Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It was JPT who made the statement that the Democrats were consistently on the Left on key issues. The map is intended to refute him.

No it wasn't. Quit trying to dodge and weave and just admit you're confused.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I disagree that he's too far left to win. I would like to agree that he might run and is a potential candidate, but I can't.

" “I am giving serious thought” to running, he said Monday. “Don’t tell my wife that — she doesn’t necessarily agree.” He was joking...."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/will-bern...-run-president

According to this article, it looks like Bernie won't run unless he finds a lot of grassroots support, and unless he feels like he has a chance to win. In the past (perhaps on Bill Moyers' show) I had heard him say he might run to raise issues.

Younger and minority voters will turn out in larger numbers than their pathetic showing last year, and that's all that matters. It's a rule that in U.S. presidential elections, except when something really weird happens as it did in 1912, or during party realignments such as the one starting in 1932, the party that controls the Southern white vote loses the White House. From the end of the Civil War until the Great Depression, that was the Democrats. Now it's the Republicans. This won't last forever, especially since the South is becoming more urban all the time and joining the rest of the country in its views, but it will still be true in 2016. The Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is, will win the election.

This means there's no such thing as a Democrat too far left to win. There's no downside to nominating Elizabeth Warren if she'll run (which so far she says she won't, unfortunately). She could win the general election every bit as well as Hillary Clinton, and be a much better president.[/FONT][/COLOR]

I agree Warren can win, but I'm not so sure about Sanders. He's not polling well, and can be tarred with the "socialist" brush. But I would not under-estimate him; it's possible. He would run an excellent campaign, should he run. He could be a surprise dark horse, but I'm not predicting this.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

<chuckle!>


Prince

PS: I rest my case.

Clearly Jim Crow is right wing. Democrats represented him until the 1960s, and Republicans have represented him increasingly since. brower is right, and is not in substantial disagreement with Brian.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Clearly Jim Crow is right wing. Democrats represented him until the 1960s, and Republicans have represented him increasingly since. brower is right, and is not in substantial disagreement with Brian.

So, you wanna second the motion, Eric?
The 'evidentiary phase' is over, but eh?
What the heck; I'll allow this.

Ok. Now, I rest my case.


Prince

PS: Anybody else wanna prove my point?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No it wasn't. Quit trying to dodge and weave and just admit you're confused.

The point. Except for Hawaii and the District of Columbia which did not vote for President during the 1950s and North Carolina (barely, and once) no state that did not vote twice for Eisenhower ever voted for Barack Obama. So what is it? The states in white on my map are generally the most liberal on race today. Another possible interpretation: Barack Obama has the temperament of a late-middle-age Reactive who either left or never was in the angry, cynical, and dangerous stage of Reactive life. (What was so dangerous about the Lost Generation worldwide? That was the generation of the most dangerous fascists and Stalinist functionaries).

What is amazing is how opposite so many states are in their partisan identity in 2008 and 2012 from what they were in the 1950s. It would not be so amazing to show that Barack Obama won only one state that Nixon lost in 1972 or that Reagan lost in 1984 and the highly-predictable District of Columbia. Curricula vitae of Eisenhower and Obama could hardly be more different among Presidents... but both are mellowed Reactives who show pragmatism without cynicism.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

... There's still a lot of counter-counterculture anger out there. Even if it is on the wane it will still be used as a political mobilizer until it doesn't work anymore....Which may not become true for several more years.

Yes, this is a case where a degree of social success created a bigger and longer lasting backlash than the original ... by far. The people who hate and are afraid today need to be the ones screaming for change, or it's not going to happen any time soon. I think your estimate of 'several more years' may be optimistic. I'm not counting on this getting resolved this 4T.

Jim Crow isn't right wing.

Here's the thing. We don't have two contending political philosophies in our national politics, we have three: progressive, conservative, and Confederate (or neo-Confederate). Jim Crow is not conservative. It's neo-Confederate.

Progressive (or liberal) and conservative politics in the U.S. share certain rock-bottom agreed values. Both believe in democracy, racial and religious equality, separation of church and state, as ideals. Progressives are more inclined to toss precedent and tradition to the wind and endorse relatively radical change in pursuit of those ideals, while conservatives say, "Now, wait a minute, let's get realistic here." Otherwise, they're very similar, being different grace notes in the American symphony.

Confederate or neo-Confederate politics _rejects_ these values. Neo-Confederates don't believe in democracy; they seek an oligarchy of the rich and powerful. They don't believe in religious freedom (except, of course, freedom of their religion) and certainly not in the separation of church and state that is the main means of guaranteeing religious liberty. They want a theocracy. Even those who reject that word want that reality: a system of laws and governance based on the Bible and on Christian ideals as they understand them. Instead of a nation defined by these ideals, they endorse a more conventional race-based definition of the nation. For them, America is a white man's country. For them, if it ceases to be that, it ceases to be.

Confederates have always represented a separate political, religious, and social culture, different from and at odds with America. At one time, that conflict resulted in an actual war. It's unlikely to do so again, but it definitely distorts our politics.

Don't confuse neo-Confederates with conservatives, although they use that term (wrongly) for themselves. They're not conservatives at all. There are very few conservative Republicans left in national government, although some remain in local government. Almost all conservatives in national government today are Democrats (as are all progressives except Bernie Sanders). Almost all Republicans now are neo-Confederates.

Used to be, neo-Confederates were Democrats rather than Republicans. That's why more Republicans in Congress than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Progressives and conservatives alike believed in civil rights and racial equality as a principle, and by that point most were ready to take action to further that cause. Neo-Confederates did not believe in racial equality as a principle and still don't -- and at that time, most neo-Confederates were Democrats.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, this is a case where a degree of social success created a bigger and longer lasting backlash than the original ... by far. The people who hate and are afraid today need to be the ones screaming for change, or it's not going to happen any time soon. I think your estimate of 'several more years' may be optimistic. I'm not counting on this getting resolved this 4T.

Yes.
I think that it likely to depends on how working class white Xers age. Right now it is ''cool'' in certain circles to fly the yellow Gasden flag and talk about the ''takers.'' A lot of that is following the lead of angry late wave Silents and the somewhat younger Boomers. But we're all different coming out of the back end of the 3T. Several decades ago a lot of these same Xers ''got mellow'' with their elders while chugging brewskies in cans and passing the bong. As the elders die out and again Xers are surrounded by the younger gens. how many of them try to hang on to the cues they've followed or else adjust to the times may portend a lot.
And I'm going to try and guess at this point.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yes.
I think that it likely to depends on how working class white Xers age. Right now it is ''cool'' in certain circles to fly the yellow Gasden flag and talk about the ''takers.'' A lot of that is following the lead of angry late wave Silents and the somewhat younger Boomers. But we're all different coming out of the back end of the 3T. Several decades ago a lot of these same Xers ''got mellow'' with their elders while chugging brewskies in cans and passing the bong. As the elders die out and again Xers are surrounded by the younger gens. how many of them try to hang on to the cues they've followed or else adjust to the times may portend a lot.
And I'm going to try and guess at this point.

So what your saying is:

Gen Xers my friend, are blowing in the wind. Gen Xers are blowing in the wind.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

So what your saying is:

Gen Xers my friend, are blowing in the wind. Gen Xers are blowing in the wind.

Hard to pass this up. Beats Millies pissing in the wind.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Jim Crow isn't right wing.

Here's the thing. We don't have two contending political philosophies in our national politics, we have three: progressive, conservative, and Confederate (or neo-Confederate). Jim Crow is not conservative. It's neo-Confederate.

OK. Gutter racism is not 'conservative'. If directed at people considered inferior in social status (as at blacks by the White Citizens Councils and similar groups) it is right-wing. If it is directed at alleged exploiters and oppressors it is left-wing (exemplified by some Black Power types of the 1960s and 1970s) it is left-wing. With racist antisemitism the social context could have left-wing (if against monopolistic financiers and greedy professionals) or right-wing (against the impoverished shtetl) and it is typically too confused to fit a consistent ideology. However it manifests itself, racism is inconsistent with letting free markets sort things out. Conservatives as a rule generally support the functioning of free markets with such qualifications that they tolerate existing only on grounds of humanitarian concerns or survival of the political system. Racism is a tool of demagogues of all kinds.

Progressive (or liberal) and conservative politics in the U.S. share certain rock-bottom agreed values. Both believe in democracy, racial and religious equality, separation of church and state, as ideals. Progressives are more inclined to toss precedent and tradition to the wind and endorse relatively radical change in pursuit of those ideals, while conservatives say, "Now, wait a minute, let's get realistic here." Otherwise, they're very similar, being different grace notes in the American symphony.

That is a good way to separate liberalism from conservatism while recognizing their similarities -- and distinguishing liberalism from Marxism and conservatism from fascism. Conservatives have more faith in tradition than in progress -- even technological progress. Liberals see the grass; conservatives assume a snake in the grass. When JPT conflates progressives to Nazis and Stalinists I cringe.

Confederate or neo-Confederate politics _rejects_ these values. Neo-Confederates don't believe in democracy; they seek an oligarchy of the rich and powerful. They don't believe in religious freedom (except, of course, freedom of their religion) and certainly not in the separation of church and state that is the main means of guaranteeing religious liberty. They want a theocracy. Even those who reject that word want that reality: a system of laws and governance based on the Bible and on Christian ideals as they understand them. Instead of a nation defined by these ideals, they endorse a more conventional race-based definition of the nation. For them, America is a white man's country. For them, if it ceases to be that, it ceases to be.

Any attempt to force the whole of America to fit one cultural tradition is contrary to the political heritage upon which America was founded. Separation of Church and State allowed people with very different ideas of how to worship God and what Christianity demanded of personal life to coexist without demonizing each other or calling for wars against each other. Such also allowed mass immigration of people who could never fit into one of the entrenched traditions, beginning with Irish and German Catholics.

But know well: there are two distinct Southern traditions. One is of the people who tried to bring their feudal order with them from southwestern England, could not get the peasants necessary for the aristocratic order of their dreams, tried indentured servants who proved unreliable as peasants, and then brought in African slaves compelled to become a permanent peasantry with no escape. The other Southern tradition is of the Backwoods, of people who escaped the Scottish lowlands (Highland Scots who really are Scots rarely went to the American colonies south of Canada), northern Ireland, and the North of England. Their austere Presbyterianism morphed into Baptist fundamentalism; somewhat wild, they eschewed the big cities for the isolated backwoods. Unlike the Cavaliers from Maryland to Georgia they opposed slavery not out of a humane view of equality among humanity but out of a contempt for peoples unlike them. The Backwoodsmen settled Appalachia from about Elmira, New York to roughly Atlanta... and where they are the majority in Pennsylvania at least one frequent poster here calls the area "Pennsyltucky" for its culture, religion, and (now) reactionary politics. The Backwoodsmen did not get along with New England Puritans, Pennsylvania Quakers or the German-Pennsylvanian pietists, or the Cavaliers.

The Reactionary South is not all Confederate. Indeed, Southern Appalachia was weakly held by the Confederacy; its people disliked central authority from Richmond and frequently collaborated with the Union side.

Confederates have always represented a separate political, religious, and social culture, different from and at odds with America. At one time, that conflict resulted in an actual war. It's unlikely to do so again, but it definitely distorts our politics.

Southern elites have never been hostile to elite education for the masters. Politics and military officership have always been important. Big landowners can adopt modern techniques of farming from colleges that teach modern techniques of agriculture. But the line is typically drawn with the proles, white or black, who are still understood practically as 'hewers of wood and carriers of water'.

Don't confuse neo-Confederates with conservatives, although they use that term (wrongly) for themselves. They're not conservatives at all. There are very few conservative Republicans left in national government, although some remain in local government. Almost all conservatives in national government today are Democrats (as are all progressives except Bernie Sanders). Almost all Republicans now are neo-Confederates.

The distinction between 'conservative' and 'reactionary' has typically been well-defined. The conservative distrusts change but goes along when alternatives leave them behind or prove destructive. Reactionaries often have a romantic view of a better time in the past as experienced by some fourth-great-grandfather as in Gone With the Wind. The only problem: the same fourth-great-grandfather has perhaps eighty acknowledged descendants, so the Good Life of the plantation would be diffused to the extreme. Needless to say, blacks (some of them unacknowledged descendants of the same planter) have no desire to return to their old antebellum roles.

Used to be, neo-Confederates were Democrats rather than Republicans. That's why more Republicans in Congress than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Progressives and conservatives alike believed in civil rights and racial equality as a principle, and by that point most were ready to take action to further that cause. Neo-Confederates did not believe in racial equality as a principle and still don't -- and at that time, most neo-Confederates were Democrats.

Well known.

The problem with calling racists "right wing" is that it perpetuates the illusion of a single axis extending to the right and the left. No. They're not like conservatives, only more so (which is what that implies). They're different in their core values, and on a different axis altogether. Not right. Not left. Off the scale completely. Something different that doesn't fit into the picture.

Conservatives (in the United States) are believers in basic American ideals and values, who are cautious about change and progress towards those ideals. The more they resist change, the more conservative they are. But those who reject those values and ideals aren't conservative, and the difference between them and conservatives isn't one of degree. It's one of kind.

I think it's a mistake to make these distinctions between "conservatives" and "liberals" as being of separate intellectual traditions. They're both just tendencies within the Anglo-American tradition of Liberalism. The people of the old South were somewhat different, at least as exemplified by RL Dabney and the like, but even then the values of the Confederate aristocracy were distinct from those of their Continental or even British counterparts.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The problem with calling racists "right wing" is that it perpetuates the illusion of a single axis extending to the right and the left. No. They're not like conservatives, only more so (which is what that implies). They're different in their core values, and on a different axis altogether. Not right. Not left. Off the scale completely. Something different that doesn't fit into the picture.

Conservatives (in the United States) are believers in basic American ideals and values, who are cautious about change and progress towards those ideals. The more they resist change, the more conservative they are. But those who reject those values and ideals aren't conservative, and the difference between them and conservatives isn't one of degree. It's one of kind.

Whatever you say

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Whatever you say

Well, this isn't the first time we've disagreed over your willingness to put people into a classification system who don't fit into it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, this isn't the first time we've disagreed over your willingness to put people into a classification system who don't fit into it.

OK, moderate materialist!

No, I don't disagree, nor agree. Makes some sense.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If this is true, how come we hear no Xers or Millies talking about an across the board tariff?

I prefer strategic tariffs Mike.
a. Sliding oil import fee so ne'er do wells like the Saudis can's muck up domestic oil and solar. Yeah I know it would piss off a bunch of short term thinkers, but oh well. Few seem to understand the extenral cost of how much military spending is used to secure that Mideast oil.
b. I really don't think we should be using foreign sourced inputs to our military equipment as well. The risk of back doors is real.
c. Items where other countries are polluting while the selfsame industries here have to mitigate pollution. Pollution mitigation is a real cost and thus imposes a burden on competition. I'm thinking of steel production in particular.

Why are young people expending all their energy on promoting LBTGqxyz issues, i.e. the social issues promoted by youthful Boomers, rather than the material problems the majority of young people face?

a. I'm not on that particular social issue. I'm more on the social issue of marijuana legalization. Oklahoma is #1 in per capita prison population in the US. The US is in turn #1 in per capita and perhaps even absolute prison population. Oklahoma is also #1 in prison homicides. I think those damning statistics warrant some change in policy. The War on Drugs is yet another failed war of choice like all those others we've had since 'Nam.
b. Wrt the crisis of 2008, yeah, it wonders me to no end why we didn't have a perp walk like what happened when the RTC cleaned up the oil patch bad banks and S&L's. Well, now we I know we can try again. We'll soon find out how many frakking industry related securities were packaged in fraudulent manner.

For example 200 years ago people worked six days a week with Sundays off, because of the 4th commandment. The workday was 12 hours long. By about 75 years ago, Saturday had been added to Sunday as a day of rest, creating the "weekend". The standard work day had shrunk from 12 hours to 8 hours. All this was achieved by changes in the culture, which was then backed up by legislation.

If one has cable/satellite, this is easy to understand. Journalism has morphed from skeptical analysis to puffery like what the Kardashians are doing or this.

By 1947 teams of economic experts that had been assembled in the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to guide economic policy during the war had been charged with helping to run the economy. The government began the regular collection of economic data to aid in this effort. The economy became to be seen as less and less part of the culture, and more and more its own independent thing, that could be studied like things in the natural world. And so economics came to be seen as separate from the popular culture, and so no longer a topic of intelligent conversation amongst ordinary people who otherwise remain fully capable of intelligently talking about other kinds of popular culture.

The Fed? Come on Mike, all they do now is this:

And yet what is more important to your well-being than the political-economy? In your youth, what things did you spend more time and effort on than the preparation for your career? If you are single or head of household, what are the elements in your life to which you devote more time and effort than obtaining an income? For example, how many hours a week do you spend working for a living compared to pursuing and having sex?

I studied and played poker in underground poker dens in Houston. By extension, you meet assorted ethnic groups and get exposed to exotic cuisines and perspectives. SW Houston is a smorgasbord of recent immigrates. Real Iranian food is wonderful as is authentic Vietnamese food.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If this is true, how come we hear no Xers or Millies talking about an across the board tariff? Why are young people expending all their energy on promoting LBTGqxyz issues, i.e. the social issues promoted by youthful Boomers, rather than the material problems the majority of young people face?

Cynic makes the same mistake Kepi and other young people here often make; ascribing the policies of today's status quo to "Boomers," when they should be ascribed to "Republicans."

It is not a generational policy; it is a political policy, mostly made by one party, and too-often acquiesed in by the other. It is the libertarian economics ideology, aka Reaganomics, etc..

All generations including millennials are responsible for these policies, such as free trade. Too many people have voted wrong, or have not voted. It's true that the elite are good at keeping the status quo in effect "before millies and homies fully awaken politically"-- IOW, vote in midterms. They are "promoting" economics issues, such as at "Occupy," but are not following up with strategic political action. Millies are not "awake" in that way, so they can't affect policy much. But the status quo was not put in place by "Boomers," any more than any of the other generations who have ruled together over the past 40 years or so. If anything, core Boomers were less supportive of Reagan than were other generations at the time. Also, if the duly-elected liberal Boomer president had been allowed to take office in 2000, things might have been somewhat different. So, it was a crap shoot, and Boomers and all of us except the elite lost it.

Kepi's point that millies don't have enough money is somewhat true, though; money is too powerful, and the elite through their Supreme Court majority, chosen by Reagan and the Bush boys, have kept it that way through their ideology of "freedom," despite a reform put in place by a Boomer and a Silent (McCain-Feingold) that offered promise.

For example 200 years ago people worked six days a week with Sundays off, because of the 4th commandment. The workday was 12 hours long. By about 75 years ago, Saturday had been added to Sunday as a day of rest, creating the "weekend". The standard work day had shrunk from 12 hours to 8 hours. All this was achieved by changes in the culture, which was then backed up by legislation.

By 1947 teams of economic experts that had been assembled in the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to guide economic policy during the war had been charged with helping to run the economy. The government began the regular collection of economic data to aid in this effort. The economy became to be seen as less and less part of the culture, and more and more its own independent thing, that could be studied like things in the natural world. And so economics came to be seen as separate from the popular culture, and so no longer a topic of intelligent conversation amongst ordinary people who otherwise remain fully capable of intelligently talking about other kinds of popular culture.

I don't see how that follows. People can still talk about economics if they want to; and they do, here and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by millennialX

A New Political Order is one of the biggest check points in a 4T and I can't believe how folks who think this isn't a 4T, don't see what's happening. Now note what I'm about to say comes from someone who leans slightly left of center, but I think Liberals are turning a blind eye to the Libertarian RIGHT takeover and that's why they don't(want to) see this as a credible 4T or even acknowledge a 9/11 start date.

I somewhat agree, in that people may not see that the Crisis is itself the libertarian right takeover, rather than just the economic or foreign crises that we have. The Republicans ARE the Crisis, because of the deadlock they cause.

I don't think liberals are turning a blind eye. They have made libertarian economics the key issue for decades. They just haven't got the votes. Why? Perhaps it is the elite domination of the narrative through their control of the media, who promote libertarian economics as the necessary conventional wisdom. Opposition to free trade, for example, just doesn't get the support of the pundits. Money in politics is another factor. The 3T mindset naturally inclines toward libertarian economics and individualism, as do Boomers and Xers. The 4T mindset didn't take over because of the division in the country. That division is partly cultural too; economics and social issues can't be so neatly divided. But as in the 1850s, this division has preempted any "regeneracy" or action of a 4T nature. One side must win before any action can take place at all. The late 4T favors the Left demographically. But youth have not learned how to participate in the civic process, because they are complacent; so the Left can't win until they learn.

Some liberals here don't want to see this as a credible 4T, but most people don't have any opinion whether it is or not, since they don't know what a 4T is. And liberals here don't by and large "acknowledge a 9-11 start date for the 4T," because it isn't the start date. The facts don't support such a start date at all. And they understand things have a long way to go before the real Crisis is dealt with. And the real Crisis is domestic, and consists first of all in the division of the country.

They basically don't see their side winning and that the regeneracy might have started on the libertarian conservative side of things. All things said and done, the LIB RIGHT winning doesn't mean all is well because this creates new issues that may be tackled during the next 2 and 4T. See I think the 4T solutions create new crisis issues. This go round, our 4T solutions is addressing a Global Power that's over extending itself and has been doing so since the end of the last Crisis.

Knowing that 9-11 is not the start of the 4T, many of us here on the Left see that the Right has by no means "won." The Right are just older and thus much more knowledgeable about how to stay in power, because they vote in midterms and know how use the power they have (keeping money in politics, gerrymandering, etc.). Power in this country depends on who votes. You can't expect a regeneracy if the right-wing has used the system much more effectively than the left, and if the Left's winning depends on youth who don't understand the system.

There can BE no "libertarian conservative" "regeneracy." That is a degeneracy, only. The current powers-that-be are creating more problems, that's for sure, but they will be dealt with in this 4T, or they will never be dealt with at all. The progressives must win this 4T, or our nation is finished. A declining banana republic will not be able to deal with them, and the whole Earth will be dragged down along with it. There will be no next 2T, or next 4T, in that case. A 4T is a battle for the survival of the country. Our nation advances in a 4T, or it DIES in a 4T. A dead country cannot have another 2T Awakening. Don't forget that; there are no exceptions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I somewhat agree, in that people may not see that the Crisis is itself the libertarian right takeover, rather than just the economic or foreign crises that we have. The Republicans ARE the Crisis, because of the deadlock they cause.

The libertarian wing of the Republican Party is tiny in contrast to the theocrats and the corporatists. Libertarians fool only themselves by aligning themselves with people who see libertarianism useful only as a necessary part of a coalition that barely has enough votes to take over once and then establish an unassailable right-wing dictatorship that then centralizes power and culls out the rest of America from public life. Liberals know what awaits them in the wake of a right-wing dictatorship: complete irrelevance of their values within a fascistic America. Libertarians have the delusion that the margin that they give an authoritarian coalition will cause the theocrats and corporatists to show appreciation for services rendered and reward them with major changes of the political order to their benefit. Such could be tragically wrong. Libertarians will find both the theocratic rejection of sybaritic ways of life and the rejection by rigid monopolies of personal choice. They settle for an ugly New Order, emigrate, or become the first part of the coalition to be purged.

The fortunate Americans could be those getting to live the screenplay of of my favorite movie, Casablanca -- surviving in a high-cost place with few opportunities, questionable safety, and no reasonable alternatives. What differs will be that the Union of Christian and Corporate States (also known as the Evil Empire) that lies between Canada and Mexico will be a place to avoid, the diametric opposite of the United States circa 1940.

I don't think liberals are turning a blind eye. They have made libertarian economics the key issue for decades. They just haven't got the votes. Why? Perhaps it is the elite domination of the narrative through their control of the media, who promote libertarian economics as the necessary conventional wisdom. Opposition to free trade, for example, just doesn't get the support of the pundits. Money in politics is another factor. The 3T mindset naturally inclines toward libertarian economics and individualism, as do Boomers and Xers. The 4T mindset didn't take over because of the division in the country. That division is partly cultural too; economics and social issues can't be so neatly divided. But as in the 1850s, this division has preempted any "regeneracy" or action of a 4T nature. One side must win before any action can take place at all. The late 4T favors the Left demographically. But youth have not learned how to participate in the civic process, because they are complacent; so the Left can't win until they learn.

Free trade implies cheap stuff in Dollar General, Dollar World, and Family Dollar. But do we really need the cheap stuff? Who needs racks of cheap figurines? Who needs gaudy bling? After the 4T ends, tastes will likely become more austere with less room for clutter. Quality will trump quantity. The technology will imply clear differences in what people have on display. Computer storage will basically replace personal libraries and collections of video and music. Maybe the all-purpose video screen will resemble more a movie screen than the small 1950s CRT screen in a bulky piece of furniture.

I cannot predict whether America will face the sort of destruction that cities like Rotterdam, Coventry, Warsaw, Tokyo, and Manila endured in World War II. The stronger that the moral compass of American leadership has through this Crisis Era, the better that America will get through it. But without doubt a leadership with a strong moral compass will convince people that they can live without the cheap stuff that gave many Americans the delusion of prosperity in recent years. (Real prosperity is in solid bank accounts that result from conscientious work fairly rewarded). Bad American leadership will seek cheap labor, cheap raw materials, and captive markets as did Hitlerland and Tojoland on behalf of the economic elites; it will exploit American workers not quite as badly as it exploits those of conquered countries, and American youth will be cannon fodder in the sick effort to create, expand, and finally defend. Such will fail.

Some liberals here don't want to see this as a credible 4T, but most people don't have any opinion whether it is or not, since they don't know what a 4T is. And liberals here don't by and large "acknowledge a 9-11 start date for the 4T," because it isn't the start date. The facts don't support such a start date at all. And they understand things have a long way to go before the real Crisis is dealt with. And the real Crisis is domestic, and consists first of all in the division of the country.

I would have liked to see a muted 4T, more a cultural change than real danger. America is not exempt from the consequences of perverse decisions, one of which is support for reactionary politics. We have economic leaders who would turn workers into serfs if they had the chance. We have politicians who would rather have a profitable war than peace. We have demagogues who would turn the calendar back several centuries so that people could exchange the uncertainties of science and cultural innovation for unqualified and unchanging faith. So modernity has its problems? To such people I suggest that they go camping and hiking... go see nature at its most pristine and awesome. Paradoxically such is a very modern practice, one that prosperous people with knowledge of where they are going can do.

The worst tendencies in America have the wealth behind them.

Knowing that 9-11 is not the start of the 4T, many of us here on the Left see that the Right has by no means "won." The Right are just older and thus much more knowledgeable about how to stay in power, because they vote in midterms and know how use the power they have (keeping money in politics, gerrymandering, etc.). Power in this country depends on who votes. You can't expect a regeneracy if the right-wing has used the system much more effectively than the left, and if the Left's winning depends on youth who don't understand the system.

Power emanates from a bayonet, a blackjack, or an electric prod. Don't forget: a regeneracy need not be benign. Germany had its 4T regeneracy that included the Night of the Long Knives, Kristallnacht, and book burnings. If America ends up under the rule of thugs, then we get a regeneracy that celebrates the amoral exercise of power and that stifles all alternatives.

There can BE no "libertarian conservative" "regeneracy." That is a degeneracy, only. The current powers-that-be are creating more problems, that's for sure, but they will be dealt with in this 4T, or they will never be dealt with at all. The progressives must win this 4T, or our nation is finished. A declining banana republic will not be able to deal with them, and the whole Earth will be dragged down along with it. There will be no next 2T, or next 4T, in that case. A 4T is a battle for the survival of the country. Our nation advances in a 4T, or it DIES in a 4T. A dead country cannot have another 2T Awakening. Don't forget that; there are no exceptions.

The Double-Zero Decade , like the 1920s, was a Degeneracy, a time of clearing out some of the fundamental decencies that had accreted in good times but got in the way of crass materialism, corrupt gain, bad business practices, rampant speculation, class privilege, and mind-numbing superstition. And, yes, if America becomes the Evil Empire it will be dissolved upon its defeat. The victors will impose their cultures upon what sectors they occupy. K-12 curricula of Portland, Maine and Portland, Oregon could be very different in content -- like what foreign languages are mandated learning. After the defeats of Germany, Italy, and Japan... Germany remained Germany; Italy remained Italy; Japan remained Japan. America could extirpate Nazism in Bavaria could not turn Germans away from Goethe and Beethoven (not that such would have been desirable).

Libertarians are not going to get their way in a semi-fascist America. The authoritarian Right shares only one value of libertarians, namely an acceptance of economic inequality as a necessity for freedom. The Religious Right will not tolerate ungodly heresy or sybaritic lifestyles.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yes.
I think that it likely to depends on how working class white Xers age. Right now it is ''cool'' in certain circles to fly the yellow Gasden flag and talk about the ''takers.'' A lot of that is following the lead of angry late wave Silents and the somewhat younger Boomers. But we're all different coming out of the back end of the 3T. Several decades ago a lot of these same Xers ''got mellow'' with their elders while chugging brewskies in cans and passing the bong. As the elders die out and again Xers are surrounded by the younger gens. how many of them try to hang on to the cues they've followed or else adjust to the times may portend a lot.
And I'm going to try and guess at this point.

Some time ago here, I investigated the perennial question of whether or not generations become more conservative (or Republican) as they age, or whether generations have a political identity that is formed early and remains fixed. Since so many prognosticators like to use either argument as "conventional wisdom", I took the time to do the math, at least from 1976 until the present. That's where the consistent exit poll data I could find began.

In short, there is some truth in both statements, but the former is much stronger than the latter. Generations tend to start out with a particular left/right positioning, but for Silents and Boomers, both moved sharply in the Republican direction, somewhere during the point where their generation took over the leadership stage per S&H.

For Silents that happened in 1980. Although Reagan was a GI, Silents were his biggest supporters. While the other generations were relatively consistent in their movement relative to others, Silents shifted sharply "rightward" in their voting in 1980, threw their support behind Reagan, and have stayed their ever since.

For Baby Boomers, it happened in 1992. Apparently a lot of Boomers saw Bill Clinton, knew him as one of their own, and balked. Because of their numbers, Boomers "arrived" early, drove Silents out early, and have stayed past their welcome.

Silents started out more Republican than Boomers did. Boomers were very left/Democrat in their youth, and then when they reached leadership they basically split 50/50, and have drifted more towards Republicans since. But again, in both cases there was a sharp break in one year in the 40-60 age range that coincided with the midlife leadership stage, and held ever since.

Xers are not as conservative as Silents at the same age, but are more conservative then Boomers were. Millenials are about like Boomers were, maybe slightly more Democrat, although Obama has unique qualities that resulted in black Millenials far exceeding other Millenials in their turnout in 2008 and 2012, which skewed the numbers somewhat. More data is needed in future elections to fully characterize Millenials.

In recent elections, Silents have been very heavily Republican, Boomers have been Republican leaning, Xers have been 50/50 with a slight Democrat lean, and Millenials have been heavily Democrat. At the point where an Xer candidate is put forward (perhaps someone like Walker in 2016), history suggests Xers could jump heavily behind the Republicans. If that candidate is a Republican, that could propel them to victory and produce a replay of 1980, with Millenials left out in the cold as the only Democrat-leaning voter group vs. three generations voting Republican - which is what happened to Boomers in 1980.

Here's the problem with analyzing things the way you did, JPT. What "liberal" and "conservative" means changes over time. A person can be "liberal" in youth and "conservative" in midlife, without changing actual positions on actual issues at all.

Take gay rights, for example. A Silent entered young adulthood in the High, some time from the mid '40s to the mid '60s. At that time, the main "gay rights" question was whether people should be prosecuted for engaging in homosexual activity. In the 1980s, it was whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals in hiring and employment, or in service. Today, it's same-sex marriage.

In 1950, a person who believed gay people shouldn't be jailed for being gay, but didn't believe in non-discrimination and for whom same-sex marriage was a preposterous idea, could be considered "liberal." Those same positions today would not be considered liberal, and a Silent who didn't move sharply to the left on this issue over the course of his life would change labels over time.

GIs were famously progressive in the 1930s, giving lopsided votes to Roosevelt. In the 1980s, they gave almost equally lopsided votes to Reagan. Had they gone from being progressive to being conservative? No, they hadn't changed their positions much at all. They still supported unions, Social Security, and the whole New Deal arrangement. But those weren't the issues on the table in 1980 or 1984.

From our current perspective, looking at the Millennials, they, like the GIs, have a reputation for leaning left. If things go for them the way it did for the GIs, they'll have a more conservative reputation in midlife. But that won't be because they've changed their minds about anything. It will be because the issues on which they are currently seen as "leaning left" will, like those of the GIs in their youth, be a done deal, non-controversial, and part of the established order by the time they're in their 50s. On new issues, they may not be out in front any more.

That should not, however, give any comfort to anyone who is conservative on today's​ issues.

Lot's of fallacies and wishful thinking here.

At least Brian pointed out the inevitability of the "Blue Wall" in the Electoral College, but there are other needed corrections such as -

- Libertarians, by their very nature, don't vote
- Do all the wishful thinking you want of youth's 'growing out of their Progressive nature,' says nothing about the consequences of the demographics of an increasingly minority majority.
- Don't mistake the results of the past decade of gerrymandering in the House and a flawed governmental organization principle of giving two senators to puny population states as providing any political power other than to say "no" for a few more years
- If you're still holding onto the notion of no difference in party, sunshine, then you should be okay with Cotton's channelling Rumsfeld with our needing just 6 days of bombing to get those pesky Iranians under control or Ted Cruz telling us that a SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage would be "fundamentally illegitimate."

As for the "great divide," I'm going with biological. There's those whose cerebral cortex are in control and those whose cerebral cortex get overridden by the more primative xenophobic, fight-or-flight amygdala -

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf

Oh, as for the theory of Progressive youth becoming with age something like today's 'conservatives" - I caulk that up to early-onset dementia.

The only rightward trend that I can reliably predict among the Millennial Generation is a possible reaction to youth culture. If one accepts a Millennial/Homeland divide between 2000 and 2001, then the oldest Millennial kids are just entering the potentially-rebellious teen years. Some of us know better whether such is happening or is not. Does anyone see much of a rebellious youth culture among pre-teens and early-teens?

Millennial adults are going to develop loyalty to institutions that do them good, much as was true with the GI Generation. With the GI generation, such loyalty was often to labor unions. Even as blue-collar workers advanced economically they showed loyalty to the unions that gave them collective bargaining that prevented the otherwise-certain exploitation. They saw New Deal politics and the GI Bill offering certainties that might otherwise have never existed. Such connected the GI Generation heavily to the Democratic Party.

It's hard to see what the Right has to offer the GI Generation. Wars for profit? Environmental ruin? Low pay and brutal working conditions? Disparagement of formal education other than narrow training? Civic generations tend to build institutions as solutions to economic distress. What is most remarkable is that those who participate in the formation of those institutions are often not the privileged elites who prefer that society as a whole be atomized as in the nightmarish alternative world of It's a Wonderful Life (the fictional George Bailey finds that without him the druggist "Doc Gowan" has had his life ruined by giving poison to a child while distracted and has become the town drunk, the Martini family neighborhood bar has become a rough saloon, the Bailey Building and Loan which had long ago failed has become a pawn shop, his sister has become a lush who vends her attentions in a dime-a-dance hall, a glitzy casino rips people off, the movie theater offers stag films, and above all the brother whose life he never saved never got the Congressional Medal of Honor for shooting down Japanese Zeros that in the other and nasty reality sank an American troop ship with a great loss of life).

Hmmm... that nasty world seems strangely familiar without the movie. But this time the Millennial Generation has a stake in a humane and decent world as Boom and X profiteers lack.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Lot's of fallacies and wishful thinking here.

At least Brian pointed out the inevitability of the "Blue Wall" in the Electoral College, but there are other needed corrections such as -

- Libertarians, by their very nature, don't vote
- Do all the wishful thinking you want of youth's 'growing out of their Progressive nature,' says nothing about the consequences of the demographics of an increasingly minority majority.
- Don't mistake the results of the past decade of gerrymandering in the House and a flawed governmental organization principle of giving two senators to puny population states as providing any political power other than to say "no" for a few more years
- If you're still holding onto the notion of no difference in party, sunshine, then you should be okay with Cotton's channelling Rumsfeld with our needing just 6 days of bombing to get those pesky Iranians under control or Ted Cruz telling us that a SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage would be "fundamentally illegitimate."

As for the "great divide," I'm going with biological. There's those whose cerebral cortex are in control and those whose cerebral cortex get overridden by the more primative xenophobic, fight-or-flight amygdala -

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf

Oh, as for the theory of Progressive youth becoming with age something like today's 'conservatives" - I caulk that up to early-onset dementia.

You're right. New York and California should rule and everyone else should just go along. You do realize, you're not going to get bailed out the next time.