Has the regeneracy arrived?

[TeacherinExile]

(01-03-2017, 08:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 07:53 PM)Bourbonista Wrote: Hi, new member here, long-time fan of 4T.

I think that the Trump election marks the beginning of the Regeneracy. The fact that most of the “establishment” media and political elites missed the strength of support for Trump among rural white voters and especially among educated suburban voters shows that Trump tapped in to a significant consensus among many Americans that the current system is irreparably broken and they are willing to bet on a crude, misogynistic, self-serving dilettante over any career politician, right or left.
But I don’t think Trump is the Grey Champion. He will precipitate the Crisis – trade war with China, Great Depression II, a likely constitutional crisis – but will not get a second term. It may be bad enough that a true Grey Champion, equal to Roosevelt or Lincoln will emerge.
God help us if not.

Welcome.

Your description makes 2016 sound more like a crisis trigger, not a regeneracy. After all I think most folks would see the 2016 electoral outcome as the electorate calling for change.  Change from what?  From what came before: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama. That is change from the 3T.  I thought 2001 and 2008 were crisis triggers because big shit happened. But big shit happened around 1920, and that was no 4T.  The English Civil War was a far bigger event than the Glorious Revolution, yet it was the latter that was the 4T. 

What makes a 4T a 4T is there is a change in the trajectory of the nation's history. For example, inequality was high and real wages at starvation levels mid-17th century.  It helped set the stage for the war.  Population declined during the war and for decades after.  Times did not improve.  And then population bottomed in 1690 and began a rise, which accelerated a couple of decades later.  GDP per capita, which had been flat for a century, began to rise in the late 17th century.  Times got better. There was a sea change in the demographic and economic trajectory in a positive direction that occurred contemporaneously with the GR, not the ECW.  There were also fundamental changes in government.

American inequality peaked in 1916, declined to 1920, then rose to 1916 levels by 1929, and then went down, bottoming only in the late 1970's.  Peacetime government spending had been about 3% of GDP for half a century before 1929.  Over the next couple of decades peacetime government spending rose about six fold, as did the number of federal employees.  In the two decades after 1929, America emerged as the world hegemonic power.  These major changes in the nation's historical trajectory were contemporaneous with the 4T, not the period around 1920, despite the revolutionary zeitgeist present then.

Since 2001, or 2008, there has been no change in trajectory.  The slow-motion collapse of the middle class that has been going on for decades, continued on. This is what the 2016 election was about.  People were writing about it 25 years ago, and are saying the same things today.

I agree that there has been no real change in trajectory during the Obama administration.  Only feeble attempts at fiscal and monetary stimulus and regulatory reform.  Truly reform-minded policy makers, especially Democrats in their window of opportunity before the 2010 mid-terms, could have--should have--driven a wooden stake through the heart of the "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."  (Thank you for that apt metaphor, Matt Taiibi!)

Taiibi, muckraker that he is, was referring, of course, to the historic and outsized influence of Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs on Washington.  And given the proposed executive appointments of Trump, including more Goldman Sachs alums, we will get more of the same laissez-faire policies that exacerbated the last meltdown.   

I have repeatedly characterized the global financial crash of 2008 as "crisis interruptus," because the swift policy response--as inadequate and misguided as it may prove to be in the long run--blunted a developing depression before it could wreak the kind of widespread havoc and suffering experienced in the 1930s.  Consequently, the political will to really fix our economy, our politics, and even our culture has not yet materialized, as it has with past 4T crises.  It's going to take a real critical mass of public opinion (not a consensus) to overturn the old civic order (neoliberalism) and replace it with something else, some kind of post-capitalism that better serves humanity.

I have avoided weighing in on this thread, as germane as it is to S&H theory, simply because I foresee a second financial crisis coming down the pike for reasons similar to--but not exactly the same as--the crash of 2008.  I fear it will be an order of magnitude greater than that one, which is why I characterized the Crash of 2008 as the foreshock to an even bigger quake to come.  My best guess is sometime between 2018-2020.  Like past 4T crises, it will come on slow, slow, and then hit all at once with a vengeance.  (And because Trump's proposed economic policies are stimulative, 2017 could actually be a good year for the financial markets and the economy.) 

Without sounding too glib, when people on this forum ask if the regeneracy is underway, I scoff, much as former NFL head coach Jim Mora did in his famous post-game tirade, when a reporter asked about the Colts’ chances for making it to the playoffs: "What’s that? Ah — Playoffs? Don’t talk about — playoffs?  You kidding me? Playoffs? I just hope we can win a game! Another game."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tie0tz7jGDI

In a similar vein I say, "Regeneracy? Hell, we haven't even had the real crisis yet!"

[Mikebert]

(01-03-2017, 09:47 AM)flbones too Wrote: Inequality remained high in the last 4T up until around 1940. .

No it didn't.

[Mikebert]

(01-03-2017, 11:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: It could just be that nothing is so drastically important that it forces a unified response.  Inequality is bad, but the most negatively affected are out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind.  ACW is getting worse, but it hasn't produce an environment disaster yet.  We are still more-or-less free.  The economy in general is meh.  It's hard to get wound up to fight the good fight if the fight isn't absolutely necessary.

Of course, that may still change.

This would be consistent with we still be 3T.

A distinction should be made between the S&H assertion that the saeculum exists and the generational theory they advance to explain them.  That one or the other, both or neither are true are all possibilities.

[Mikebert]

(01-03-2017, 03:40 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 08:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 07:53 PM)Bourbonista Wrote: Hi, new member here, long-time fan of 4T.

I think that the Trump election marks the beginning of the Regeneracy. The fact that most of the “establishment” media and political elites missed the strength of support for Trump among rural white voters and especially among educated suburban voters shows that Trump tapped in to a significant consensus among many Americans that the current system is irreparably broken and they are willing to bet on a crude, misogynistic, self-serving dilettante over any career politician, right or left.
But I don’t think Trump is the Grey Champion. He will precipitate the Crisis – trade war with China, Great Depression II, a likely constitutional crisis – but will not get a second term. It may be bad enough that a true Grey Champion, equal to Roosevelt or Lincoln will emerge.
God help us if not.

Welcome.

Your description makes 2016 sound more like a crisis trigger, not a regeneracy. After all I think most folks would see the 2016 electoral outcome as the electorate calling for change.  Change from what?  From what came before: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama. That is change from the 3T.  I thought 2001 and 2008 were crisis triggers because big shit happened. But big shit happened around 1920, and that was no 4T.  The English Civil War was a far bigger event than the Glorious Revolution, yet it was the latter that was the 4T. 

What makes a 4T a 4T is there is a change in the trajectory of the nation's history. For example, inequality was high and real wages at starvation levels mid-17th century.  It helped set the stage for the war.  Population declined during the war and for decades after.  Times did not improve.  And then population bottomed in 1690 and began a rise, which accelerated a couple of decades later.  GDP per capita, which had been flat for a century, began to rise in the late 17th century.  Times got better. There was a sea change in the demographic and economic trajectory in a positive direction that occurred contemporaneously with the GR, not the ECW.  There were also fundamental changes in government.

American inequality peaked in 1916, declined to 1920, then rose to 1916 levels by 1929, and then went down, bottoming only in the late 1970's.  Peacetime government spending had been about 3% of GDP for half a century before 1929.  Over the next couple of decades peacetime government spending rose about six fold, as did the number of federal employees.  In the two decades after 1929, America emerged as the world hegemonic power.  These major changes in the nation's historical trajectory were contemporaneous with the 4T, not the period around 1920, despite the revolutionary zeitgeist present then.

Since 2001, or 2008, there has been no change in trajectory.  The slow-motion collapse of the middle class that has been going on for decades, continued on. This is what the 2016 election was about.  People were writing about it 25 years ago, and are saying the same things today.

I agree that there has been no real change in trajectory during the Obama administration.  Only feeble attempts at fiscal and monetary stimulus and regulatory reform.  Truly reform-minded policy makers, especially Democrats in their window of opportunity before the 2010 mid-terms, could have--should have--driven a wooden stake through the heart of the "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."  (Thank you for that apt metaphor, Matt Taiibi!)

Taiibi, muckraker that he is, was referring, of course, to the historic and outsized influence of Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs on Washington.  And given the proposed executive appointments of Trump, including more Goldman Sachs alums, we will get more of the same laissez-faire policies that exacerbated the last meltdown.   

I have repeatedly characterized the global financial crash of 2008 as "crisis interruptus," because the swift policy response--as inadequate and misguided as it may prove to be in the long run--blunted a developing depression before it could wreak the kind of widespread havoc and suffering experienced in the 1930s.  Consequently, the political will to really fix our economy, our politics, and even our culture has not yet materialized, as it has with past 4T crises.  It's going to take a real critical mass of public opinion (not a consensus) to overturn the old civic order (neoliberalism) and replace it with something else, some kind of post-capitalism that better serves humanity.

I have avoided weighing in on this thread, as germane as it is to S&H theory, simply because I foresee a second financial crisis coming down the pike for reasons similar to--but not exactly the same as--the crash of 2008.  I fear it will be an order of magnitude greater than that one, which is why I characterized the Crash of 2008 as the foreshock to an even bigger quake to come.  My best guess is sometime between 2018-2020.  Like past 4T crises, it will come on slow, slow, and then hit all at once with a vengeance.  (And because Trump's proposed economic policies are stimulative, 2017 could actually be a good year for the financial markets and the economy.) 

Without sounding too glib, when people on this forum ask if the regeneracy is underway, I scoff, much as former NFL head coach Jim Mora did in his famous post-game tirade, when a reporter asked about the Colts’ chances for making it to the playoffs: "What’s that? Ah — Playoffs? Don’t talk about — playoffs?  You kidding me? Playoffs? I just hope we can win a game! Another game."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tie0tz7jGDI

In a similar vein I say, "Regeneracy? Hell, we haven't even had the real crisis yet!"

We are in the same page.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:We are in the same page.

I still don't see the outright dismissal of the Republican's/Trump's present position as being a potential regeneracy.  Happened at about the right time, leaders are mostly the right generational group, etc.  If they end up running US hegemony into a ditch, that could constitute a crisis conclusion of sorts.  The authors said there was no guarantee that the turning had to turn out well.

[pbrower2a]

We are going to get a severe recession, and I doubt that the Administration and the GOP-dominated Congress, and many state legislatures, will have any solution that fails to make the recession get worse. Bring back debt bondage?

To tell something about who gets real representation in our political system -- Donald Trump greeted a convicted mobster, a Gotti associate, at his Mar-a-Lago resort. This is the sort of President that we are about to get.

I wish that I had dual citizenship. I have no desire to live in a political system that looks like the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos.

[flbones too]

(01-03-2017, 04:57 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:We are in the same page.

I still don't see the outright dismissal of the Republican's/Trump's present position as being a potential regeneracy.  Happened at about the right time, leaders are mostly the right generational group, etc.  If they end up running US hegemony into a ditch, that could constitute a crisis conclusion of sorts.  The authors said there was no guarantee that the turning had to turn out well.

That's cause he keeps talking out of his Agujero del botín and keeps trying to slam his fist down and insist that we're not even in the 4T. Bless his heart.

[flbones too]

(01-03-2017, 04:21 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:47 AM)flbones too Wrote: Inequality remained high in the last 4T up until around 1940. .

No it didn't.

Actually it did you cabron.

[flbones too]

If Trumps policies fail, then it will cause a shift in the opposite direction to the liberal side. Boomer Republicans care too much about big businesses and what's best for them. Neo Liberalism is bs and needs to die. The trend towards income inequality and stagnant wages the last 40 years are proof it don't work. Yet some Republicans are still stupid enough to bleive that the wealth will "trickle down" to the lower class. The rich are going to take their extra money and invest it for themselves.

[Eric the Green]

(01-03-2017, 04:57 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:We are in the same page.

I still don't see the outright dismissal of the Republican's/Trump's present position as being a potential regeneracy.  Happened at about the right time, leaders are mostly the right generational group, etc.  If they end up running US hegemony into a ditch, that could constitute a crisis conclusion of sorts.  The authors said there was no guarantee that the turning had to turn out well.

Certainly that is correct. The only way it can turn out well now, is for resistance to Trump and the GOP to succeed and overthrow them, and their neo-liberal policies, once and for all; and yes we have 2 more presidential elections, followed by 4 more years, to do it.

[Odin]

The main reason the Great Depression got as bad as it did was because the Fed stupidly tightened the money supply right as the economy was slumping, and then Congress passed a huge set of tariffs. Had those things not have happened and the Depression just been a less severe downturn it still would have started the 4T.

[pbrower2a]

(01-04-2017, 08:35 AM)Odin Wrote: The main reason the Great Depression got as bad as it did was because the Fed stupidly tightened the money supply right as the economy was slumping, and then Congress passed a huge set of tariffs. Had those things not have happened and the Depression just been a less severe downturn it still would have started the 4T.

We have a Congress and we will have a President callow enough to do much the same -- and undo the New Deal reforms that mitigated the Depression. Enjoy. (Irony intended.)

[SomeGuy]

(01-04-2017, 08:35 AM)Odin Wrote: The main reason the Great Depression got as bad as it did was because the Fed stupidly tightened the money supply right as the economy was slumping, and then Congress passed a huge set of tariffs. Had those things not have happened and the Depression just been a less severe downturn it still would have started the 4T.

As a (partial) example of this, Britain never experienced the same boom during the '20s, and had a somewhat more developed social safety net as the result of Liberal reforms during and prior to WWI.  While the industrial regions in the north and west experienced horrendous deprivation, the Home Counties actually grew during the 1930s and for the middle class, the 1930s were not too bad.  The Tories were dominant during most of this interwar period, and the big social programs that are a part and parcel of Britain's domestic life today were not instituted until after WWII.  Since I have long maintained that the (very rough) equivalent to WWI in this saeculum was the collapse of the Soviet Union, you could imagine the US' position today as being similar to a counterfactual scenario where tensions on the Continent led not to a general war (at least not one that Britain let itself get dragged into), but a wide-ranging collapse of entities like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and/or the Russian Empire from internal tensions, while Britain contented itself with further Liberal reforms (hotly contested by the Conservatives) and a more heavy-handed embroilment in Ireland and the rest of the Empire.  With, of course, the fundamental question of Germany and Japan's place in the international order still open.

Food for thought.

[TeacherinExile]

(01-03-2017, 04:57 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:We are in the same page.

I still don't see the outright dismissal of the Republican's/Trump's present position as being a potential regeneracy.  Happened at about the right time, leaders are mostly the right generational group, etc.  If they end up running US hegemony into a ditch, that could constitute a crisis conclusion of sorts.  The authors said there was no guarantee that the turning had to turn out well.

Actually, I'm not contradicting my previous post when I say that I agree with you.  Trump's economic policies--as neoliberal as they may be--could indeed ignite a regeneracy of sorts.  His proposed tax cuts and infrastructure investment can't help but stimulate the economy in the short run.  But if his combination of tax cuts and infrastructure spending accrues largely to the benefit of crony capitalists and/or the top 1 percent of earners, then that stimulus may prove fleeting, especially if it does little to lift the incomes of the working-and middle class.  In that case, the class resentment that Trump exploited to perfection in his campaign may reach a flashpoint.

Not that I'm comparing Trump to Hitler (I'll let others try to make that weak case), but the Fuhrer was perceived as a Gray Champion, at home and abroad...at first.  (Even made the cover of Time magazine, as did Trump last year).  Through large-scale rearmament and infrastructure spending, Hitler succeeded in stimulating a very depressed German economy.  But then he launched a world war, as we all know, and brought his Third Reich to utter ruin.

The key questions for me, and there are so many imponderables where Trump is concerned, is this: Will he be any more successful than was Obama--and the Fed--in achieving "escape velocity" for the US economy, one that not only generates self-sustaining growth, but a widely shared prosperity as well?  If America remains mired in "secular stagnation" after four years in office, how will our deeply divided country look then?  Throw in another financial crisis--which I fully expect at the back end of Trump's term in office--and I have to wonder if he and his team of billionaires and generals will be able to resolve it without repression.  I simply don't know, and neither does anyone else.  That's why one expert labeled his potential presidency as the "terror of the unknown."

[SomeGuy]

(01-04-2017, 11:52 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 04:57 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:We are in the same page.

I still don't see the outright dismissal of the Republican's/Trump's present position as being a potential regeneracy.  Happened at about the right time, leaders are mostly the right generational group, etc.  If they end up running US hegemony into a ditch, that could constitute a crisis conclusion of sorts.  The authors said there was no guarantee that the turning had to turn out well.

Actually, I'm not contradicting my previous post when I say that I agree with you.  Trump's economic policies--as neoliberal as they may be--could indeed ignite a regeneracy of sorts.  His proposed tax cuts and infrastructure investment can't help but stimulate the economy in the short run.  But if his combination of tax cuts and infrastructure spending accrues largely to the benefit of crony capitalists and/or the top 1 percent of earners, then that stimulus may prove fleeting, especially if it does little to lift the incomes of the working-and middle class.  In that case, the class resentment that Trump exploited to perfection in his campaign may reach a flashpoint.

Not that I'm comparing Trump to Hitler (I'll let others try to make that weak case), but the Fuhrer was perceived as a Gray Champion, at home and abroad...at first.  (Even made the cover of Time magazine, as did Trump last year).  Through large-scale rearmament and infrastructure spending, Hitler succeeded in stimulating a very depressed German economy.  But then he launched a world war, as we all know, and brought his Third Reich to utter ruin.

The key questions for me, and there are so many imponderables where Trump is concerned, is this: Will he be any more successful than was Obama--and the Fed--in achieving "escape velocity" for the US economy, one that not only generates self-sustaining growth, but a widely shared prosperity as well?  If America remains mired in "secular stagnation" after four years in office, how will our deeply divided country look then?  Throw in another financial crisis--which I fully expect at the back end of Trump's term in office--and I have to wonder if he and his team of billionaires and generals will be able to resolve it without repression.  I simply don't know, and neither does anyone else.  That's why one expert labeled his potential presidency as the "terror of the unknown."

We are in agreement.  Still in agreement, really.  Do you recall when I shared the sequence by John Michael Greer on the potential rise of "fascism" in America?  You have to admit, while he may not govern that way, his campaign was in fact an excellent example of the "totalitarian center". It would be worthwhile to read the whole sequence again, if you have the time. There is much to think about in there.

[pbrower2a]

(01-04-2017, 11:52 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Trump's economic policies--as neoliberal as they may be--could indeed ignite a regeneracy of sorts.  His proposed tax cuts and infrastructure investment can't help but stimulate the economy in the short run.  But if his combination of tax cuts and infrastructure spending accrues largely to the benefit of crony capitalists and/or the top 1 percent of earners, then that stimulus may prove fleeting, especially if it does little to lift the incomes of the working-and middle class.  In that case, the class resentment that Trump exploited to perfection in his campaign may reach a flashpoint.

Most likely, if somewhat successful initially, a capital-devouring bubble that creates an initial boom that denies long-term growth elsewhere, followed by a panic as in 1929 or 2008. With Donald Trump as President, any crash in which the solution of even bigger tax breaks to the rich and gutting of New Deal and Great Society, the economic consequences could be a more protracted downturn (both started with similar meltdowns) as the one beginning in 1929.

Quote:Not that I'm comparing Trump to Hitler (I'll let others try to make that weak case), but the Fuhrer was perceived as a Gray Champion, at home and abroad...at first.  (Even made the cover of Time magazine, as did Trump last year).  Through large-scale rearmament and infrastructure spending, Hitler succeeded in stimulating a very depressed German economy.  But then he launched a world war, as we all know, and brought his Third Reich to utter ruin.

He's probably more like Juan Peron than like Adolf Hitler. His wife could be Evita.

Quote:The key questions for me, and there are so many imponderables where Trump is concerned, is this: Will he be any more successful than was Obama--and the Fed--in achieving "escape velocity" for the US economy, one that not only generates self-sustaining growth, but a widely shared prosperity as well?  If America remains mired in "secular stagnation" after four years in office, how will our deeply divided country look then?  Throw in another financial crisis--which I fully expect at the back end of Trump's term in office--and I have to wonder if he and his team of billionaires and generals will be able to resolve it without repression.  I simply don't know, and neither does anyone else.  That's why one expert labeled his potential presidency as the "terror of the unknown."

I expect Donald Trump to look out first and only for the Master Class, dedicating the government to facilitating the flow of wealth and power to economic elites at the expense of everyone else even if such creates mass suffering -- as do majorities in both Houses of Congress. I am reasonably certain that he and Congress will find ways to ensure that Republicans do not lose any elections that they do not wish to lose.

Democracy dies in America on January 20.

[SomeGuy]

Out of curiosity, Eeyore, why are you still in Michigan?

[TeacherinExile]

(01-04-2017, 12:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-04-2017, 11:52 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 04:57 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:We are in the same page.

I still don't see the outright dismissal of the Republican's/Trump's present position as being a potential regeneracy.  Happened at about the right time, leaders are mostly the right generational group, etc.  If they end up running US hegemony into a ditch, that could constitute a crisis conclusion of sorts.  The authors said there was no guarantee that the turning had to turn out well.

Actually, I'm not contradicting my previous post when I say that I agree with you.  Trump's economic policies--as neoliberal as they may be--could indeed ignite a regeneracy of sorts.  His proposed tax cuts and infrastructure investment can't help but stimulate the economy in the short run.  But if his combination of tax cuts and infrastructure spending accrues largely to the benefit of crony capitalists and/or the top 1 percent of earners, then that stimulus may prove fleeting, especially if it does little to lift the incomes of the working-and middle class.  In that case, the class resentment that Trump exploited to perfection in his campaign may reach a flashpoint.

Not that I'm comparing Trump to Hitler (I'll let others try to make that weak case), but the Fuhrer was perceived as a Gray Champion, at home and abroad...at first.  (Even made the cover of Time magazine, as did Trump last year).  Through large-scale rearmament and infrastructure spending, Hitler succeeded in stimulating a very depressed German economy.  But then he launched a world war, as we all know, and brought his Third Reich to utter ruin.

The key questions for me, and there are so many imponderables where Trump is concerned, is this: Will he be any more successful than was Obama--and the Fed--in achieving "escape velocity" for the US economy, one that not only generates self-sustaining growth, but a widely shared prosperity as well?  If America remains mired in "secular stagnation" after four years in office, how will our deeply divided country look then?  Throw in another financial crisis--which I fully expect at the back end of Trump's term in office--and I have to wonder if he and his team of billionaires and generals will be able to resolve it without repression.  I simply don't know, and neither does anyone else.  That's why one expert labeled his potential presidency as the "terror of the unknown."

We are in agreement.  Still in agreement, really.  Do you recall when I shared the sequence by John Michael Greer on the potential rise of "fascism" in America?  You have to admit, while he may not govern that way, his campaign was in fact an excellent example of the "totalitarian center".  It would be worthwhile to read the whole sequence again, if you have the time.  There is much to think about in there.

I will check it out...though I should say that I have pored over many a scholarly book on the subject of fascism so far this millennium.

On the previous forum, I started a thread titled "Donald Trump: The Real Danger That He Poses."  I was wrong in that I ruled out his winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.  My real concern at the time was not so much that Trump was a fascist, per se, though his demeanor and pronouncements certainly give some evidence of fascistic tendencies.  What deeply troubled me was that there was a core constituency susceptible to his dangerous message, if not now, then later on down the line.  Which is why I saw him as more of a proto-fascist (he who paves the way for the real thing).  Some in the media (Andrew Sullivan, and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame) went even further than I, calling Trump a neo-fascist. 

Turns out that that core constituency--however you want to characterize them--was sufficiently large to get Trump elected.  He now exercises maximal--though hopefully not absolute--power.  He will soon have all three branches of government behind him, at least until the mid-term elections.  (So much for "checks and balances.")  Of course, the Constitution is the ultimate check on his power.  Let us all hope that it does not come down to that.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:I will check it out...though I should say that I have pored over many a scholarly book on the subject of fascism so far this millennium.

Like I said, you've read it before.  I'm sure you'll recognize it when you start reading it.

Quote:On the previous forum, I started a thread titled "Donald Trump: The Real Danger That He Poses."

I remember, that was where we previously had this discussion.  Think of this one as a recap, now that the election is over.

Quote:I was wrong in that I ruled out his winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.  My real concern at the time was not so much that Trump was a fascist, per se, though his demeanor and pronouncements certainly give some evidence of fascistic tendencies.  What deeply troubled me was that there was a core constituency susceptible to his dangerous message, if not now, then later on down the line.  Which is why I saw him as more of a proto-fascist (he who paves the way for the real thing).  Some in the media (Andrew Sullivan, and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame) went even further than I, calling Trump a neo-fascist.  

Turns out that that core constituency--however you want to characterize them--was sufficiently large to get Trump elected.  He now exercises maximal--though hopefully not absolute--power.  He will soon have all three branches of government behind him, at least until the mid-term elections.  (So much for "checks and balances.")  Of course, the Constitution is the ultimate check on his power.  Let us all hope that it does not come down to that.

I did not take Trump seriously for a long time, and was equally dismissive of his chances, both on that thread and in RL.  And I say this as a man who ended up voting for him.  I agree that he is filling the space that in the hands of a more serious demagogue could lead to, you know, actual fascism (or, rather, its 21st century American equivalent.  The situations here and in Weimar Germany are by no means identical).

I think what would be worthwhile for you to consider is that having a Donald Trump in that role is by no means the worst case scenario.

[TeacherinExile]

(01-04-2017, 03:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:I will check it out...though I should say that I have pored over many a scholarly book on the subject of fascism so far this millennium.

Like I said, you've read it before.  I'm sure you'll recognize it when you start reading it.

Quote:On the previous forum, I started a thread titled "Donald Trump: The Real Danger That He Poses."

I remember, that was where we previously had this discussion.  Think of this one as a recap, now that the election is over.

Quote:I was wrong in that I ruled out his winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.  My real concern at the time was not so much that Trump was a fascist, per se, though his demeanor and pronouncements certainly give some evidence of fascistic tendencies.  What deeply troubled me was that there was a core constituency susceptible to his dangerous message, if not now, then later on down the line.  Which is why I saw him as more of a proto-fascist (he who paves the way for the real thing).  Some in the media (Andrew Sullivan, and Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame) went even further than I, calling Trump a neo-fascist.  

Turns out that that core constituency--however you want to characterize them--was sufficiently large to get Trump elected.  He now exercises maximal--though hopefully not absolute--power.  He will soon have all three branches of government behind him, at least until the mid-term elections.  (So much for "checks and balances.")  Of course, the Constitution is the ultimate check on his power.  Let us all hope that it does not come down to that.

I did not take Trump seriously for a long time, and was equally dismissive of his chances, both on that thread and in RL.  And I say this as a man who ended up voting for him.  I agree that he is filling the space that in the hands of a more serious demagogue could lead to, you know, actual fascism (or, rather, its 21st century American equivalent.  The situations here and in Weimar Germany are by no means identical).

I think what would be worthwhile for you to consider is that having a Donald Trump in that role is by no means the worst case scenario.

Indeed.  Trump, for all his megalomania, may well prove benign in the end: America's Berlusconi.