In 1980 Ronald Reagan defeated a sitting president went on to win re-election and see a Republican replace him. As a result, the 1968-1992 period saw five out of six presidential terms held by one party, a degree not seen since FDR-Truman. Since 1992 the parties have traded off the presidency, two terms for Democrats followed by two terms for Republicans and two terms of Democrats. The parties have traded Congress as well. After losing the Senate in 1986, Republicans gained it back in 1994 and then lost it in 2001, only to regain it in 2002, and then losing it in 2006. This year it looks like they will take it back. In 1994 after forty years in Democratic hands, Republicans gained the House, lost it in 2006 and got it back in 2010. Clearly there has been a standoff.

After winning what I believe to be a critical election, Bush I lost his bind for re-election in 1992 because of a week economy. It had been two years after the recession ended, the same spacing as in the 1984 election, but unlike in 1984 the economy was still soft in 1992. In 2000 despite a strong economy and budget surplus under a Democrat, Americans elected a Republican. In 2008, amid a collapsing economy following a financial panic, voters voted in a Democrat, presumably to replicate the Clinton performance. In 2012 voters reelected the Democratic president even though the economy had not recovered three years after the recession had ended. Yet voters have put Republicans in charge of the legislature.

If the economy remains more or less where it is, I would expect a replay of 2000. Voters will be uninterested in politics and the election will be very close. But suppose the economy moves into recession early next year? I would expect the already very low approval of the president to fall yet further. I expect the next recession to be bad. There is nothing holding up the US economy; the rest of the developed world is in even worse shape than we are. If a recession starts in 2015 it will be in its second year in 2016. By election day the economy would be about where is was in summer 2009 (or spring 1931). Suppose unemployment has passed 10% and it still heading up.

Assume something like this happens. Assume also that the weak economy means Republicans are certain to retain control of both Houses of Congress. Finally assume that (as happened after 1929) no credible third party appears in the years and decades after 2016. And so your choices in 2016 and after are voting for a Republican, a Democratic, throwing it away, or not voting.

If you are on the red side and generally vote Republican, how confident will you be that your party will be able to cope with the economic challenge? Suppose come January 2017, the economy is still getting worse. How long will you give your party to fix things before you switch sides to the Dems? Or, put another way, how bad would it have to become before you would switch?

If you are on the blue side and generally vote Democratic, would you support your party's nominee knowing that she/he will face a Republican legislature dead set against anything a Democrat would propose for the economy? Would you cast a symbolic vote for a third party, even though you know that this would simply increase the victory margin for the Republican?

Much of what we say two days before a midterm election is premature. All in all, 2014 is likely to be the mere prelude to 2016, probably a high-participation election by any standard. Should the Democrats hold the Senate and not win back the House, then we simply get more of the same -- a frustrating time for all. Democrats holding the Senate and winning back the House? It's back to 2009 politics for two years, and we may have a full regeneracy.

We will not have a full Regeneracy until one side gets dominance of both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, the plurality of Governorships, and the majority of State Houses. The Republicans will need to convince northern liberals that their resistance to absolute plutocracy is utterly futile and that the best that they can do is to give up the public sector to profiteers who also get to dominate political life forever. Democrats will need to convince poor Southern whites that the economic elites of America are giving Southern whites as much of the shaft as they give poor non-whites. Either will take time. It is a race between one vision of the future and another. But a Regeneracy need not be benign. Germany got as well-defined a Regeneracy as any country ever did in 1933.

If we elect people who serve only 1% of the People, then we deserve to be serfs. People who vote for such deserve greater risk of death in industrial accidents and to be thralls to loan sharks. They deserve to see living standards typical of the Third World. If that is harsh -- then consider the consequences of wars for profit that the political order cannot stop. That means plenty of visits from bereavement officers announcing the KIA or MIA status of their beloved children. Except that a critical number of such parents will have voted for the pols who sponsored the wars for profit (including military procurement, expansion of captive markets, and plunder of natural resources on behalf of the only people in America whose welfare matters).

Originally Posted by Satan Incarnate

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/how_...nk/221282.html

Except a regeneracy would require more than just a victory for one side or another. A victory of a political party doesn't necessarily less to a regeneration of our civic institutions, but when you're talking about it in the terms that you're proposing, it would because it would involve the regeneracy being involved in those civic institutions.

The Democrats have already proven that's not what they're about. They want to make as little impact as possible on our civic institutions, because that scares people and doesn't necessarily yeild votes, and get back to bickering with anyone they can about the rights of the smallest groups possible, because that gets lots of publicity, which often translates into votes.

My guess is that our civic institutions are the crisis, and they won't change without a lot of force and/or a major outside threat. I don't see any major outside threat on the horizon, so my guess is that we'll see a major and debilitating economic fall which forces us out of the world theater for a while, and it more or less eliminates the stranglehold the existing interests have in our political system, paving the way for something new.

Something basically needs to happen that is so utterly crippling that it either forces one or both parties to stop being the colostomy bags of human disappointment and failure they have been for the past 30ish years, or something needs to come in and push the meat out of the way. My guess is that it will be that last one. Otherwise we could wind up with the worst kind of 4th turning: The Seinfeld - nothing happens, everybody talks about it, everybody acts like a terrible human being, the end.

For now, "nothing happens" is the best scenario.

If the polls are right, then American voters are the most gullible in the world, and they will get exactly what gullible people deserve -- tyranny, Except that nearly a half of the public isn't so gullible.


I am glad that I have no children, so that the misery that is my life (and it will be that should the Republican Party completely take over American politics in 2016) will die with me. As far as I see things, people who vote for those who would turn them into serfs and cannon fodder deserve to be exactly that.

The only good things about a Hard Right America is that we will solve our "illegal alien" problem, that Americans will no longer be able to buy so many drugs, and that our contribution to world pollution and the waste of precious resources will decline as sharply as the decline of American living standards. Maybe Mexico will surpass America as a better place to live -- especially after money that American addicts supply to criminal gangs in Mexico dries up.

Just think -- we will have sold off the wisdom of political leaders from Benjamin Franklin to Martin Luther King for promises that American elites will promptly betray. Many Americans will find out the hard way what it was like to be black in the Jim Crow South -- many of them the people who got the dubious benefit of White Privilege in the Jim Crow South. Bad education, bad health, rotting teeth, and practically no political choice.

We will have the violence of revolt or the violence of fascistic terror -- if not both. America will be in hands of people with a missionary zeal to spread the rotten order where it is unwelcome. That means war with countries that American elites think unready. So "didn't we kick the Japanese badly in World War II?","Indonesia and India are over-ripe apples just waiting to fall into our hands", and "The Europeans are white like us, so they won't complain". Switzerland, a decent social order between 1933 and 1945 (and long before and after) has never invaded another country. The repressive, genocidal, slave-holding Third Reich invaded just about everything that it could.

The Germans had the excuse that they were desperate for economic improvement and political stability. We Americans are simply gullible.

In order for this crisis to be solved, people actually have to realize we're in a crisis. It's a depression, not a recession and this fact is being hidden. Many people think everything is fine and are living in La La land, especially a lot of older people.

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

In order for this crisis to be solved, people actually have to realize we're in a crisis. It's a depression, not a recession and this fact is being hidden. Many people think everything is fine and are living in La La land, especially a lot of older people.

I am one of those "older people" as I will turn 70 in two weeks. Yet I am far from living in La La land. Recession or not, in mainstream America most of us still think we can slide into the new week, new month, whatever, feeling pretty good. At least that's what we are told. There is a prediction going around projecting a 3 percent increase in holiday shopping activity over last year. However, much of this may be a fallacy, but we may not feel ready to take on the world quite yet.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Assume something like this happens. Assume also that the weak economy means Republicans are certain to retain control of both Houses of Congress. Finally assume that (as happened after 1929) no credible third party appears in the years and decades after 2016. And so your choices in 2016 and after are voting for a Republican, a Democratic, throwing it away, or not voting.

If you are on the red side and generally vote Republican, how confident will you be that your party will be able to cope with the economic challenge? Suppose come January 2017, the economy is still getting worse. How long will you give your party to fix things before you switch sides to the Dems? Or, put another way, how bad would it have to become before you would switch?

If you are on the blue side and generally vote Democratic, would you support your party's nominee knowing that she/he will face a Republican legislature dead set against anything a Democrat would propose for the economy? Would you cast a symbolic vote for a third party, even though you know that this would simply increase the victory margin for the Republican?

I'll answer the Democratic question factually and the Republican question hypothetically, for obvious reasons.

There are still plenty on the left who are scarred by the Nader moment that they'll categorically reject a vote for a third party. Even with a solidly Republican Congress, winning the Presidency matters, for two principal reasons. First, it means getting a veto on all the terrible things a GOP Congress would pass. Second, the executive branch has plenty of power in administrating federal agencies that are beyond the reach of Congress. Things like setting some good GHG policy, properly enforcing the law under the DOJ, diplomacy at the State Department, and plenty of other things are on the line in a presidential election.

Now, if I were a Republican I would certainly be confident in coping with the economy, at least on how a typical Republican would want to cope with the economy. As the past couple decades have shown, when you get full control of the executive and legislative branches (and a near-full grasp on the judiciary as well), you don't waste opportunities like that. You get your shit done. The second part of the question is interesting. I would think that, given the rightward shift of the GOP, most Republicans dissatisfied with their leadership would push for Tea Party like candidates in the primaries instead of fully abandoning the party in favor of the Democrats.

I don't think that we're going to have a regeneration, at least not one based on politics and economics. America is basically a tribal society at this point. Culture overrides all. If the Republicans are able to convince a majority of coming of age second wave milles to join the red tribe, as some polls hint may happen, we are looking at an indefinite stalemate. Otherwise the current demographics favoring the Democrats will win out by the mid 2020's as many predict.

And as far as an economic crash changing things, I doubt for we've already seen that both parties are going to protect the big banks at all costs. Obama had the chance to channel his inner FDR in 2009 and he chose not to. The Republicans were prone and prostrate on Jan. 20th 2009. Instead of crushing them for a whole turning he chose to pick them back up and brush them off by appointing Goppers to his cabinet. And his reward was the Tea Party movement.
And a new Teddy Roosevelt would get no where in today's GOP. Either way the fix is in.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... If the economy remains more or less where it is, I would expect a replay of 2000. Voters will be uninterested in politics and the election will be very close. But suppose the economy moves into recession early next year? I would expect the already very low approval of the president to fall yet further. I expect the next recession to be bad. There is nothing holding up the US economy; the rest of the developed world is in even worse shape than we are. If a recession starts in 2015 it will be in its second year in 2016. By election day the economy would be about where is was in summer 2009 (or spring 1931). Suppose unemployment has passed 10% and it still heading up.

Assume something like this happens. Assume also that the weak economy means Republicans are certain to retain control of both Houses of Congress. Finally assume that (as happened after 1929) no credible third party appears in the years and decades after 2016. And so your choices in 2016 and after are voting for a Republican, a Democratic, throwing it away, or not voting.

These are reasonable assumptions, so ...

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

If you are on the red side and generally vote Republican, how confident will you be that your party will be able to cope with the economic challenge? Suppose come January 2017, the economy is still getting worse. How long will you give your party to fix things before you switch sides to the Dems? Or, put another way, how bad would it have to become before you would switch?

I don't think there is a time-out period, but we may get a glimpse of just how strong the conservative narrative really is by the success or failure of Sam Brownback in Kansas. By any rational standard, he should be beaten easily after doing exactly what he said he would do, and having it all go south in a big way. In fact, the GOP should lose the legislative branch too.

Somehow, I'm highly doubtful that rational behavior will prevail.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

If you are on the blue side and generally vote Democratic, would you support your party's nominee knowing that she/he will face a Republican legislature dead set against anything a Democrat would propose for the economy? Would you cast a symbolic vote for a third party, even though you know that this would simply increase the victory margin for the Republican?

I live in a state where both Senators are Democrats, but 10 out of 12 Congressional districts are solidly GOP. One of our Senators is running this time: Mark I'm-a-centrist Warner. He is almost guaranteed a win. My voting for or against him (we have a Libertarian on the ballot too) is beside the point. By the same argument, my Representative is a mindless republican even less likely to be defeated.

For me, voting is an act of civic participation, but one without meaning. I have voted for Third Parties in the past, and may again - for symbolic reasons alone.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

In 1980 Ronald Reagan defeated a sitting president went on to win re-election and see a Republican replace him. As a result, the 1968-1992 period saw five out of six presidential terms held by one party, a degree not seen since FDR-Truman. Since 1992 the parties have traded off the presidency, two terms for Democrats followed by two terms for Republicans and two terms of Democrats. The parties have traded Congress as well. After losing the Senate in 1986, Republicans gained it back in 1994 and then lost it in 2001, only to regain it in 2002, and then losing it in 2006. This year it looks like they will take it back. In 1994 after forty years in Democratic hands, Republicans gained the House, lost it in 2006 and got it back in 2010. Clearly there has been a standoff.

After winning what I believe to be a critical election, Bush I lost his bind for re-election in 1992 because of a week economy. It had been two years after the recession ended, the same spacing as in the 1984 election, but unlike in 1984 the economy was still soft in 1992. In 2000 despite a strong economy and budget surplus under a Democrat, Americans elected a Republican. In 2008, amid a collapsing economy following a financial panic, voters voted in a Democrat, presumably to replicate the Clinton performance. In 2012 voters reelected the Democratic president even though the economy had not recovered three years after the recession had ended. Yet voters have put Republicans in charge of the legislature.

If the economy remains more or less where it is, I would expect a replay of 2000. Voters will be uninterested in politics and the election will be very close. But suppose the economy moves into recession early next year? I would expect the already very low approval of the president to fall yet further. I expect the next recession to be bad. There is nothing holding up the US economy; the rest of the developed world is in even worse shape than we are. If a recession starts in 2015 it will be in its second year in 2016. By election day the economy would be about where is was in summer 2009 (or spring 1931). Suppose unemployment has passed 10% and it still heading up.

People are misinformed. That seems to be a chronic condition in the USA. One poll even says they trust the Republicans to fix the economy. How absurd. They do nothing except allow the wealthy to get richer. That's no "fix." They think the economy is bad, when it's in recovery. The recovery will not end in 2015; it will continue, although Republican misconduct could be a threat to it. I would hope that such misconduct would discredit them. It looks like the Democrats have a lock on the White House and will likely win in 2016, but the gerrymandered House is still in the hands of the oligarchy, and this will continue as long as the American people are stupid enough to put the wolves in charge of the greenhouse. This is likely to change in Nov.2020, when reformers will take over.

Assume something like this happens. Assume also that the weak economy means Republicans are certain to retain control of both Houses of Congress. Finally assume that (as happened after 1929) no credible third party appears in the years and decades after 2016. And so your choices in 2016 and after are voting for a Republican, a Democratic, throwing it away, or not voting.

If you are on the red side and generally vote Republican, how confident will you be that your party will be able to cope with the economic challenge? Suppose come January 2017, the economy is still getting worse. How long will you give your party to fix things before you switch sides to the Dems? Or, put another way, how bad would it have to become before you would switch?

If you are on the blue side and generally vote Democratic, would you support your party's nominee knowing that she/he will face a Republican legislature dead set against anything a Democrat would propose for the economy? Would you cast a symbolic vote for a third party, even though you know that this would simply increase the victory margin for the Republican?

Greens and other progressives have the option of voting strategically. A third party vote in a heavily blue or red state is not throwing it away, but making a vital statement. But if you are in a purple state, it is wiser to vote Democratic, if you approve of the candidate enough to give him or her your vote.

It is quite possible that one of the two parties may be casualties as the 4T gets more drastic in the 2020s. The two parties are becoming a minority among voters compared to independents, and have little respect.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I don't think that we're going to have a regeneration, at least not one based on politics and economics. America is basically a tribal society at this point. Culture overrides all. If the Republicans are able to convince a majority of coming of age second wave milles to join the red tribe, as some polls hint may happen, we are looking at an indefinite stalemate. Otherwise the current demographics favoring the Democrats will win out by the mid 2020's as many predict.

Yes it's tribal, if you remember that views on economics are the major rallying point for the two tribes, especially the red tribe.

A regeneration would have to be based on politics and economics, because that's the means and the main issue. Remember, this is a back-loaded 4T, and our times resemble the 1850s, which S&H didn't even call 4T. There is no doubt, if you consider the cosmic perspective as well as potential demographic changes, that the 2020s will see a regeneration. You can doubt astrology, but it is wise to keep in mind my predictions, considering my track record, if it gives you a larger perspective.

This perspective is an antidote to cynical and despairing views about our situation and our current fourth turning. The demographics could point to the Democrats winning by the 2020s (even before the mid-2020s politically), and if so then there's no reason to say there won't be a regeneration, including a political/economic one. Only a Democratic victory can bring one, unless people feel regenerated by a new multi-party system or national break-up in which reform wins out. Republicans must lose power in all branches both federal and state for any regeneration to happen.

That doesn't mean such a regeneration would be based on greater knowledge of facts on the part of the red tribe. The "cultural" red tribe is wedded to trickle-down economics, because this means "strong individual character" and "non-dependency" as well as being based on suggestions of racism and race-baiting (i.e. blacks and hispanics are the ones dependent on our tax money, and "I'm Taxed Enough Already").

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

In order for this crisis to be solved, people actually have to realize we're in a crisis. It's a depression, not a recession and this fact is being hidden. Many people think everything is fine and are living in La La land, especially a lot of older people.

It's more complicated than that. Maybe some older people live in la la land. I think most of them are worried, and many blame taxes and other phony causes.

It seems the electorate thinks the economy is bad and not improving. Many blame Obama. This is not confirmed by the facts. It's just a sour mood and an unwillingness to recognize Obama's achievements. It also does not recognize the value of Democratic programs like stimulus and higher minimum wages. This mood also does not recognize that the Republicans have blocked and removed all stimulus for 4 years, and that this is why the economy is bad. They don't understand politics, and that votes in midterms have consequences.

So no, the public thinks we are still in a recession. The possibility of a depression may be there in their minds too, because they know that the economic system is still in the hands of the financial manipulators who caused the 2008 crash, and is still vulnerable to free trade and automation as well as weak recovery abroad. I doubt most people, especially older people, are unaware of this. I think the point has been hammered home, and that's why people think the economy could fall again at any time (which it won't). But they are confused, and can't connect the political dots, to see cause and effect. People don't see that cause = Republicans, and they don't see what the economy is actually doing right now (it's recovering).

Originally Posted by Kepi

Except a regeneracy would require more than just a victory for one side or another. A victory of a political party doesn't necessarily lead to a regeneration of our civic institutions, but when you're talking about it in the terms that you're proposing, it would because it would involve the regeneracy being involved in those civic institutions.

The Democrats have already proven that's not what they're about. They want to make as little impact as possible on our civic institutions, because that scares people and doesn't necessarily yield votes, and get back to bickering with anyone they can about the rights of the smallest groups possible, because that gets lots of publicity, which often translates into votes.

My guess is that our civic institutions are the crisis, and they won't change without a lot of force and/or a major outside threat. I don't see any major outside threat on the horizon, so my guess is that we'll see a major and debilitating economic fall which forces us out of the world theater for a while, and it more or less eliminates the stranglehold the existing interests have in our political system, paving the way for something new.

Something basically needs to happen that is so utterly crippling that it either forces one or both parties to stop being the colostomy bags of human disappointment and failure they have been for the past 30ish years, or something needs to come in and push the meat out of the way. My guess is that it will be that last one. Otherwise we could wind up with the worst kind of 4th turning: The Seinfeld - nothing happens, everybody talks about it, everybody acts like a terrible human being, the end.

If the meat of the Democratic Party is pushed out of the way, it can be taken over by those who seek to implement reforms and new ideas, just as the Republican establishment was pushed out of the way by the extreme fanatical Tea Party. That seems the best and most-likely possibility. A new multi-party politics could work too, IF the new multi-party majority is pro-reform and not libertarian trickle-down lackeys for the rich. This could happen if an independent/third party candidate is elected president in 2024.

The Republicans are the crisis. Eliminate their leadership of the civic institutions, and they will be reformed and work just fine IF the people push for this. It is Republicans who block the needed reforms (think Citizens United for example. You all know who appointed the Justices who ruled in favor of money in politics).

I don't think another economic crash will happen, but that may not matter. If people perceive another one is imminent, they may act. They will NOT tolerate another bail-out of the too-big-to-fail. Left and Right agree on that, I think. Also, the economy can be "OK" but still not work for most people. That's not likely to change until politics changes.

People may have to find out how corrupt, elitist, incompetent, and heartless the Republicans are -- the hard way... perhaps with an economic meltdown even more severe than that of autumn 2007-spring 2009, which would not be difficult: it would have to be as severe early and continue longer. That is how the autumn 1929 - autumn 1932 went, this time with leadership much more cruel than that of Herbert Hoover. Imagine a right-wing President telling Americans, "Let the scum starve!" after consolidations of industry into tighter cartels and lower wages -- with tax shifts favoring the rich and connected (the solution to money tucked away under mattresses after banks fail). By such a time the electoral process might not work fast enough.

Vote pathological government into power, and get bad -- even horrible -- results.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

People may have to find out how corrupt, elitist, incompetent, and heartless the Republicans are -- the hard way... perhaps with an economic meltdown even more severe than that of autumn 2007-spring 2009, which would not be difficult: it would have to be as severe early and continue longer. That is how the autumn 1929 - autumn 1932 went, this time with leadership much more cruel than that of Herbert Hoover. Imagine a right-wing President telling Americans, "Let the scum starve!" after consolidations of industry into tighter cartels and lower wages -- with tax shifts favoring the rich and connected (the solution to money tucked away under mattresses after banks fail). By such a time the electoral process might not work fast enough.

Vote pathological government into power, and get bad -- even horrible -- results.

I agree. If we vote for the folks who want to make us into or keep us serfs, we deserve what we get.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the meat of the Democratic Party is pushed out of the way, it can be taken over by those who seek to implement reforms and new ideas, just as the Republican establishment was pushed out of the way by the extreme fanatical Tea Party. That seems the best and most-likely possibility. A new multi-party politics could work too, IF the new multi-party majority is pro-reform and not libertarian trickle-down lackeys for the rich. This could happen if an independent/third party candidate is elected president in 2024.

The Republicans are the crisis. Eliminate their leadership of the civic institutions, and they will be reformed and work just fine IF the people push for this. It is Republicans who block the needed reforms (think Citizens United for example. You all know who appointed the Justices who ruled in favor of money in politics).

I don't think another economic crash will happen, but that may not matter. If people perceive another one is imminent, they may act. They will NOT tolerate another bail-out of the too-big-to-fail. Left and Right agree on that, I think. Also, the economy can be "OK" but still not work for most people. That's not likely to change until politics changes.

Multi-party party politics doesn't work in the US. Our system doesn't support it. We'd need a major rule set change in order to support more than 2 parties. Basically a new constitution. So one or both parties would have to lose support and at least one would need to ultimately be replaced by the new party. That doesn't even guarantee that a greater than two party democracy would be viable, because the new party could be just as power hungry and self preservationist as the old party (just with, hopefully, an actually relevant platform for once).

We could even see the US going from a one party state masquerading as a two- party state to just a one party state. I'd love to see direct democracy implemented, but I'm far more interested in someone who is going to upgrade our infrastructure, and make the way that the government works and is financed fit the society we live in. It's far better to have something that is viable than fits an idealistic framework.

Republicans and democrats are the problem. Both parties long ago ceased representing the interests of their constituents, and frankly, I think they'd take any opportunity to bail the banks out again. What was quantitative easing, I'd not a means by which we printed a bunch of money off for years and just handed it to the wealthy? These people will pay off the banks at any opportunity because members in congress are in the same socio-economic class as the bankers. Helping the thieving dirtbag bankers helps the upper class as a whole. It's why the Fed will set a zero interest rate, but only order that rate to other banks, so banks can make money off their interest. It's why congress will push a bailout package through with extreme hasre, but that same dirtbag congress will pan a public option. Democrats aren't good guys. Wolves in sheep's clothing are still wolves.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I don't think that we're going to have a regeneration, at least not one based on politics and economics. America is basically a tribal society at this point. Culture overrides all. If the Republicans are able to convince a majority of coming of age second wave milles to join the red tribe, as some polls hint may happen, we are looking at an indefinite stalemate. Otherwise the current demographics favoring the Democrats will win out by the mid 2020's as many predict.

And as far as an economic crash changing things, I doubt for we've already seen that both parties are going to protect the big banks at all costs. Obama had the chance to channel his inner FDR in 2009 and he chose not to. The Republicans were prone and prostrate on Jan. 20th 2009. Instead of crushing them for a whole turning he chose to pick them back up and brush them off by appointing Goppers to his cabinet. And his reward was the Tea Party movement.
And a new Teddy Roosevelt would get no where in today's GOP. Either way the fix is in.

I don't know how a new Teddy Roosevelt would fare , but I would enjoy seeing a new TR on the scene. That would at least make it fun to watch.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Multi-party party politics doesn't work in the US. Our system doesn't support it. We'd need a major rule set change in order to support more than 2 parties. Basically a new constitution. So one or both parties would have to lose support and at least one would need to ultimately be replaced by the new party. That doesn't even guarantee that a greater than two party democracy would be viable, because the new party could be just as power hungry and self preservationist as the old party (just with, hopefully, an actually relevant platform for once).

We would need a parliamentary system that forces the disparate parties to make deals because nobody could get a majority.

An illustration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...he_Netherlands

We could even see the US going from a one party state masquerading as a two- party state to just a one party state. I'd love to see direct democracy implemented, but I'm far more interested in someone who is going to upgrade our infrastructure, and make the way that the government works and is financed fit the society we live in. It's far better to have something that is viable than fits an idealistic framework.

Well, Stalin certainly enhanced the economic infrastructure of the Soviet Union, didn't he? Just a reminder. Economic gain and technological advancement are not worth the sacrifice of liberty. That is not to say that the tradeoff is in any way necessary.

If you had to choose having to endure economic deprivation normal in India or face horrific torture in what used to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, then which would you choose? It is easy to make brave denunciations of corrupt and offensive politicians if you are still free. If you are not so free -- well, you say that Josef Stalin is the hope of all humanity everywhere if you are under his rule.

Republicans and democrats are the problem. Both parties long ago ceased representing the interests of their constituents, and frankly, I think they'd take any opportunity to bail the banks out again. What was quantitative easing, I'd not a means by which we printed a bunch of money off for years and just handed it to the wealthy? These people will pay off the banks at any opportunity because members in congress are in the same socio-economic class as the bankers. Helping the thieving dirtbag bankers helps the upper class as a whole. It's why the Fed will set a zero interest rate, but only order that rate to other banks, so banks can make money off their interest. It's why congress will push a bailout package through with extreme haste, but that same dirtbag congress will pan a public option. Democrats aren't good guys. Wolves in sheep's clothing are still wolves.

With all due respect, Barack Obama had to rescue the banks first lest everything else also fail. The failure of the financial system made the three-year economic meltdown beginning in late 1929 so severe and protracted. The year and a half of economic downturn beginning in late 2007 was indistinguishable from that beginning in 1929. Barack Obama rescued the banks in the equivalent of the spring of 1931, before things started to spiral ruinously. FDR could only prevent further degradation at a very low point.

By 1934 the elites who lost almost everything in the Great Crash and subsequent meltdown needed to focus on rebuilding their wealth and not on buying the political process. In 2010 Big Business was able to flood the airways with Orwellian rhetoric. By 2016 they may have the whole country under their control.





Of course Barack Obama rescued the plutocrats who were never going to back him -- in fact people who wanted him and the Democratic Party defeated oncethose plutocrats were rescued. Blunder? Hardly. He did what was expected and necessary. We now face the possibility of the doom of American democracy tomorrow, with the GOP fully consolidating complete power in 2017. After that, American elections become as meaningful as those in China...

Originally Posted by radind

I don't know how a new Teddy Roosevelt would fare , but I would enjoy seeing a new TR on the scene. That would at least make it fun to watch.

I do believe they broke the mold.

The closest we may have is Elizabeth Warren...

I have just gotten out my CDs of Verdi's Requiem for Wednesday.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I do believe they broke the mold.

The closest we may have is Elizabeth Warren...

She says she won't run, and I believe her. In 2020, she'll be 72, so it's this time or never.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

She (Elizabeth Warren) says she won't run, and I believe her. In 2020, she'll be 72, so it's this time or never.

I know. I agree with you, and her. I still think she's as close as we've got to TR, though.

Would you care to name someone in the pattern of TR who might consider a run? Can we have a regeneracy without a Grey Champion that personifies and advocates the new values?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Except a regeneracy would require more than just a victory for one side or another. A victory of a political party doesn't necessarily less to a regeneration of our civic institutions....

Correct.

but when you're talking about it in the terms that you're proposing, it would because it would involve the regeneracy being involved in those civic institutions.

The institutions have to be involved if only in a rejection. But before the existing institutions can be rejected they must be tested and found wanting. Right now Americans do not take the institutional infrastructure of our civilization seriously. Politics is treated as a game where each side backs their team. America goes to war in and whether we win (Gulf) or lose (Vietnam, Iraq) does not matter. American continues on, repeating them over and over, just as the great powers in the 18th and 19th centuries did. We discuss our wars in the most silly way.

The economics of the West have not functioned up to par for some time. In 2008 the economy came close to a collapse, that I believe is parallel to those in 1929 and 1873. Since Americans have conducted the exactly same arguments as happened last time, with the same sides advocating for the same policies (Republicans for austerity and deflation; their opponents for stimulus and inflation) as they did for the last two. Nothing has changed, its like this is the first time.

The Democrats have already proven that's not what they're about.

I suppose you believe this because they have not done so. I would point out that the Greens, the Communists, Socialists, Populists etc. were/are also about maintaining the status quo since they never changed it either. There has never was a party that fit this criterion, so why do you think such an animal exists?

Could this be because the status quo was changed in the past. We had the institution of slavery then was abruptly ended, yet the only party that called for this to happen peaked at less than 1% of the vote in 1840. That slavery should end was never supported by more than a minority of the electoral, yet it happened. Similarly, those who called for the programs of the New Deal never gained more than a few percent support. None of the majority parties ever called for what happened. And yet it did.

They want to make as little impact as possible on our civic institutions, because that scares people and doesn't necessarily yeild votes
and get back to bickering with anyone they can about the rights of the smallest groups possible, because that gets lots of publicity, which often translates into votes.

The parties have the cash to generate as much publicity as they want. It doesn't not make sense that Democrats pander to get publicity.

What makes sense is they ignore the issues that you want them to address (which gets them no votes) in favor of pandering that you disapprove of (which gets them votes). Kepi, they are a political party. Their PURPOSE is to try to win votes. That is what they do.

You are suggesting is that a political party refrain from doing politics. Really?

My guess is that our civic institutions are the crisis,

Well of course, that is what a 4T is about.

and they won't change without a lot of force and/or a major outside threat.

Outside threats don't change institutions, they challenge them, either strengthening them or breaking them. Change occurs from an internal dynamic. We have not had change because most people don't want it.

For Christ's sake, how may times have people here talked about how it doesn't feel like a 4T because their is no WW II-style unifying going on. Unification is rallying around institutions, not changing them. How many people think they problems would be solved if both sides would just work together, or if a third centrist party were to sweep to power and impose common sense reforms. This too is the opposite of change.

The reason why Americans are divided is that what Americans want is mutually incompatible, and what we have right now is good enough.

Something basically needs to happen that is so utterly crippling that it either forces one or both parties to stop being the colostomy bags of human disappointment and failure they have been for the past 30ish years, or something needs to come in and push the meat out of the way. My guess is that it will be that last one. Otherwise we could wind up with the worst kind of 4th turning: The Seinfeld - nothing happens, everybody talks about it, everybody acts like a terrible human being, the end.

Of course. What needs to happen is for the status quo to stop looking acceptable for a majority. In 1932 one out of four were out of a job. There was no unemployment. Those people had no income and so lost their homes. They ended up living with relatives or homeless. This happened to my German immigrant grandparents. A wealthy German family took them in, gave them jobs as gardener and domestic, and rented them a small house they owned.

For those who had no families or wealthy benefactors, they ended up homeless living in shanty towns like the favelas in Latin America. People were destitute. It was obvious to all thinking Americans that something was deeply wrong. And yet they entire state of affairs had happened in the space of three years in the richest nation that had ever existed and during a time of peace. It was not like authorities were blindsided. It unfolded right before their eyes and they got advice from the leading experts, yet the medicine they applied did not work.

Life was intolerable for those you had lost their job, or who had a relative who had lost their job and now was living with them. With 25% out of work it stands to reason that a majority of the population was personally affected to a serious degree by the depression. Probably the only time this had ever happened. And so unlike previous downturns (or those afterward) this one gave changes in institutions.

The last time some internal event had seriously impacted the lives of a majority of the electorate had probably been the Civil War. And institutional change happened then.

So far neither the economic downturn nor our wars have seriously impacted a majority. And because of that, Americans can afford to have unserious opinions about what to do. And as long as Americans are unserious about politics then the political parties can continue to win votes by being unserious.

If the problems become serious, then Americans will become serious about the problems. they will lose interest in politicians that continue to offer frivolities, and politicians will offer more serious fare.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Correct.


The institutions have to be involved if only in a rejection. But before the existing institutions can be rejected they must be tested and found wanting. Right now Americans do not take the institutional infrastructure of our civilization seriously. Politics is treated as a game where each side backs their team. America goes to war in and whether we win (Gulf) or lose (Vietnam, Iraq) does not matter. American continues on, repeating them over and over, just as the great powers in the 18th and 19th centuries did. We discuss our wars in the most silly way.

The economics of the West have not functioned up to par for some time. In 2008 the economy came close to a collapse, that I believe is parallel to those in 1929 and 1873. Since Americans have conducted the exactly same arguments as happened last time, with the same sides advocating for the same policies (Republicans for austerity and deflation; their opponents for stimulus and inflation) as they did for the last two. Nothing has changed, its like this is the first time.


I suppose you believe this because they have not done so. I would point out that the Greens, the Communists, Socialists, Populists etc. were/are also about maintaining the status quo since they never changed it either. There has never was a party that fit this criterion, so why do you think such an animal exists?

Could this be because the status quo was changed in the past. We had the institution of slavery then was abruptly ended, yet the only party that called for this to happen peaked at less than 1% of the vote in 1840. That slavery should end was never supported by more than a minority of the electoral, yet it happened. Similarly, those who called for the programs of the New Deal never gained more than a few percent support. None of the majority parties ever called for what happened. And yet it did.


The parties have the cash to generate as much publicity as they want. It doesn't not make sense that Democrats pander to get publicity.

What makes sense is they ignore the issues that you want them to address (which gets them no votes) in favor of pandering that you disapprove of (which gets them votes). Kepi, they are a political party. Their PURPOSE is to try to win votes. That is what they do.

You are suggesting is that a political party refrain from doing politics. Really?


Well of course, that is what a 4T is about.


Outside threats don't change institutions, they challenge them, either strengthening them or breaking them. Change occurs from an internal dynamic. We have not had change because most people don't want it.

For Christ's sake, how may times have people here talked about how it doesn't feel like a 4T because their is no WW II-style unifying going on. Unification is rallying around institutions, not changing them. How many people think they problems would be solved if both sides would just work together, or if a third centrist party were to sweep to power and impose common sense reforms. This too is the opposite of change.

The reason why Americans are divided is that what Americans want is mutually incompatible, and what we have right now is good enough.


Of course. What needs to happen is for the status quo to stop looking acceptable for a majority. In 1932 one out of four were out of a job. There was no unemployment. Those people had no income and so lost their homes. They ended up living with relatives or homeless. This happened to my German immigrant grandparents. A wealthy German family took them in, gave them jobs as gardener and domestic, and rented them a small house they owned.

For those who had no families or wealthy benefactors, they ended up homeless living in shanty towns like the favelas in Latin America. People were destitute. It was obvious to all thinking Americans that something was deeply wrong. And yet they entire state of affairs had happened in the space of three years in the richest nation that had ever existed and during a time of peace. It was not like authorities were blindsided. It unfolded right before their eyes and they got advice from the leading experts, yet the medicine they applied did not work.

Life was intolerable for those you had lost their job, or who had a relative who had lost their job and now was living with them. With 25% out of work it stands to reason that a majority of the population was personally affected to a serious degree by the depression. Probably the only time this had ever happened. And so unlike previous downturns (or those afterward) this one gave changes in institutions.

The last time some internal event had seriously impacted the lives of a majority of the electorate had probably been the Civil War. And institutional change happened then.

So far neither the economic downturn nor our wars have seriously impacted a majority. And because of that, Americans can afford to have unserious opinions about what to do. And as long as Americans are unserious about politics then the political parties can continue to win votes by being unserious.

If the problems become serious, then Americans will become serious about the problems. they will lose interest in politicians that continue to offer frivolities, and politicians will offer more serious fare.

I would like to believe that the problem of inequality which is so obvious will end up fueling the revolutionary spirit. What a day for a major election! (Except that the MSM doesn't talk about this as much as it really should). Clearly there is a power shift among the people, so, unless the results are hijacked, which is always likely to happen, there should be seeds of change sprouting. And while debates, questions and discussions look at various sides of the situation, we can't talk forever. Many of us feel so close to some inevitable changes that we have to make, that we are chomping at the bit, wanting to convince others. New information comes out, mostly on alternate websites and even on this one, that impacts public opinion. And yet it is obvious that the old guard is holding some issues hostage. So, let's figure out how to maneuver around the blockades. Conversations are needed so we can share ideas and keep up with each other.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have just gotten out my CDs of Verdi's Requiem for Wednesday.

Who or what is the requiem for? It now seems obvious that the real requiem for middle class prosperity as we had known it was when Reagan busted the unions over three decades ago. We may just have been too dumb to recognize it at the time. And even today there are many who consider the very word "union" to be a five-letter obscenity. But will admit that they may have pushed the levers further than they needed to during their heyday. But now is a time when we probably need them more than ever.