I'd like to preface this post with a few solid examples that demonstrate in themselves why I have completely disaffiliated myself with anything approaching American conservatism:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...e-on-our-side/

“We will never have the elite, smart people on our side,” he said, “because they believe they should have the power to tell you what to do. So our colleges and universities, they’re not going to be on our side.”

- Rick Santorum

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/20...-is-important/

Apparently speaking to his suburban, middle-class base, he struck a populist tone: “Those who, you know, live in high-rise apartment buildings writing for fancy newspapers in the middle of town after they ride the metro, who don’t understand that for most Americans the ability to buy a home, to have their own property, to have a sense of belonging is one of the greatest achievements of their life, and it makes them feel like they are good solid citizens,” he told the crowd.

- Newt Gingrich

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

- Ronald Reagan


I am fundamentally opposed to populism of any kind - be it economic or social, the rhetoric of the "oppressed majority" galls me in ways that almost manifest within me physically.

This, by rights, should place me firmly in the "conservative" camp in politics (setting aside the fact that I object to the phraseology of "conservatism" and "Tradition" altogether, as I reject both concepts thoroughly). I certainly would have been abjectly hostile to the populist tradition in American politics as embodied by e.g. William Jennings Bryan, the "Great Commoner", and would have happily voted as many times as possible for William McKinley in 1896.

Bryan was positioned firmly on the Left within the political framework of his day - and yet it is the Right today which galls me, and has ever since the sainted Ronnie Raygun delivered The Speech back in 1964.

Why is this?

An excerpt from the December 2008 edition of Taki's Magazine, on the intellectual relationship between H.L. Mencken and William Buckley, and of both to Friedrich Nietzsche (and of all of these to the idea of the Antichrist), might help to explain my feelings.

Before William F. Buckley settled on writing God and Man at Yale in 1951, the 25 year-old had something quite different in mind as a debut volume. Buckley planned, and may have begun drafting, a book caustically entitled Revolt Against the Masses, his full-frontal assault on New Soviet Man, as well as Mass Man, American-style, waiting to be born in his home country. The targets would have been the New Deal, central economic planning, and the regnant egalitarian thinking . Or at least, that’s how I imagine it. But I don’t think I’m too off the mark. As Jeffrey Hart relates, later in life Buckley would famously say that he’d rather be governed by the first two hundred names in the Boston phonebook than all the dons at Harvard; however, his instincts were never populist and were originally fast aristocratic. And, in my mind, Buckley started out in an intellectual place more interesting than where he ended up...

The choice of the word “Right,” as opposed to “conservative,” is significant. For at the time, “conservative” lacked its current connotations and was generally a term of derision, synonymous with “backwards.” Moreover, the Old Right was composed of many former liberals and progressives: including Robert LaFollette, John T. Flynn, and, notably, Mencken and Nock. But most importantly, the Old Right was simply not “conservative,” strictly speaking, in that its leaders didn’t want to preserve or protect the status quo—to the contrary.


Mencken is an excellent example in this regard. He is, of course, most famous for his hilarious barbs against the rural and uncouth. Menckenisms like “booboisie,” “Bible Belt,” and “Monkey Trial” (the name Mencken gave to the 1925 legal proceedings against John Scopes for the teaching of evolution in Dayton county), have entered the vernacular. Someone like William Jennings Bryan, the evangelical prairie populist, would seem to embody most every aspect of Americana Mencken despised—a demagogue “animated by the ambition of a common man to get his hand upon the collar of his superiors, or failing that, to get his thumb into their eyes.”


But beyond sniping at philistines, Mencken pursued a much broader critique of American society, and of American political culture in particular. Mencken became notorious for calling Roosevelt a fraud and would-be dictator, while most of the rest of press was at his feet, but then Mencken had also opposed Herbert Hoover, as Rothbard describes it, for being a “pro-war Wilsonian and interventionist, the Food Czar of the [First World W]ar, the champion of Big Government, of high tariffs and business cartels, the pious moralist and apologist for Prohibition,” a president who “embod[ed] everything [he] abhorred in American life … conservative statism.” Terry Teachout has described Mencken as leading an American “adversary culture” before such a term had currency.

There was, at one point in this country, a form of right-wing politics that was not conservative - it saw no point in retaining outmoded social forms and patterns of thought that were self-evident failures - and, moreover, quite comfortable in destroying the sorts of shucksters and Hucksters who have peddled e.g. the recent Duck Dynasty imbroglio as a means of convincing the Poor Oppressed Majority that they are, in fact, Oppressed - and consequentially, of course, in the Moral Right, as all those who are Oppressed are.

Speaking of Nietzsche, he recognized this phenomenon, named it and shamed it: he called it ressentiment. We see this at work in the hearts of posters on our very own forum, who have never met a cross they have not wanted to nail themselves upon.

The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye—this need to direct one's view outward instead of back to oneself—is of the essence of ressentiment; in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all—its action is fundamentally reaction.

(On The Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Part Ten)

I will never call myself 'conservative'. There is nothing worthy of conservation within the American political tradition. But, under alternative circumstances, I could easily see myself aligning with some form of right-wing politics - one that draws on Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer, and Mencken, and other intellectual leading lights like Julius Evola and Alain de Benoist. It would not be a Racist right - racism, like patriotism and religion, is a refuge for those who take pride in the abstract because they have no pride in themselves - but it would certainly acknowledge difference (Différance, even) and rejoice in it, rather than trying to level the sociocultural playing-field by appealing to the world culturally collectivist elements of the American electorate.

Or shall we be perpetually stuck with this?

To sweeten the pot with regards to replies to this thread:

Do our resident generational clairvoyants predict the possibility of a revival of this form of right-wing populists in the coming saeculum?

(For the record, and to stave off any criticisms at the pass, I am most certainly not a fan of Ayn Rand, for a multitude of reasons - not the least of which because she believe in Objective Morality and, hence, Objectivism. Also, she plagiarized my namesake Max Stirner without crediting him, and badly mutilated his philosophy in the process.)

Absolutely no hope for elitism in the next two saecula. Automation and mass comm have rendered the elites into a position of being an imposition, rather than an asset. While I think the claims of a scarcity free economy are over blown, we have limited scarcity enough that it is the consumer, not the producer or the owner that is the desirable role, and the problem the elites face is that they have all that money and no way to spend it all. Diminished value for owners and workers means that they absolutely must take on the servant's posture to retain the benefits of their position, and I imagine that the number of elite positions will reduce. All around bad times for people who want to believe that they are better than other people.

Note well that I do not advocate for economic 'elitism', which I'd define as an artificial hierarchical stratification of society through the selective effects of interlocking corporate and governmental policies designed to support corporate-capitalism to the exclusion of other forms of economic organization.

I've made it pretty clear in the past that, in economics, I consider myself firmly on the Left, albeit a part of the Left that has been completely excluded from public debate since at least the First Red Scare: 'anarchism' in the traditional syndicalist/industrial unionist sense, albeit updated for the modern technological paradigm (I would like to see the promotion of desktop manufacturing technologies, for instance, in the hopes that they might gradually personalize industrial manufacturing).

The type of elitism I'm referring to is primarily rhetorical, and is almost exclusively cultural, or even spiritual: aristocratic radicalism. In the main, this form of aristocracy is self-defined and self-selecting, and is actively opposed to largely arbitrary social structures like the stock market that promote a certain kind of 'elite' at the expense of another kind.

To a large extent I, actually, am kind of sympathetic to the poster Cynic's stated ideology though I feel he's confused in his rhetorical approach (and in his foreign policy views).

An example as applied to a contemporary concern within the context of this saeculum: gay marriage.

An egalitarian liberal, a milquetoast libertarian and myself agree completely on the practical aspect of gay marriage; it ought to be available nationwide to anyone who wants to enter into one. In terms of pure policy, the results would largely be the same, even if the means differ.

But our rationales differ: the liberal holds his view out of an externally-oriented belief in objective rights which can be universalized and abstracted; the libertarian has acquired his from an externally-oriented belief in objective liberties that also apply to all men everywhere. An aristocratic radical, however, is internally-oriented; rather than holding to an absolutist view of Rights or Freedom, he instead holds that gay marriage ought to be available because man is self-defining and the ritual of marriage is essential for some people to achieve that self-definition. In this it is contextually related to the aforementioned (small-case 'o')bjectivist views, but he reaches that position from a different set of assumptions.

The radical is also more likely to characterize gay marriage's opponents differently. The liberal and libertarian will view them as bigots who act from a position of power to reinforce their prevailing power structure. But - and this is essential - the aristocrat will view them as weaklings, acting out of a position of powerlessness and who, for want of power, is more than willing to position themselves as an inferior to achieve the status of 'victim' and thereby to justify their views in the eyes of other moral objectivists.

Cultural aristocracy is directly related to economic aristocracy. You can't have one without the other as there is nothing of value to protect behind it, and no value to push someone ahead of the pack. The closest thing you'll get to this in this saecula is the douchey "unboxing" videos on YouTube. Hipsters, who believe their discerning purchases some how make them superior to other people. I mean, that's really about the closest thing you'll get to a cultural elite that is devoid of economic injustice... Hipsters. And considering that they're considered the cultural equivalent of disease infested rats to pretty much the entirety of all other culture, including subculture and the dominant pop culture, I don't see them catching on as a dominant force in the culture.

I sympathize with the Nietzchean view. I moved away from it to some extent. I agree that the slave morality is suspect because it depends on the idea that we are weaklings and thus victims. Sometimes though, our power seems limited. even if the potential is there, it is obvious that we have not realized it. And so there are people who are weak and strong in the world, and the proper response is more aligned with Christianity and Buddhism I think: compassion. Those whom we liberals call bigots, I agree are acting out of this same weakness, from the other side. We can have compassion for them too, not from the Nietzchean view, but from the opposite Christian view, that we "forgive them for they know not what they do." Or the Buddhist view, that we all suffer, including bigots, because of our fears and cravings, which we can overcome with spiritual practice. Nevertheless, the bigots must be politically defeated, and if possible educated.

Ultimately, the new age movement is the key. It is counterproductive to our future to call it a cult. It is self-development and liberation, including liberation from limited views of "self."

We are self-defining, and we need to be free to express what is within us. We are also connected, to society, culture, the economy, the Earth and the sky. Everything that we are, is also everything outside us, and comes to us from outside us. And everything we perceive outside, is thereby within us. What I define myself as, comes also from what I love that I have experienced from others. So the self-definition approach does not make sense unless it's in context with our participation in the One. The One and the Many ones, Unity within Diversity, is the way of the future.

Do we call that populism or elitism? Populism, in the sense that this realization, this creative freedom, is the birthright of every being. Elitism, in the sense that what we each do and create cannot be conceived as equal to everything else we or others do and create. There is good and bad art, good and bad music, right and wrong actions too. Which is more of an objective elitism, as opposed to your subjective elitism, I guess. Although Nietzsche said that although there is no good and evil, there is definitely good and bad! But there is no written or measurable standard, or appointed or self-appointed judge, to finally determine this good and bad. We just have our best guess or approximation to the truth. In that sense, we're back to some kind of subjective populism. I'm not sure what the labels are. They can confuse and divide.

I once thought there are probably no objective standards or morals, but now I just say there are, but there's no-one who can judge them or put them in writing to be valid for all, because such standards are ineffable and beyond any words or labels. I was for a while an anti-Platonist and existentialist (a label pinned on Nietzsche), but now I am a Neo-Platonic hermeticist somewhere between the two. I worked that out in my college paper. So there are universal archetypes, I hold, but they are embedded in the changing world of experience. Archetypal and Existential are interdependent polarities, like yin and yang, or form and becoming, actual and potential; as described in quantum physics. (not acceptable to vandal, of course )

An example of the abysmal political and spiritual failure that is right-wing populism: pollster Frank Luntz.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-luntz/282766/

Luntz's work has always been predicated on a sort of populism—the idea that politicians must figure out what voters want to hear, and speak to them in language that comports with it. He proudly claims that his famous catchphrases, like branding healthcare reform a "government takeover" in 2010, are not his coinages but the organic product of his focus groups. The disheveled appearance, the sardonic wit, all add up to a sort of tilting against the establishment, an insistence that it listen to the Real People.

But what if the Real People are wrong? That is the possibility Luntz now grapples with. What if the things people want to hear from their leaders are ideas that would lead the country down a dangerous road?


"You should not expect a handout," he tells me. "You should not even expect a safety net. When my house burns down, I should not go to the government to rebuild it. I should have the savings, and if I don't, my neighbors should pitch in for me, because I would do that for them." The entitlement he now hears from the focus groups he convenes amounts, in his view, to a permanent poisoning of the electorate—one that cannot be undone. "We have now created a sense of dependency and a sense of entitlement that is so great that you had, on the day that he was elected, women thinking that Obama was going to pay their mortgage payment, and that's why they voted for him," he says. "And that, to me, is the end of what made this country so great."

...


Most of all, Luntz says, he wishes we would stop yelling at one another. Luntz dreams of drafting some of the rich CEOs he is friends with to come up with a plan for saving America from its elected officials. "The politicians have failed; now it's up to the business community to stand up and be heard," he tells me. "I want the business community to step up." Having once thought elites needed to listen to regular people, he now wants the people to learn from their moneyed betters.


Luntz's populism has turned on itself and become its opposite: fear and loathing of the masses. "I am grateful that Occupy Wall Street turned out to be a bunch of crazy, disgusting, rude, horrible people, because they were onto something," he says. "Limbaugh made fun of me when I said that Occupy Wall Street scares me. Because he didn't hear what I hear. He doesn't see what I see." The people are angry. They want more, not because we have not given them enough but because we have given them too much.

For at least sixty years now the Right in this nation has relied on plucky, populistic appeals to the "forgotten man", the Silent Majority. I delight in taking notice of the existential crisis these socialists-of-the-spirit are going through now that they realize that their very own rhetoric has empowered a movement - away from them.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Absolutely no hope for elitism in the next two saecula. Automation and mass comm have rendered the elites into a position of being an imposition, rather than an asset. While I think the claims of a scarcity free economy are over blown, we have limited scarcity enough that it is the consumer, not the producer or the owner that is the desirable role, and the problem the elites face is that they have all that money and no way to spend it all. Diminished value for owners and workers means that they absolutely must take on the servant's posture to retain the benefits of their position, and I imagine that the number of elite positions will reduce. All around bad times for people who want to believe that they are better than other people.

H-m-m-m. I see the Gold Rule applying here: he who has the gold makes the rules. In the long run, there will have to be an accommodation, but why should we expect it to degrade the elites in any way? If they can survive until the need for labor subsides to a mere fraction of what we need now, then they can enjoy a nice life without concerning themselves about us in any way.

Historically, the only way an entrenched elite has been displaced is by violence or the credible threat of violence. I don't see either on the hoizon, and, frankly, the Millenials are not showing any interest in the political process - the only potential non-viloent option.

Read "Will Digital Networks Ruin Us" from today's NY Times, and include a good sample of the comments. We're not the only ones discussing these issues.

People actually may be craving Nationalism. Many suffer from burn out vis a vis Globalism. These are populist elements that could actually help build unity as opposed to a dumb sort of populism that lashes out with no focus against "elites." Take a look at so called "Paleoconservatives" like Buchanan. There are a number of objectionable aspects to that creed. I cannot abide by some of the racial notions or the idea that we should not pursue preemptive war. A Nationalist majority does exist. Most people want strong borders and decry the race to the bottom. But they would not go for some of the crap that Buchanan spews. You could probably do a TRIZ matrix that would harvest the strengths of all the current splintered factions and emerge with a wonderful national program. It could appeal to all races, ethnic groups and classes (other than certain 1%ers who are anti Nationalist and lo, in fact, anti American to the core). Just watch what happens as the 4T devolves into global conflict that will shake our existence as a nation to its core. Many new ideas will see the light of day.

You miss the point. The problems of civilization are not imposed from above, as if by divine fiat. They are caused and sustained by the beatified People themselves. Today this means primarily fat retirees whn ride their Hoverounds into the Culture War as though they were chariots of old, out of envy for their superiors and in defense of the True Faith.

Nationalism is repugnant, a parody of social organization, and I do not care whether it is the right-wing nationalism of a Franco or the pseudo-revolutionary nationalism of a Peron. Pat Buchanan is human filth who excuses the failures of the American white working class by leveling the blame at the very trade policies his eidolon Reagan enacted. Away with this idea that, because we speak in kind, we are of a kind! At times one feels more commonality with a South American like Borges than with a Norteamericano like Phil Robertson.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. I see the Gold Rule applying here: he who has the gold makes the rules. In the long run, there will have to be an accommodation, but why should we expect it to degrade the elites in any way? If they can survive until the need for labor subsides to a mere fraction of what we need now, then they can enjoy a nice life without concerning themselves about us in any way.

Cheap labor has a price. Part is that people lose their motivation to work as conscientiously as they would if paid fairly. The tax base shrinks, so public services such as education that create productivity vanish. Destitute people are more vulnerable to disease and malnutrition which sap ability. People who have the ability to leave do so. People with talent and entrepreneurial ability emigrate to where such has rewards.

Historically, the only way an entrenched elite has been displaced is by violence or the credible threat of violence. I don't see either on the horizon, and, frankly, the Millenials are not showing any interest in the political process - the only potential non-violent option.

Voting is the last option before tyranny. General strikes are not good enough. Elites devoid of conscience but full of themselves can usually turn to death squads. The ultimate solution is military defeat in which the brutal oppressors are discredited and dispossessed, and the most egregious among the cruel may be exterminated. Such happened with Germany in the last 4T.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Nationalism is repugnant, a parody of social organization, and I do not care whether it is the right-wing nationalism of a Franco or the pseudo-revolutionary nationalism of a Peron. Pat Buchanan is human filth who excuses the failures of the American white working class by leveling the blame at the very trade policies his eidolon Reagan enacted. Away with this idea that, because we speak in kind, we are of a kind! At times one feels more commonality with a South American like Borges than with a Norteamericano like Phil Robertson.

Pat Buchanan blames humanity for the failure of his pet ideas. When will that catch up to him?

One of the hallmarks of fascism is nationalism -- rabid nationalism, the sort that deifies the Nation at the expense of the People, one that uses national identity as an excuse for preventing people from thinking outside of a prescribed range of ideas imposed from above. Liberalism is internationalist. An American liberal has no problem with the idea that more of his classical CDs have music composed by Czechs, Finns, or Hungarians (nationalities with small numbers) than by Americans. Humbling, isn't it? So go ahead and enjoy your recordings of Dvorak, Sibelius, and Bartok without guilt.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. I see the Gold Rule applying here: he who has the gold makes the rules. In the long run, there will have to be an accommodation, but why should we expect it to degrade the elites in any way? If they can survive until the need for labor subsides to a mere fraction of what we need now, then they can enjoy a nice life without concerning themselves about us in any way.

Historically, the only way an entrenched elite has been displaced is by violence or the credible threat of violence. I don't see either on the hoizon, and, frankly, the Millenials are not showing any interest in the political process - the only potential non-viloent option.

Read "Will Digital Networks Ruin Us" from today's NY Times, and include a good sample of the comments. We're not the only ones discussing these issues.

The problem is that the elites have a basic, but unavoidable problem: laborers and consumers are often the same thing. As more and more laborers are turned away because of automation, either consumption will decrease, devaluing their assets or prices will rise, creating an environment where consumption decreases, devaluing their assets. Automation and population tapering already makes for bad markets by the end of next 2T, but money tapering is going to be a huge issue for markets as Gen X tasks over the Boomer hot seat for spending expectations and can't maintain, and behind them are Millennials who not only can't afford to, but don't want to. Before the real estate bust, I knew several couples who bought a new car every year. Even if this were possible, Millennials probably wouldn't do it. You can sell the odd peripheral gadget, but it has to be priced right, and the way things are going, there's enough free stuff out there to keep lots of people entertained for nearly an infinite amount of time. In other words, the elites will be forced to spend more than they can earn, and that creates a punishment, as opposed to reward, system for elite vs. elite competition.

Also, I'll point out that violence isn't entirely off the table. Millennial didn't have a strong showing for gun control legislation. They maybe keeping that one in their back pocket. Now, if violence becomes an option, it's unlikely that it will be the site of violence we got out of the civil war because no matter how you slice the pie, you're usually talking about one side of millennial eclipsing the minority by a large margin. Nobody is willing to fight an obviously losing war, especially considering Iraq and Afghanistan. My thoughts are it will resemble more of an execution than a war.

Also, Millennial aren't particularly politically active largely because they remain unengaged by politicians. 2008 was misread by most democrats, because they didn't pay attention to the key facts that made Obama a hit with Millennials while Hillary wasn't. They instead choose to believe that this game changing block of people just showed up in 2008 to plug into their agenda. They also misread 2010, instead choosing to believe that people suddenly decided to become more conservative. They didn't understand what people needed, and they aren't engaging a significant wing of what could be their base. Now, because of this, who wants to be a democratic candidate? Not Millennials. Nobody wants to be in congress with the possibility of being the only not sucking member there. All you'd be able to do is vote no and pick first fights in hopes you'd have an old man willing to swing first on you so you could fight a democrat or a republican without too much heat...

Leading to a third possibility: Millennials are holding for a specific event before they take the opportunity to take that crown. In that event, likely it will be populist and potentially the same angry executions and guarantees of punishment against an elite that totally failed them. All factors to me point to elites losing ground.

Said event that awakens the Millenials will occur too late to help me. And, I will be lucky, compared to X. At least I will be dead.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The problem is that the elites have a basic, but unavoidable problem: laborers and consumers are often the same thing. As more and more laborers are turned away because of automation, either consumption will decrease, devaluing their assets or prices will rise, creating an environment where consumption decreases, devaluing their assets. Automation and population tapering already makes for bad markets by the end of next 2T, but money tapering is going to be a huge issue for markets as Gen X tasks over the Boomer hot seat for spending expectations and can't maintain, and behind them are Millennials who not only can't afford to, but don't want to. Before the real estate bust, I knew several couples who bought a new car every year. Even if this were possible, Millennials probably wouldn't do it. You can sell the odd peripheral gadget, but it has to be priced right, and the way things are going, there's enough free stuff out there to keep lots of people entertained for nearly an infinite amount of time. In other words, the elites will be forced to spend more than they can earn, and that creates a punishment, as opposed to reward, system for elite vs. elite competition.

You assume the current economic model will still apply when this finally occurs. In the not-to-distant future, automation will be augmented by robotics and AI, or at least robust expert systems, to the point that almost all human labor will no longer important ... or even necessary. Yes, some human specialists will be needed, but not many. The oldest profession will survive, to name one that's hard to replace with a robots.

The cost maintain them will lbe minimal, in the grand scheme of things. With production managaed by self-replicating machines, little will be needed that cannot be obtained for free - though the elites are not likely to share out side their clans.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Also, I'll point out that violence isn't entirely off the table. Millennial didn't have a strong showing for gun control legislation. They maybe keeping that one in their back pocket. Now, if violence becomes an option, it's unlikely that it will be the site of violence we got out of the civil war because no matter how you slice the pie, you're usually talking about one side of millennial eclipsing the minority by a large margin. Nobody is willing to fight an obviously losing war, especially considering Iraq and Afghanistan. My thoughts are it will resemble more of an execution than a war.

Society is far too complex for a reveolution of any type. Massive low-level resistance is more likely. Tiny minorities rely on the majority playing by the rules they set. When that ceases to function, their grip loosens then finally withers away. This will not be a rapid process, unless it occurs in this 4T. If it drags-on, it will probably emerge as a disruptive 2T.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Also, Millennial aren't particularly politically active largely because they remain unengaged by politicians. 2008 was misread by most democrats, because they didn't pay attention to the key facts that made Obama a hit with Millennials while Hillary wasn't. They instead choose to believe that this game changing block of people just showed up in 2008 to plug into their agenda. They also misread 2010, instead choosing to believe that people suddenly decided to become more conservative. They didn't understand what people needed, and they aren't engaging a significant wing of what could be their base. Now, because of this, who wants to be a democratic candidate? Not Millennials. Nobody wants to be in congress with the possibility of being the only not sucking member there. All you'd be able to do is vote no and pick first fights in hopes you'd have an old man willing to swing first on you so you could fight a democrat or a republican without too much heat...

This is whining. Were Boomer engaged by politicians before we took to the streets? No. Politics of this kind has to bubble-up from below, though leaders are a must. I don't see an leaders.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Leading to a third possibility: Millennials are holding for a specific event before they take the opportunity to take that crown. In that event, likely it will be populist and potentially the same angry executions and guarantees of punishment against an elite that totally failed them. All factors to me point to elites losing ground.

Have you read or attended a performance of "Waiting for Godot"? If not, you should. It applies here.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Said event that awakens the Millenials will occur too late to help me. And, I will be lucky, compared to X. At least I will be dead.

H-m-m-m. No pain at room temprature.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Leading to a third possibility: Millennials are holding for a specific event before they take the opportunity to take that crown. In that event, likely it will be populist and potentially the same angry executions and guarantees of punishment against an elite that totally failed them. All factors to me point to elites losing ground.

Another possibility. Millennials are so disgusted by the stubborn, emotional, activist aspect of Boomer behavior that they would rather live in misery than become activist.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Another possibility. Millennials are so disgusted by the stubborn, emotional, activist aspect of Boomer behavior that they would rather live in misery than become activist.

I don't think that they want to live in misery anymore than anyone else does. Maybe they don't think that public action will do any good. Let's face it joining Occupy and going to a rally unarmed often got one pepper sprayed whereas tea Party types often went to their rallies heavily armed and the authorities never batted an eyelash.

If a millie does have a chance at the rare good job out there being noted for activism will quash any dreams for private life happiness.

They have hopes for a future to lose for the system has not appeared to be so broken yet that they feel that they have nothing left to lose.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

People actually may be craving Nationalism. Many suffer from burn out vis a vis Globalism. These are populist elements that could actually help build unity as opposed to a dumb sort of populism that lashes out with no focus against "elites." Take a look at so called "Paleoconservatives" like Buchanan. There are a number of objectionable aspects to that creed. I cannot abide by some of the racial notions or the idea that we should not pursue preemptive war. A Nationalist majority does exist. Most people want strong borders and decry the race to the bottom. But they would not go for some of the crap that Buchanan spews. You could probably do a TRIZ matrix that would harvest the strengths of all the current splintered factions and emerge with a wonderful national program. It could appeal to all races, ethnic groups and classes (other than certain 1%ers who are anti Nationalist and lo, in fact, anti American to the core). Just watch what happens as the 4T devolves into global conflict that will shake our existence as a nation to its core. Many new ideas will see the light of day.

I wonder if people crave nationalism. I think it is becoming obvious that nations are abstractions and arbitrary borders. John Lennon seems to resonate with a lot of people, judging by how popular Imagine is. With so much racial and ethnic diversity in nations now, the whole idea of a "nation" may be striking people as more and more ridiculous. Strong borders is only a concern with a few zenophobics like Buchanan, and it's a concern that has no future. We are all one people on one Earth; period. And there can never be any justification for preemptive war (on that issue Buchanan is right). Iraq has soured Americans and people everywhere on that idea. War is out of date and is rapidly becoming obsolete; it always was nonsense, and it's just a matter of people growing up. War between nations is a hell of needless horror and sadism, we don't need it, and there's not going to be any global war in this 4T.

It does seem though that there is support for more local control and preservation of local cultures. Globalization is inevitable, and the prime condition and destiny of our times. But does that mean we have to surrender to one global power? Not only a magnified UN, but a few monolithic corporations who decide everything and create a monoculture? Unity only makes sense within diversity, including more local control that does not overwhelm and reduce the people to consumers of one big company or subjects of one distant state. That is why we need something besides free trade (as for example the proposed "Pacific Partnership") that operates solely for the profit of a few big international companies. On this issue, people like Buchanan might touch a resonant chord with people, and there may be more "battles in Seattle."

But what if progressives get there first? And if they listen to a certain voice on this forum, they will!

Turn gun control upside down by pointing out that without the Sullivan Law etc., there can be no Stop And Frisk; if you close the borders, competition for jobs goes down, wages go up, and unions get stronger; and Islamism must be fought tooth-and-nail because it is misogynistic and homophobic.

Who wins this race - counterintuitive liberals, or counterintuitive conservatives?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what if progressives get there first? And if they listen to a certain voice on this forum, they will!

Turn gun control upside down by pointing out that without the Sullivan Law etc., there can be no Stop And Frisk; if you close the borders, competition for jobs goes down, wages go up, and unions get stronger; and Islamism must be fought tooth-and-nail because it is misogynistic and homophobic.

Who wins this race - counterintuitive liberals, or counterintuitive conservatives?

Progressives won't go for the close the borders stuff. You lose as much as you gain regarding jobs and unions through closing off immigration (or failing despite trying to do so, which is what really happens). Wages don't go down because of poor immigrants competing for low wage jobs. I do think that deliberate searches by employers for smart people from India and such hurts employment, but that's not a "close the border" problem, but a lack of education problem, because the conservatives have cut back on public education and tried to privatize it. Wages have fallen because of conservative policies, like free trade, and inequality caused by cutbacks in social programs and weakened unions. We may not need to "close the borders" to people, though sensible regulation makes sense; but regulating goods crossing borders also makes sense. And since big business gets rich off "greater productivity" (firing workers and giving their jobs to machines), they should have to pay something to help support the people whose jobs they take away with all this "productivity."

Drastic, anger-driven, racist and fanatical policies like yours are not likely to win the day. Insulting and striking at all "Islamists," instead of strategic moves to counter terrorism, will only create more trouble for us. We may need to fight Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups, or support those who do, and guard against them at home, but if we fight them by bombing and droning their people, we create more enemies. If we adopt the mentality of those we oppose, we can't expect to achieve our goals. Talking like "fighting Islamists tooth and nail," like you and Mr. Cynic Hero do, only makes America hated in the world and bankrupt at home.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Progressives won't go for the close the borders stuff. You lose as much as you gain regarding jobs and unions through closing off immigration (or failing despite trying to do so, which is what really happens). Wages don't go down because of poor immigrants competing for low wage jobs. I do think that deliberate searches by employers for smart people from India and such hurts employment, but that's not a "close the border" problem, but a lack of education problem, because the conservatives have cut back on public education and tried to privatize it. Wages have fallen because of conservative policies, like free trade, and inequality caused by cutbacks in social programs and weakened unions. We may not need to "close the borders" to people, though sensible regulation makes sense; but regulating goods crossing borders also makes sense. And since big business gets rich off "greater productivity" (firing workers and giving their jobs to machines), they should have to pay something to help support the people whose jobs they take away with all this "productivity."...

The H-1B visa is a salary attack weapon, used by any company that can get them. If the folks at the bottom have been automated out of work, the folks in STEM fields are subject to immigrant competition.

Employers now hires more non-Americans for STEM jobs, than is does Americans. Because of the terms of the visa, the employer has a foreign employee in a quasi-slavery position, which they use to extract lower pay ... and it's getting worse every year.

We might as well attract those very smart people, give them strong incentives (including excellent pay), put them on the fast track to citizenship, and encourage them to become a part of our gene pool.

Economic exploitations does not create prosperity; it steals prosperity on behalf of a few and denies it to others.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You assume the current economic model will still apply when this finally occurs. In the not-to-distant future, automation will be augmented by robotics and AI, or at least robust expert systems, to the point that almost all human labor will no longer important ... or even necessary. Yes, some human specialists will be needed, but not many. The oldest profession will survive, to name one that's hard to replace with a robots.

I dunno, real dolls are pretty popular. I don't know if that's a pop culture mockery, or if they really are, but I maintain that labor can be as irrelevant as you want it, because you're ignoring a critical aspect of the elites, which is that they're competing against each other. They don't care about the rest of us. That's why they amass wealth more than they could spend in 10 life times. Not to keep the rest of us down, but to keep fighting against amongst themselves. If consumption goes down, they start losing against each other. If money velocity decreases then the value decreases and they're losing against each other again.

The cost maintain them will lbe minimal, in the grand scheme of things. With production managaed by self-replicating machines, little will be needed that cannot be obtained for free - though the elites are not likely to share out side their clans.

Except that this proposes no competition amongst elites and that's just false. Elites always compete amongst themselves, and usually that's precisely where everyone else gets wrapped up in things. Also, its a rare day when the harshest and most brutal wins the game.

Society is far too complex for a reveolution of any type. Massive low-level resistance is more likely. Tiny minorities rely on the majority playing by the rules they set. When that ceases to function, their grip loosens then finally withers away. This will not be a rapid process, unless it occurs in this 4T. If it drags-on, it will probably emerge as a disruptive 2T.

Not true, societies that are the most complex tend to be the ripest for conquest and revolution because they're the most bloated and ineffective. Throw big and complicated against agile and easy and usually agile and easy wins. We've obscured that in our recent history by counting losses as draws and claiming wars as conflicts, but we've spent the past 60 years proving that trend.

This is whining. Were Boomer engaged by politicians before we took to the streets? No. Politics of this kind has to bubble-up from below, though leaders are a must. I don't see an leaders.

Remember that time millennials took to the streets? I do. As I recall the boomer establishment's response was ignoring them. Boomers were definitely more engaged.

Have you read or attended a performance of "Waiting for Godot"? If not, you should. It applies here.

I have, and disagree with the application. History is full of waiting for the right moment. Lots of times early attempts fail because they are merely too early. You never do something without an opportunity.