Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Eric the Green]

Since we are one world, or at least several regional civilizations (The West, The Orient), not 190 nations, a megacycle based on the rather insignificant American Revolution that changed very little does not capture the tides of history.

But has the regeneracy arrived? I think it's due late, just like in the civil war era. The double rhythm does apply; mega cycles do not.

[Emman85]

(10-22-2016, 02:21 AM)Einzige Wrote: On the subject of a Regeneracy, it's probably important to bear in mind that, if there's something to the Megacycle theory and we're in the closing years of a Megaunraveling (with 1789-1865/76 as a Megahigh and 1865/76-1945 as a Megaawakening), there may not be a big Regeneracy this time. The Unraveling exists in opposite and inverted proportion to the High, at a time of "falling demand for social order". My bet is that the Crises of Megaunravelings see the weakest Regeneracies and the Crises of Megaawakenings the strongest Regeneracies.

Doesn't mean there won't be one, but that it may be so subtle that we'll be arguing about whether it actually happened for a long time. Hell, it may have already happened.


The most stable Highs are in a Megaunraveling (1945-64), the least stable Highs are in a Megacrisis (starting in the late 2020s or early 2030s),  the most intense Awakenings are in a Megacrisis (the 2040s?), the least intense Awakenings are in a Megaawakening (~1896-~1912), the most stable Unravelings are in a Megaawakening (1912 or thereabouts to 1929), the least stable Unravelings are in a Megahigh (the late 1840s and 1850s), the most intense Crises are in a Megahigh (the Civil War), and the least intense Crises are, ironically, in a Megacrisis (by which time social cohesion will be through the roof owing to the turmoils of prior decades - think of the genteel warfare of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras) and Megaunraveling (does the current era seem really existentially urgent in an immediate sense?).

I think the regeneracy is just late this time around, and I think the next 4 years will be some of our roughest in the nation's history. I think a lot of social, racial, and political tension has to build and be released before we have a civic regeneracy in the US. I think right-wing militia style domestic terrorism might intensify after a Trump defeat, and I think another economic crisis is right around the corner. I think it will be very recognizable when it happens, I think it will happen in the early 2020s but I a lot of bad things are going to happen before then.

As for the Megacycle theory I personally don't like it that much because it just adds on more unnecessary/complicated stuff to an already highly speculative theory of history. You say we have been in a Megaunraveling since 1945 but this period for the US is the epitome of a high, but I guess since The American Revolution founded the republic the saeculum after it thrived in it's civic shadow, like a post-crisis era.

The most stable high does seem to be the 1946-1964 era but the 1890s era was one of our most turbulent awakenings, even compared to "The Sixties". I mean imagine all the riots and protests of the Vietnam Era(of course the turmoil back then centered around labor radicalism)with a severe economic depression at the same time. 

The 1984-2008 era imo was the most "stable" Third Turning by far, There was extreme turmoil and instability especially right after World War 1 that nearly catalyzed into a Fourth Turning, things did calm down quickly after around 1921 though.

How intense do you think the awakening of the late 2040s and 2050s will be?

[Mikebert]

(10-22-2016, 02:21 AM)Einzige Wrote: On the subject of a Regeneracy, it's probably important to bear in mind that, if there's something to the Megacycle theory and we're in the closing years of a Megaunraveling (with 1789-1865/76 as a Megahigh and 1865/76-1945 as a Megaawakening), there may not be a big Regeneracy this time. The Unraveling exists in opposite and inverted proportion to the High, at a time of "falling demand for social order". My bet is that the Crises of Megaunravelings see the weakest Regeneracies and the Crises of Megaawakenings the strongest Regeneracies.

Doesn't mean there won't be one, but that it may be so subtle that we'll be arguing about whether it actually happened for a long time. Hell, it may have already happened.

That probably means whoever's unlucky enough to live eighty years from now will find themselves with a jackboot on the back of their neck.

(Conversely, the Crises of Megaunravelings may be the mildest Crises of any of the cycle - it's pretty obvious that nothing we've faced in the last decade has come close to those faced by people in the late eighteenth century or the middle nineteenth century or the thirties and forties of the last century - and the Highs of Megaunravelings the most stable and orderly Highs, with a peak but falling demand for order. That is, the "American High" of the fifties and early sixties might be the most obvious High for centuries to come.)

In other words, in order of their intensity:

First Turnings:
Megaunraveling (Most stable - high supply of social order, falling demand)
Megahigh
Megaawakening
Megacrisis (Least stable - Rising demand for social order, lowest supply)

Second Turning:
Megacrisis (Most intense - Rising demand and supply of social order)
Megaunraveling
Megahigh
Megaawakening (Least intense - Falling demand and supply of social order)

Third Turning:
Megaawakening (Most stable - Falling demand and supply of social order)
Megacrisis
Megaunraveling
Megahigh (Least stable - Falling supply of social order, highest demand)

Fourth Turning:
Megahigh (Most intense - Lowest supply of social order, highest demand)
Megaawakening
Megacrisis
Megaunraveling (Least intense - highest supply and demand of social order)

The most stable Highs are in a Megaunraveling (1945-64), the least stable Highs are in a Megacrisis (starting in the late 2020s or early 2030s),  the most intense Awakenings are in a Megacrisis (the 2040s?), the least intense Awakenings are in a Megaawakening (~1896-~1912), the most stable Unravelings are in a Megaawakening (1912 or thereabouts to 1929), the least stable Unravelings are in a Megahigh (the late 1840s and 1850s), the most intense Crises are in a Megahigh (the Civil War), and the least intense Crises are, ironically, in a Megacrisis (by which time social cohesion will be through the roof owing to the turmoils of prior decades - think of the genteel warfare of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras) and Megaunraveling (does the current era seem really existentially urgent in an immediate sense?).

There is nothing to Megacycle theory.  Of more interest would be your political thoughts on the current saeculum.

[pbrower2a]

Ask me whether we have a Regeneracy on November 9, 2016, the day after Election Day. Maybe I will have an answer. I'll leave the astrology, tarot cards, and entrails readings to Eric.

[tg63]

(05-14-2016, 10:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would say no.  To me, the regeneracy is when the party that cases transforming change upon government and culture gets the power to do so.  I see Congress as still divided and this isn't apt to change in the upcoming elections. ...

Just thought I'd go back to this ... not to call you out for being wrong (most everyone was), but rather to initiate a discussion about the possibility that this is indeed the call for major reform - just not the type of reform that was anticipated.

[David Horn]

(11-09-2016, 02:11 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 10:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would say no.  To me, the regeneracy is when the party that cases transforming change upon government and culture gets the power to do so.  I see Congress as still divided and this isn't apt to change in the upcoming elections. ...

Just thought I'd go back to this ... not to call you out for being wrong (most everyone was), but rather to initiate a discussion about the possibility that this is indeed the call for major reform - just not the type of reform that was anticipated.

At this point, we have no idea what a Trump Presidency with an all GOP Federal (and mostly GOP state and local) structure will do with their power.  I'm not sanguine.  I think the troubles will be many and may not be felt for a year or so after the fact, but it's obvious that the Obama years will be reversed in total.  ACA, gone.  Dodd-Frank, ditto.  All International agreements of the last 8 years, overturned or rendered moot.  Of that list, only the climate reversals will be irreversible later, but much harm will be done by the fanciful adherence to the invisible hand too. 

Here's the real question: will the opposition actively oppose, much as the GOP has the last 8 years, or will they try to work with Trump and Company?  If the latter, then failure will tarnish them more than the Trumpistas, because "they knew better and waffled".  If the former, then the next 4 years will be blood sport, and the entire country will suffer.  Nothing good here. 

I don't see this being resolved until the next 2T, and 2T solutions are full of passion but are rarely practical.

[Eric the Green]

I could never fathom who people can support Citizens United. Donald Trump supports it, even as he cried about corruption and money in politics. Even in CA a non-binding proposition advising our opposition to it, passed by only a few percentage points. I don't understand this at all, or why people don't understand that corruption was on the ballot, and how they voted for it. How could it be anything but ignorance? You tell me.

[tg63]

(11-09-2016, 03:45 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 02:11 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 10:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would say no.  To me, the regeneracy is when the party that cases transforming change upon government and culture gets the power to do so.  I see Congress as still divided and this isn't apt to change in the upcoming elections. ...

Just thought I'd go back to this ... not to call you out for being wrong (most everyone was), but rather to initiate a discussion about the possibility that this is indeed the call for major reform - just not the type of reform that was anticipated.

...
Here's the real question: will the opposition actively oppose, much as the GOP has the last 8 years, or will they try to work with Trump and Company?  If the latter, then failure will tarnish them more than the Trumpistas, because "they knew better and waffled".  If the former, then the next 4 years will be blood sport, and the entire country will suffer.  Nothing good here. 

I don't see this being resolved until the next 2T, and 2T solutions are full of passion but are rarely practical.

But how relevant will/can the opposition really be?  I'm thinking that there will be a steamroller effect in play - we really shouldn't expect Trump to play nice or be respectful of the opposition, so beyond filibustering I'm not sure what levers can be used.  The court of public opinion is nice, but when you have control of the Supreme Court, well, let's just say blood sport might in fact be the right phrase.

[TeacherinExile]

(11-09-2016, 03:45 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 02:11 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 10:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would say no.  To me, the regeneracy is when the party that cases transforming change upon government and culture gets the power to do so.  I see Congress as still divided and this isn't apt to change in the upcoming elections. ...

Just thought I'd go back to this ... not to call you out for being wrong (most everyone was), but rather to initiate a discussion about the possibility that this is indeed the call for major reform - just not the type of reform that was anticipated.

At this point, we have no idea what a Trump Presidency with an all GOP Federal (and mostly GOP state and local) structure will do with their power.  I'm not sanguine.  I think the troubles will be many and may not be felt for a year or so after the fact, but it's obvious that the Obama years will be reversed in total.  ACA, gone.  Dodd-Frank, ditto.  All International agreements of the last 8 years, overturned or rendered moot.  Of that list, only the climate reversals will be irreversible later, but much harm will be done by the fanciful adherence to the invisible hand too. 

Here's the real question: will the opposition actively oppose, much as the GOP has the last 8 years, or will they try to work with Trump and Company?  If the latter, then failure will tarnish them more than the Trumpistas, because "they knew better and waffled".  If the former, then the next 4 years will be blood sport, and the entire country will suffer.  Nothing good here. 

I don't see this being resolved until the next 2T, and 2T solutions are full of passion but are rarely practical.

David, I am in general agreement with your outlook here, with the exception of your last sentence.  The "legacy" legislation of Obama was never strong enough to begin with--half measures all.  The fiscal stimulus was not big enough to fill the hole that the financial crisis left in GDP (even Paul Krugman said as much), and Obama had a Democratic majority in 2009 that could have backed him to the hilt, even if the vote broke strictly along party line, which of course it did.  The stimulus package can be properly credited as sufficient to arrest the economic freefall and spark a weak recovery, but never more than that.  The ACA was just a clusterfuck, to begin with, a federally-subsidized gift to the for-profit health industry, and did little or nothing to contain medical costs.  There should have been a public option at the very least.  As for Dodd-Frank, well, it will prove to be a Maginot Line when the next financial crisis hits which, according to every credible source that I've read these past eight years, is a matter of when, not if.  What was called for, and this is coming from someone who worked in the financial industry, was restoring Glass-Steagall, breaking up the megabanks, and handcuffing the banksters responsible for creating the financial crisis in the first place.  Bernie Sanders was right: banking has become a fraudulent business, and there is evidence aplenty that some are up to their old tricks again. (Wells Fargo is but one example.)  Obama's legacy will be easily reversed now that the Republicans are firmly in control.    

Lets face facts, Democratic partisans (and I am not one), Obama had the wind at his back in January 2009: swept into office by a wide electoral margin, and with a virtual supermajority to support him for the first two years.  As intelligent and articulate as he is, Obama  simply misplayed his hand from the start, too attuned to professional elites, and apparently too dismissive of "just plain folks" in "flyover country."  If only the DNC had read Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, prior to putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton, it would have seen the phenomenon of Trump coming from a mile away, and would have known instinctively that an establishment presidential candidate was at serious odds with the mood of the country.  Hillary, as Elvis Costello might have sung, was quite simply "A Woman Out of Time."  Thomas Frank admits that he voted for Obama the first time, thinking he would be the second coming of FDR, only to be disappointed by the Clintonesque domestic and foreign policy team that Obama assembled. 

I remember something a wise man once said when sizing up political candidates: "Look at the money they take and the company they keep."  It's why I decided to vote for Jill Stein in 2008, rather than Obama, as appealing as his rhetoric was at the time.  Wall Street bankrolled his presidential run way more than John McCain's, and his economic advisers were the "Usual Suspects," Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers... I didn't sense a whole lot of change in the cards, and I was right.  And Democrats have now paid the price, and a heavy price a Trump administration may well turn out to be for our country.      

One pundit yesterday aptly described my post-election assessment of the most stunning political upset in American history: "Democrats Have Only Themselves to Blame for Trump."  Against all odds, Trump not only defeated the Republican establishment, but, by virtue of his improbable victory over Clinton, he defeated the Democratic establishment, too.  Far better if the defeat of the Democratic establishment had been accomplished at the hands of an insurgent candidate on the Left (i.e., Bernie Sanders) rather than on the Right.  Now the Democratic Party is well behind the curve, and has some real catching up to do, if they want to wrest power back from the Republicans.

Now, as you say, David, it is up to Democrats to decide what kind of opposition party they want to be.  Do they try to work with Trump, risking that, if his attempt to "Make America Great Again" backfires, his failure will be hung around their necks, too?  Or do they oppose his agenda at every turn, payback for the Republican obstructionism that thwarted Obama after the 2010 mid-terms?  I think that the future of the Democratic party largely hinges on that very question.

[Eric the Green]

The regeneracy has arrived. Surprise surprise, it's Republican! Leading us rapidly to ruin.

[Warren Dew]

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The regeneracy has arrived. Surprise surprise, it's Republican! Leading us rapidly to ruin.

It's not a regeneracy at all. If anything, more fragmentation and acrimony are coming.

Only if Clinton's astroturf antidemocracy protesters can stand up to the army, which won't happen.

I don't think the regeneracy has arrived yet, but I think it will be soon.  The Republicans dominate two of the three branches of government and will have the third within a year.  I've already seen conciliatory messages from two major leftist institutions - Apple Computer and MIT.  If Trump decides to seize power like Lincoln and FDR did, there will be no effective opposition.

I don't like regeneracies, I don't like fourth turnings, I don't like first turnings.  But we can't stop it now.  We couldn't ever have stopped it.

[Eric the Green]

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The regeneracy has arrived. Surprise surprise, it's Republican! Leading us rapidly to ruin.

It's not a regeneracy at all. If anything, more fragmentation and acrimony are coming.

What sets this apart from the past 4T are Presidential term limits, plus, the fact that Obama started earlier in The Crisis than FDR did. If FDR had started two years earlier and had to leave after two terms, imagine how that would have gone down, given Fr. Coughlin, America Firsters, etc.

Upshot of it is, we are stalling for time, both in terms of dealing with the financial angle and the geopolitical angle.

Worst case, we go full depression and into Anschluss with the SCO. That would end the Anglosphere part of our history and we would leave the current turning system behind. In essence, a terminal 4T. Out of business after that, part of the Eurasianist Empire.

If we manage to stop the moles and SCO insurgents, then we might only have a depression but still keep being part of the Anglosphere. Nonetheless, due to losing time, we would not be prepared for war, and might lose to the SCO. Same end result, goodbye USA as we know it. Maybe the entire Anglosphere would be taken out.

Dark, dark possibilities.

I think we have interpreted a regeneracy as a positive thing that could lead to progressive change, since in the past we have always looked upon 4Ts as conflicts in which the good guys won, and we got more freedom and justice out of it. So it has seemed to me too. But this time we may have voted for a regeneracy that will lead our nation to ruin instead. In other countries, not as lucky as ours, 4Ts can bring defeat and ruin. So it did for Dixie as well. 

Or else, another regeneracy is still ahead in about 2022 that will be stirred up by the ruin that Trump and the Republicans will have caused. Remember that, as I see it, the 1861 regeneracy came at the end of that 4T, since in reality it began in 1850 or earlier, after 3 dufus presidents. And our 4T most resembles that one. And mobilization for war was like a second regeneracy in the last 4T, which was what really cured the depression (war spending and victory).

4Ts are likened to "winter" by the authors. This time it is a literal winter, but one that will last beyond this saeculum, because of what we have failed to do-- deal with climate change and pollution. And on Nov.8 we decided not to deal with it effectively for the next 4-6 years, which were the critical decisive years. The American people voted for more severe climate change, and that's what we'll get. Dark realities to come.

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-11-2016, 03:59 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)X_4AD_84D Wrote: It's not a regeneracy at all. If anything, more fragmentation and acrimony are coming.

Dunno.

Dark, dark possibilities.

-Especially stawk market crash.

I think we have interpreted a regeneracy as a positive thing that could lead to progressive change, since in the past we have always looked upon 4Ts as conflicts in which the good guys won, and we got more freedom and justice out of it. So it has seemed to me too. But this time we may have voted for a regeneracy that will lead our nation to ruin instead. In other countries, not as lucky as ours, 4Ts can bring defeat and ruin. So it did for Dixie as well. 

-Kinda like playing poker, right? Sometimes, no matter how good you are. You can get shitty cards and still lose.

Or else, another regeneracy is still ahead in about 2022 that will be stirred up by the ruin that Trump and the Republicans will have caused. Remember that, as I see it, the 1861 regeneracy came at the end of that 4T, since in reality it began in 1850 or earlier, after 3 dufus presidents. And our 4T most resembles that one. And mobilization for war was like a second regeneracy in the last 4T, which was what really cured the depression (war spending and victory).

-Uh, that 1861 thing just didn't work so well.   That 1T after was the Gilded Age. It will be hard to start a war since that money is for SS and Medicare will be big then.

4Ts are likened to "winter" by the authors. This time it is a literal winter, but one that will last beyond this saeculum, because of what we have failed to do-- deal with climate change and pollution. And on Nov.8 we decided not to deal with it effectively for the next 4-6 years, which were the critical decisive years. The American people voted for more severe climate change, and that's what we'll get. Dark realities to come.

I think the above will cause a stawk market crash. Climate disruptions are very bearish, man.

[Warren Dew]

(11-11-2016, 03:59 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think we have interpreted a regeneracy as a positive thing that could lead to progressive change, since in the past we have always looked upon 4Ts as conflicts in which the good guys won, and we got more freedom and justice out of it. So it has seemed to me too. But this time we may have voted for a regeneracy that will lead our nation to ruin instead. In other countries, not as lucky as ours, 4Ts can bring defeat and ruin. So it did for Dixie as well.

Good point, at least if you replace "we" with "most of us".

I've always recognized that the only reason the "good guys" always won in fourth turnings is because the winners write the history books.  The losers get silenced, and that would be especially true in total wars such as crisis wars.  In that sense, the "good guys" will win this fourth turning too, for the tautological reason that the winners will consider themselves the good guys.

[luschen]

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It's not a regeneracy at all. If anything, more fragmentation and acrimony are coming.

What sets this apart from the past 4T are Presidential term limits, plus, the fact that Obama started earlier in The Crisis than FDR did. If FDR had started two years earlier and had to leave after two terms, imagine how that would have gone down, given Fr. Coughlin, America Firsters, etc.

Upshot of it is, we are stalling for time, both in terms of dealing with the financial angle and the geopolitical angle.

Worst case, we go full depression and into Anschluss with the SCO. That would end the Anglosphere part of our history and we would leave the current turning system behind. In essence, a terminal 4T. Out of business after that, part of the Eurasianist Empire.

If we manage to stop the moles and SCO insurgents, then we might only have a depression but still keep being part of the Anglosphere. Nonetheless, due to losing time, we would not be prepared for war, and might lose to the SCO. Same end result, goodbye USA as we know it. Maybe the entire Anglosphere would be taken out.

Dark, dark possibilities.

Hi, I have been lurking around this forum - actually the previous one - for many years, since 9/11 I guess, waiting for something to happen, and now it looks like we are in for some action. Can you tell me what "SCO" means or stands for? Sorry for my ignorance.

[Eric the Green]

(11-11-2016, 10:37 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 03:59 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think we have interpreted a regeneracy as a positive thing that could lead to progressive change, since in the past we have always looked upon 4Ts as conflicts in which the good guys won, and we got more freedom and justice out of it. So it has seemed to me too. But this time we may have voted for a regeneracy that will lead our nation to ruin instead. In other countries, not as lucky as ours, 4Ts can bring defeat and ruin. So it did for Dixie as well.

Good point, at least if you replace "we" with "most of us".

I've always recognized that the only reason the "good guys" always won in fourth turnings is because the winners write the history books.  The losers get silenced, and that would be especially true in total wars such as crisis wars.  In that sense, the "good guys" will win this fourth turning too, for the tautological reason that the winners will consider themselves the good guys.

That's a plausible view, although mine is that in fact they WERE the good guys who won the 4Ts. And the victories are what made America great. Without these 4T victories, we probably would not have been great.

Even though, it's also a plausible view in my mind, that the wars might not have been necessary in every case, or even most cases. I don't say that's the right view; just a view worth considering.

But now our nation may be in decline, so that may not hold true. But no doubt, the winners will still claim that it's true. Everybody votes for a dictator, and people believe the big lie-- for a while. But they lose in the end, and it often does not take long these days. So if the bad guys (Trump) win, then look for our nation to slide into oblivion rapidly. With people cheering all the way.

https://youtu.be/nGzkchO0t1c?t=6m30s

Just like Major Kong as he rode that nuclear bomb in Dr. Strangelove. Yaaaaaaaaaa Hooooooooooooooo!





Don't we have fun at our rallies? And if someone looks like they are about to throw a tomato, knock the CRAP out of them, would ya? I'll pay for your legal fees. Political correctness is ruining us folks. You know what happened in the good old days to protesters like that? They had to carry them out on a stretcher, folks! These are not good people, I tell you. Get a job! Get a job! These are not good people. Yeah, Ya hoo. Cheer the bully. The good guys win. We're the good guys, because we say so!





I'm very pessimistic now, folks. Believe me, that I can tell you.

[Ritterlich]

(05-14-2016, 03:30 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: It sure feels like it here in the US given the events of this year, but before expounding further I'm curious if this had been discussed much in my absence on the old board.

Like it or not (and I didn't vote for Trump) but the regeneracy has arrived with him. It'll probably be more or less textbook right-wing populism as we have seen it in Russia, Hungary and other places in this cycle or in many European countries in the 1930s. It's not going to be as bad as Hitler of course but that's the general direction. I expect a big whirlwind of change in the next ten years, more than all of us have ever seen in our lives. A lot of government spending and intervention, measures against illegal immigrants and also some restrictions on minorities (voting rights). This way the Republicans have as solid a majority as the New Deal Coalition had in the 1930s. 
The genius in Trump (or maybe evil genius) is that he understood that the elitist Republican establishment with its mantra of tax cuts for the rich and nothing for the rest except cutting safety nets and outsourcing jobs would never work to gain a majority. Instead, you have to also have massive "Nationalist Keynesian" and anti-trade intervention to help your average Joe supporter. Plus he was right to purposefully be mean, aggressive and outlandish to position himself outside of the conventions of the old system. People are now ready to have it torn down and replaced with something new, never mind the risks involved.

[Eric the Green]

It's a good idea of what's coming. But will the Republicans go along with his Nationalist Keynesianism? If not, it just may amount to contracting with big business to build things and charge the people to use them. That's not so good for the average Joe, and it may not be sustainable. A national Trump-like bankruptcy may ensue. It's just like Hitler promised measures against monopolies and other empty promises to the working class to get their support, but nothing ever came of these promises. But the working class did get jobs building up the military and infrastructure to support it. The Republicans are against Keynes, though, so it will be hard for Trump to get them to go along with national Keynesianism. Trump will have to assume dictatorial powers like Hitler had to get this done. After the 2018 elections, if not before, he'll have more and more power to do this. The only difference may be that Trump is not set on world conquest, at least not that we know of; although some of his government and cabinet may be.

[pbrower2a]

I expect American social conditions to be set back a century. The last liberal measures to remain intact will be women having the vote (which will be irrelevant because there will be no meaningful choice in elections anyway) and perhaps the Pure Food and Drug Act.

I almost expect the Dictator to take measures against demographics that saw through him and voted against him, which could leave America with an Apartheid system. That will be an improvement for the scum of the white race.   This is a vindictive man, and he acts upon his anger.

I expect severe erosion of  civil liberties, with the transformation of an existing federal law-enforcement agency or a newly-formed one to take on Gestapo-like means.  Beware of any new federal police force! I would not be unduly surprised if state and local governments get the green light for violent suppression of political demonstrations -- and beware the new federal police force, quite possibly an internal CIA to complement the CIA banned from acting against Americans in America.  

Do you think me hysterical? I wish I could imagine better. So maybe all we need is work -- more work -- with no more pay for the building of the greatness of America. So our plutocrats get to commission great monuments of castles and palaces for themselves -- so there's the "American Greatness"!

Donald Trump stands for shysters -- not workers.

[Arkarch]

I am not so worried about Trump - who is 70 yrs old and while determined on some issues, seems entirely ADD on others. Its Pence that concerns me.... obviously accepted for VP in return for unwavoring religious right support. It looks like he has been given free hand to figure out the administration.