:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: At this point, each faction is still seeing a triumph of their own faction.  My own angle is that you can't have a resolution of the 4T problems unless you can see and address the 4T problems.  However, those with other world views are quite capable of convincing themselves that only their approach can work.

And that's the situation of all 4Ts. One side represents the future, the other the past, and one side wins. A 4T is a battle, not a compromise. Only one side's resolution will be adopted. Only one's side's approach will address the problems, and it alone will work.

The artist archetype is the compromiser. They are virtually absent. Nope. Neither side will compromise now. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.

Yes and no.  Part of the Grey Champion's role is to build as large a coalition as he can, to bring as much of the country into the new values as possible.

And, almost without saying, to keep that coalition intact (as you suggest below)!

Quote:This doesn't mean he can compromise the key values of the transition.  The isn't also to say there won't be fire breathing extreme partisans about who will reject with prejudice and scorn any trace element at all of the old values.  It's just that if you want to win, you want very broad acceptance of what you want to do.  At lower ranks, sure, there are going to be fire breathers, and they indeed have a role to play.  I just don't think you want fire breathers all the way at the top.

That is a big point. Leaders of a Crisis Era can be passionate in principle, but they must also be rational enough to keep convincing people of the rectitude of their cause. It is also necessary that they express the cause as something far bigger and more important than themselves. 53% support, as with Obama, is not enough even if he did many things right. 44%, about the highest that I have ever seen for Donald Trump, is even less adequate. If something goes terribly wrong in the Crisis, then the divisions that have riven American political life and economic perceptions so severely will make any collective response to a real danger terribly ineffective.

To be sure, a truly monstrous fire-breather can accomplish things with pure, unadulterated terror -- basically, obey with enthusiastic support or die horribly -- but this is not part of the American heritage. It did not work for Hitler, as shown by the July 20 plot inconceivable in America or Britain, when the elites turned in part against the Fuehrer. Trump isn't that bad, but some of those in the plot knew that they could overthrow Hitler and save their necks or face brutal retribution for war crimes for which they might become culpable. (I also think that the July 20 plotters believed that they could have negotiated something in a settlement by turning over the most objectionable Nazis who survived the coup).

Quote:Oliver Cromwell might stand as an example of a fire breather on top.  He oversold his values, which were overturned by the Glorious Revolution.  The royalty returned.  A wee bit of prudence can be prudent.  It is easy for extreme partisan movements to become carried away by success and do more than the culture can absorb.  The combination of the New Deal with the Awakening push for civil rights, gender rights, peace and environmental action might well be another example.  It isn't these weren't worthy causes, and that the Democrats of the time America was Great shouldn't have struck when the iron was hot.  The GIs had an outstanding can do attitude to fix things, and boy did they go about it.

Any attempt to dismantle the welfare state, outlaw certain sexual rights (homosexuality, abortion, and contraception), eviscerate labor unions, shift tax burdens from the rich to everyone else, gut environmental protections, subordinate women to men, or enforce the values of fundamentalist Christians even on scientific issues will require repressive force.  People can make great sacrifices to save traditions that they cherish and fundamental decencies of their political order, but don't expect them to accede to a social order that exists solely to enrich and pamper elites at the expense of everyone else. To get through this Crisis Era, we will need solutions and not scapegoats.

And, yes -- I expect Millennial adults to achieve great things in this Crisis Era.

Quote:They just gave the conservatives a heavy overdose of Future Shock.  The conservatives wanted and to a great extent got a Glorious Revolution style setting back of the clock to an earlier set of values.  I can only hope that Trump will be the dying gasp of that.

Early-wave Boomer reactionaries, whether acolytes of Ayn Rand or an unforgiving Jesus (really John Calvin), will more likely convince people of how wrong those geezers are. But they are not the last act of the Boom Generation.

[Eric the Green]

Yes, I think a progressive coalition will have to include a pretty broad spectrum, but still quite decisive, and no compromise with the current right-wing coalition is likely, since they are all pretty much extremist firebreathers, even though there are factions within them. But I see little room to work with folks like McConnell and Ryan, let alone Trump or Bannon or the misnamed Freedom Caucus. Some extremists on the left, for example, will need to get over Bernie's loss to Hillary in the primary, and move on to the next candidate, perhaps (and I hope) one of the few that has a good-enough horoscope score.

It may need to be a latter-day Bill Clinton, in fact; although taking a more progressive line than he did during the 3T; McAuliffe or Landrieu, perhaps. He'll need a high score to beat Trump as the favored incumbent. Even though he's discrediting himself, as he always does, his base will remain strong, and so will his talent to deceive the people and market himself. If he is removed or doesn't run again, then a high score won't be as critical, as Pence for example is only average, and there's no other viable Republican candidates around that have high scores. The score works as an indicator of who has the ability to appeal to Americans as a candidate. Like Reagan (21-6), FDR (21-4), Bill Clinton (21-3), or Obama (19-2) or even Dubya (17-2).

All scores listed here under Who Scored What:
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[David Horn]

(05-15-2017, 02:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And that's the situation of all 4Ts. One side represents the future, the other the past, and one side wins. A 4T is a battle, not a compromise. Only one side's resolution will be adopted. Only one's side's approach will address the problems, and it alone will work.

The artist archetype is the compromiser. They are virtually absent. Nope. Neither side will compromise now. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.

I agree that anything like a compromise is unlikely.  It's far more likely that battle continues until the contending factions are simply exhausted.  Let's be honest about the current state of our society.  We have so much division that no single faction has the ability to lead in the true sense.  If that continues, and it may, then a stalemate is certainly possible.