Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But do they also cheer Bloomberg for the Michele Bachmann-like stance he has staked out on "tax reform;" i.e., if everybody pays the same toll on a bridge, even if it is about to fall down (!), then isn't it only "fair" that everybody pays the same "toll" on what they earn each year?

Probably not

But when was there ever de jure segregation in Bensonhurst? Or Livonia/Sterling Heights, Michigan? Or Cicero, Illinois? Or Torrance, California?

Democrats lost Southern conservatives in the sixties because of Civil Rights. They lost working class whites in the 1980 after they had failed to deal with the economic plight of the working class in the late 1970's. You can remember the misery index, the hostage crisis (we used to make jokes about some day watching "Ted Koppel on Iran hostage Crisis: Day 36,708) the energy crisis, etc.

Under Reagan inflation went away and the misery index collapsed. Unemployment stayed at 1970's levels, and wages failed to rise, but Reagan did not get us into any wars and negotiated the START treaty. Well 2 out of 3 ain't bad, and the GOP gained the whip hand in politics. The next Democrat pretty much governed as a Republican with shit like NAFTA and Gramm-Leach.

Neither party looks out for the interest of working folks. The GOP even less so than Democrats. But the GOP by emphasizing tropes like gun rights, pro-life, traditional marriage and traditional families (code for opposition to feminism) they have formed an identity-politics brand with white men. Working-class white men for Democrats are like Blacks for Republicans, a waste of time to pursue.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Democrats lost social conservatives in the sixties because of Civil Rights. They lost working class whites in the 1980 after they had failed to deal with the economic plight of the working class in the late 1970's. You can remember the misery index, the hostage crisis (we used to make jokes about some day watching "Ted Koppel on Iran hostage Crisis: Day 36,708) the energy crisis, etc.

Not north of the Mason-Dixon Line (which is actually Interstate 70 in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois) they didn't - and it was the hippies and Viet Cong flag-wavers, not African-Americans, who were the deal-breakers for these voters. True, some did go so far as to support George Wallace in 1968 - but remember that it was the "anarchists," not the blacks, that Wallace threatened to run over with his Presidential car, and it was his running mate, Curtis LeMay, who all but came out and said that he would nuke Hanoi if and Wallace and him were elected.

Under Reagan inflation went away and the misery index collapsed. Unemployment stayed at 1970's levels, and wages failed to rise, but Reagan did not get us into any wars and negotiated the START treaty. Well 2 out of 3 ain't bad, and the GOP gained the whip hand in politics. The next Democrat pretty much governed as a Republican with shit like NAFTA and Gramm-Leach.

Neither party looks out for the interest of working folks. The GOP even less so than Democrats. But the GOP by emphasizing tropes like gun rights, pro-life, traditional marriage and traditional families (code for opposition to feminism) they have formed an identity-politics brand with white men. Working-class white men for Democrats are like Blacks for Republicans, a waste of time to pursue.

As I remember it - and I was there, personally, both chronologically and geographically - the transformation was from New Deal Democrats to "Democrats For Nixon" (founded by George Meany, then the head of the AFL-CIO) in 1972, to "Reagan Democrats" in the '80s, to Republicans (although some made the additional "detour" of backing Ross Perot in 1992).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Not north of the Mason-Dixon Line (which is actually Interstate 70 in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois) they didn't - and it was the hippies and Viet Cong flag-wavers, not African-Americans, who were the deal-breakers for these voters. True, some did go so far as to support George Wallace in 1968 - but remember that it was the "anarchists," not the blacks, that Wallace threatened to run over with his Presidential car, and it was his running mate, Curtis LeMay, who all but came out and said that he would nuke Hanoi if and Wallace and him were elected.

It's true the Vietnam War was a big issue, and some people were turned off by "hippies." Nowadays a lot of people think Vietnam and Iraq were mistakes. Yet many still want the USA to be tough on terrorists and the IS, so the fear (among many who actually vote) about events abroad and desire for a "muscular" foreign policy is still strong, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line. It probably got the Republicans the Senate. Ironically perhaps, it is the south (that wanted to be its own nation, and probably still really is) that is the most "patriotic" and militarist.

I'm not sure "hippies" is much of an issue anymore, but cultural conservatives certainly exist. Those of us on the Left/liberals will continue to push for what we think is right, and so we should, whether it gets us elected or not. Politicians, of course, need to pander a bit-- at least to the extent that they try not to offend people. Obama is pretty good at that. Sometimes you can see the frustration behind his bitten tongue come out. Conservatives today are, after all, pretty pathetic overall.

As I remember it - and I was there, personally, both chronologically and geographically - the transformation was from New Deal Democrats to "Democrats For Nixon" (founded by George Meany, then the head of the AFL-CIO) in 1972, to "Reagan Democrats" in the '80s, to Republicans (although some made the additional "detour" of backing Ross Perot in 1992).

Lots of people get conservative as they get older, while younger people come along to tilt the balance back to the center. And certainly lots of folks were deceived by Reaganomics and his promises of a trickle.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's true the Vietnam War was a big issue, and some people were turned off by "hippies." Nowadays a lot of people think Vietnam and Iraq were mistakes. Yet many still want the USA to be tough on terrorists and the IS, so the fear (among many who actually vote) about events abroad and desire for a "muscular" foreign policy is still strong, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line. It probably got the Republicans the Senate. Ironically perhaps, it is the south (that wanted to be its own nation, and probably still really is) that is the most "patriotic" and militarist.

The hippies and the New Left are practically irrelevant now -- like bell-bottom jeans and disco.

We will likely end up in war with ISIS -- but I hope that we have learned from our folly in Iraq that we had better fight smart. Neither Lincoln, Wilson, nor FDR were fire-breathers before the war... and they were excellent leaders of their country through the war. Fire-breathers like Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo did not fare so well.

The President needs not know a d@mn thing about war -- just have the capacity to pick the right alternatives that his generals and admirals offer. But it is far wiser to keep a moral compass intact than to act without mercy.

I'm not sure "hippies" is much of an issue anymore, but cultural conservatives certainly exist. Those of us on the Left/liberals will continue to push for what we think is right, and so we should, whether it gets us elected or not. Politicians, of course, need to pander a bit-- at least to the extent that they try not to offend people. Obama is pretty good at that. Sometimes you can see the frustration behind his bitten tongue come out. Conservatives today are, after all, pretty pathetic overall.

On what is one a conservative? Educational content? Cultural classicism? Drugs? Sexualization of culture? On those I am as conservative as anyone.

Lots of people get conservative as they get older, while younger people come along to tilt the balance back to the center. And certainly lots of folks were deceived by Reaganomics and his promises of a trickle.

The Millennial Generation is likely to become more liberal as it becomes increasingly attached to economically-liberal causes. Age tends to push people to more complete support of the interest groups that they are in.

Just saw a CNN piece, How Pope's move breaks with conservatives. That was easy. This pope came from a poor background and he cares about people. In short, this pope is a Christian.

While this thread is about how liberals don't get it, that's where a lot of conservatives don't get it. Some people care about their fellow men. Not understanding this, some Conservatives will attack any and all attempts to help their fellow men with saving money being their unashamed goal.

What can one do with such people?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Not north of the Mason-Dixon Line (which is actually Interstate 70 in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois) they didn't - and it was the hippies and Viet Cong flag-wavers, not African-Americans, who were the deal-breakers for these voters.

I made an error, I meant Southern conservatives, not social conservatives. Northerners went later.

As I remember it - and I was there, personally, both chronologically and geographically - the transformation was from New Deal Democrats to "Democrats For Nixon" (founded by George Meany, then the head of the AFL-CIO) in 1972, to "Reagan Democrats" in the '80s, to Republicans (although some made the additional "detour" of backing Ross Perot in 1992).

Carter managed to win a decent-sized victory on his own running against a sitting president. he was the last Democrat to do this. After the Dems lost the white working class they have been unable to do this (Clinton had help from Perot in 1992).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I made an error, I meant Southern conservatives, not social conservatives. Northerners went later.


Carter managed to win a decent-sized victory on his own running against a sitting president. he was the last Democrat to do this. After the Dems lost the white working class they have been unable to do this (Clinton had help from Perot in 1992).

Clinton would have won without Perot in the race. Perot's voters would have split the difference.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Just saw a CNN piece, How Pope's move breaks with conservatives. That was easy. This pope came from a poor background and he cares about people. In short, this pope is a Christian.

While this thread is about how liberals don't get it, that's where a lot of conservatives don't get it. Some people care about their fellow men. Not understanding this, some Conservatives will attack any and all attempts to help their fellow men with saving money being their unashamed goal.

What can one do with such people?

In reality much of the GOP's demographic are good contributors to charitable organizations. It's not about whether or not to help those less fortunate, it's a matter of how to help them and who should do it. Now, if government could be even more effective than 501 c 3s, then it would be a no brainer to centralize the efforts into government. There would be a long road ahead in order to reach such a point.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

In reality much of the GOP's demographic are good contributors to charitable organizations. It's not about whether or not to help those less fortunate, it's a matter of how to help them and who should do it. Now, if government could be even more effective than 501 c 3s, then it would be a no brainer to centralize the efforts into government. There would be a long road ahead in order to reach such a point.

Actually, every study of the impacts generated by private versus public charity, public charity won. Sure, private charity did a better job of addressing certain, often arcane issues, but public charity had a broader and more consistent impact. it also has lower loading, since the government bureaucrats can work many programs in parallel. A best example: Medicare has a loading of roughly .2%.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

In reality much of the GOP's demographic are good contributors to charitable organizations. It's not about whether or not to help those less fortunate, it's a matter of how to help them and who should do it. Now, if government could be even more effective than 501 c 3s, then it would be a no brainer to centralize the efforts into government. There would be a long road ahead in order to reach such a point.

A long road back to where we were before Ronnie took over, that is.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's true the Vietnam War was a big issue, and some people were turned off by "hippies." Nowadays a lot of people think Vietnam and Iraq were mistakes. Yet many still want the USA to be tough on terrorists and the IS, so the fear (among many who actually vote) about events abroad and desire for a "muscular" foreign policy is still strong, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line. It probably got the Republicans the Senate. Ironically perhaps, it is the south (that wanted to be its own nation, and probably still really is) that is the most "patriotic" and militarist.

These days, white ethnics, such as Italian-Americans, are every bit as "patriotic" and "militarist" as any Southerners; indeed, an Italian-American Staten Islander, Scott LoBaido, has gained national notoriety painting grandiloquent American flag-themed murals all over the country - and it was a neighborhood in central Staten Island, Westerleigh (largely populated by civil servants, perhaps chief among them police officers), whose residents earned nationwide fame with their elaborate, and some would say gaudy, displays of patriotic decorations outside their homes in the wake of 9/11.

I'm not sure "hippies" is much of an issue anymore, but cultural conservatives certainly exist. Those of us on the Left/liberals will continue to push for what we think is right, and so we should, whether it gets us elected or not. Politicians, of course, need to pander a bit-- at least to the extent that they try not to offend people. Obama is pretty good at that. Sometimes you can see the frustration behind his bitten tongue come out. Conservatives today are, after all, pretty pathetic overall.

But if they don't get elected, what good does it do?

Lots of people get conservative as they get older, while younger people come along to tilt the balance back to the center. And certainly lots of folks were deceived by Reaganomics and his promises of a trickle.

And trickle-down economics is back - as a moderate alternative to punitive economics based on perceived moral deservedness, as the likes of Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson want to drastically raise taxes on the poor while slashing them for the rich, in contrast to Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum, who favor across-the-board cuts in income tax rates.

I maintain that this move to the right is motivated by the GOP being emboldened by its ability to appeal to even low-income traditional voters (Owsley County, Kentucky, the poorest county in the entire United States, went 81% for Mitt Romney in 2012) by railing against the worst of the "anything goes" agenda of the Democrats - gay marriage and unbridled abortion on demand, including partial-birth abortion.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

These days, white ethnics, such as Italian-Americans, are every bit as "patriotic" and "militarist" as any Southerners; indeed, an Italian-American Staten Islander, Scott LoBaido, has gained national notoriety painting grandiloquent American flag-themed murals all over the country - and it was a neighborhood in central Staten Island, Westerleigh (largely populated by civil servants, perhaps chief among them police officers), whose residents earned nationwide fame with their elaborate, and some would say gaudy, displays of patriotic decorations outside their homes in the wake of 9/11.

Many Americans were "patriotic" after 9-11. Even an anti-war fella like myself supported some kind of action against Al Qaeda. In general though, I remember that according to polls militarism is concentrated in the South.

But if they don't get elected, what good does it do?

There's no reason to pander to social conservatives; they are not as powerful anymore in the 4T as they were in the 3T. And if you get elected by deserting what you want to do when you get elected, what good does that do?

And trickle-down economics is back - as a moderate alternative to punitive economics based on perceived moral deservedness, as the likes of Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson want to drastically raise taxes on the poor while slashing them for the rich, in contrast to Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum, who favor across-the-board cuts in income tax rates.

I expected better from Huckabee, if that's true. But I guess in this regard it's a battle between right-wing economics and ultra right-wing punitive economics.

I maintain that this move to the right is motivated by the GOP being emboldened by its ability to appeal to even low-income traditional voters (Owsley County, Kentucky, the poorest county in the entire United States, went 81% for Mitt Romney in 2012) by railing against the worst of the "anything goes" agenda of the Democrats - gay marriage and unbridled abortion on demand, including partial-birth abortion.

Yeah, I know; and it still has some resonance in your border-state part of the country, also known as the Bible Belt-- and an area populated by conservative southern whites. Nationally, it's not so; this social conservatism is declining, especially in regard to gay marriage. You know that; you're up on the news.

[QUOTE='58 Flat;525317]But if they don't get elected, what good does it do?[/quote[]
The other guys get elected then. Look I can see where you are coming from. You are the Michael Lind-type national liberal. I used to have a lot of sympathy with this view, but I finally rejected it as unrealistic. Here's why.

You know that the GOP will do nothing for you, but you cannot stomach the Dems, so either your vote for a conservative Dem, a Republican or don't vote at all. But when you discuss the issues, like you have been doing here. all the stuff you have bought up is standard Republican boiler plate about social issues and foreign policy. If you REALLY thing whether Iran gets a nuke is more important than Dept of Labor policy, then hey vote Republican and live with the economic consequences.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The other guys get elected then. Look I can see where you are coming from. You are the Michael Lind-type national liberal. I used to have a lot of sympathy with this view, but I finally rejected it as unrealistic. Here's why.

You know that the GOP will do nothing for you, but you cannot stomach the Dems, so either your vote for a conservative Dem, a Republican or don't vote at all. But when you discuss the issues, like you have been doing here. all the stuff you have bought up is standard Republican boiler plate about social issues and foreign policy. If you REALLY thing whether Iran gets a nuke is more important than Dept of Labor policy, then hey vote Republican and live with the economic consequences.

If you think gay marriage or abortion rights (Democratic boiler plate issue) are more important than economics or Iran developing nuclear bombs, then vote Democratic. If you think gun rights or religious rights are more important than receiving unwanted/unnecessary government support or spending, then vote Republican.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If you think gay marriage or abortion rights (Democratic boiler plate issue) are more important than economics or Iran developing nuclear bombs, then vote Democratic. If you think gun rights or religious rights are more important than receiving unwanted/unnecessary government support or spending, then vote Republican.

I am more concerned about the political statements of American politicians, including Senator Tom Cotton, who would support a condition in which Iran would be tempted to use a nuclear weapon (to defend itself against American aggression against Iran) than I am about Iran having nukes.

I will gladly sacrifice the rights of criminals, lunatics, and abusive spouses to bear arms so that we can have less violent crime and thus have more freedom.

The problem with the Republican party is that it offers me nothing but greater economic insecurity, lower pay, lesser government services, more danger on the job, environmental ruin, more waste of natural resources, more possibility of pointless and destructive war, more sexual repression, more promotion of a religious heritage that I find ludicrous to abominable, and more inequality...

Same-sex marriage is a losing proposition for the GOP.

Conservatism as current constituted is nonsense, but liberals refuse to accept that modern liberalism is also pretty much nonsense. What we need is a new cultural reformation, a new political reformation. What we need is true progress, progress using tried and true methods instead of pie-in-the-sky notions. Think of a meritocratic state ruled by a meritocratic elite who achieved their positions by consistent competence while rising through the ranks. Think of a political system where the negative influence of money in politics has been purged from the land. Think of a system where children will go to school where they will learn real-world skills in addition to the traditional subjects such as math reading, science and literature: in addition to these they would also learn survival skills training. Think of a system where children learn from an early age the value of teamwork and are given rewards for competitions between teams. Children would be taught the virtues of strength as both boys and girls would be taught the virtues and glory of heroism in battle. It would be like a more egalitarian version of ancient and medieval Asia from like it was through the shang though the Ming dynasty as well as japan until the establishment of the tokugawa state. Think of an America run by strong leaders and strong government and not government by weakling and government by globalist bureaucrat.

The baby boomers and silent and early xers have done a disservice to America by promoting this decadent status quo. Only Millie's and mid to late wave xers and the new generation that is currently in school instinctively recognize the call of the true hero, and aspire to true leadership and long for true freedom. The baby boomers embraced such nonsense such as gay marriage, trickle-down economics, etc. Conservatives criticizes the boomers disregard for the constitution, these constitutionalists are right in a few minor points but are otherwise mostly wrong. The boomers only took advantage of the constitution to make the system more authoritarian so that they could shove their nonsensical ideas down the country's throats. They were able to do this because the outdated constitution provided rules the "checks and balances" that favor status quo politics, in order to fix the country these "checks and balances" must be removed.

When the restorationist revolution happens the current elites would largely be purged and their assets divided between the new meritocratic elites and the rising entrepreneur class. The boomer elites will be purged, those who confess their crimes would be spared but they will collectively be relieved of their ill-gotten wealth. The corporate elites would be executed and their heads would be displayed on pikes as punishment for their greed. A building program of infrastructure and industry would commence first with economic infrastructure later the rebuilding of military infrastructure would commence. The military would be built up to 15 million troops and over 100,000 nukes. The education system would be reformed as mentioned earlier. After the domestic recovery is largely complete the foreign policy objectives would commence. First the vassalization of Latin America to secure their economic, industrial and natural resources, this would be done in order to prevent that region from being a springboard for possible attacks by our enemies. Once Latin America has been vassalized the general pacification of the middle east and north Africa would commence using carpet bombing followed by full-scale ground invasion. Once the conquest is complete the whole area would be divided into military administrative regions governed by military governors. Settlement zones, settlement cities and administrative cities would be built to administer these areas, although as mentioned numerous times before construction of these proposed cities would be carried out by Arab Muslim Labor. In these regions the Islamic cleric class would be purged because they plunged the world into war the clerics as a group would not be given a sanctimonious burial, they would be burned down literally and figuratively and their remains would be scattered to salt the earth, as a permanent reminder of what happens when one commits themselves to doing wrong. The reformed Arab culture would gradually merge with western and Latin American culture as the Anglosphere, Latin America, and the reformed middle east would gradually merge in a civilizational reconciliation to create a new culture and eventual superstate. As a final note I believe by spreading the word to be, to make a comparison with figures from the last 4T, I believe I am channeling FDR and channeling the similar need to build up in order to save the world as we know it.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

As a final note I believe by spreading the word to be, to make a comparison with figures from the last 4T, I believe I am channeling FDR and channeling the similar need to build up in order to save the world as we know it.

Well, no. Among many other things, one of FDR's dreams was to reduce armaments to the point where the troubles of his time could never happen again. FDR would find your notion of militarization and aggression abhorrent.

I tried to communicate with you last time around but found you would rather continue your rants than respond to someone who tried to communicate. I don't see anything new above, so I'll watch your daydreams from a safe distance.

But I am troubled by both the conservative and liberal nonsense, or the ritual distrust and stagnation. Those advocating either the Red or Blue perspective are doing little better than we are at communicating. I sometimes wonder if the main stream rants and daydreams are any more or less irrational than your Restoree government, a return to Atilla the Hun.

I can see the goals of either world view as making sense. A smaller government demanding less taxation would be nice. So would affordable health care. To me both a world without guns and a continued ability to defend one's self can be rational goals, though both can be pursued with irrational fervor.

The arguments themselves are interesting in themselves, though tainted by denialism. Many a scientific progressive will be dismayed by rejection of evolution, global warming, or claims that lowering the tax rate can generate additional revenue for the government. I label this as values lock. If one's values are threatened, reason and evidence are twisted or lost rather than an individual re-evaluating their core beliefs. This happens a lot. This happens continuously.

It would seem that both progressives and conservatives find reevaluating their boilerplate positions to be world view threatening. The lack of communications on most political issues is blatant. Both sides have ritual counter arguments that in their minds demolish the worth of the other faction's perspective. The core of the discussion centers on each faction repeating stereotypes of how the other side thinks (or is unable to think). It seems more important to insult and mischaracterize the opposing way of thought than to really seek a solution to the problem, or at least reach a common understanding of the problem.

Yes, less taxes would be nice. Affordable health care for the bulk of Americans isn't just 'nice.' It is life essential and critical to those in need. One can walk though any given issue gap and discover a similar clash between vaguely rational goals. What one can't find is a willingness to respect the other and talk about things with an open mind. At bottom, people don't have open minds. At bottom, one has heard the other guy's rants and daydreams so often that listening to their nonsense isn't worth one's time.

Anyway, I have a vague notion that I ought to chastise you for ranting and raving, not listening, not communicating, for repeating an implausible scheme that could never work, that has nothing to do with logic, evidence or even tradition. Alas, I have a similar vague notion that I ought to be doing the same to everybody.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, no. Among many other things, one of FDR's dreams was to reduce armaments to the point where the troubles of his time could never happen again. FDR would find your notion of militarization and aggression abhorrent.

I tried to communicate with you last time around but found you would rather continue your rants than respond to someone who tried to communicate. I don't see anything new above, so I'll watch your daydreams from a safe distance.

But I am troubled by both the conservative and liberal nonsense, or the ritual distrust and stagnation. Those advocating either the Red or Blue perspective are doing little better than we are at communicating. I sometimes wonder if the main stream rants and daydreams are any more or less irrational than your Restoree government, a return to Atilla the Hun.

I can see the goals of either world view as making sense. A smaller government demanding less taxation would be nice. So would affordable health care. To me both a world without guns and a continued ability to defend one's self can be rational goals, though both can be pursued with irrational fervor.

The arguments themselves are interesting in themselves, though tainted by denialism. Many a scientific progressive will be dismayed by rejection of evolution, global warming, or claims that lowering the tax rate can generate additional revenue for the government. I label this as values lock. If one's values are threatened, reason and evidence are twisted or lost rather than an individual re-evaluating their core beliefs. This happens a lot. This happens continuously.

It would seem that both progressives and conservatives find reevaluating their boilerplate positions to be world view threatening. The lack of communications on most political issues is blatant. Both sides have ritual counter arguments that in their minds demolish the worth of the other faction's perspective. The core of the discussion centers on each faction repeating stereotypes of how the other side thinks (or is unable to think). It seems more important to insult and mischaracterize the opposing way of thought than to really seek a solution to the problem, or at least reach a common understanding of the problem.

Yes, less taxes would be nice. Affordable health care for the bulk of Americans isn't just 'nice.' It is life essential and critical to those in need. One can walk though any given issue gap and discover a similar clash between vaguely rational goals. What one can't find is a willingness to respect the other and talk about things with an open mind. At bottom, people don't have open minds. At bottom, one has heard the other guy's rants and daydreams so often that listening to their nonsense isn't worth one's time.

Anyway, I have a vague notion that I ought to chastise you for ranting and raving, not listening, not communicating, for repeating an implausible scheme that could never work, that has nothing to do with logic, evidence or even tradition. Alas, I have a similar vague notion that I ought to be doing the same to everybody.

The whole Red - Blue conflict is a 2T/3T hangover, a bunch of Boomers (and the remaining Silents) fighting "yesterday's war" so to speak. In the 4T and the 1T after it, a more unified vision is set to take hold. One thing I think we will see with the Millies and Homies will be their ability to synch up and get things done. Getting things done will far outweigh ideological debates and ideologues will be looked upon as assholes.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The whole Red - Blue conflict is a 2T/3T hangover, a bunch of Boomers (and the remaining Silents) fighting "yesterday's war" so to speak. In the 4T and the 1T after it, a more unified vision is set to take hold. One thing I think we will see with the Millies and Homies will be their ability to synch up and get things done. Getting things done will far outweigh ideological debates and ideologues will be looked upon as assholes.

This is classic S&H, of course. I think this is a common hope for all the ideologues contributing to these forums is that everyone will unite behind their particular ideology. Of course they would think so. Each ideologue thinks his own ideology is common sense and common sense triumphs in a 4T.

But there is usually a presumptive ideology that is pushed during the 3T. Enlightenment philosophy was big before the Revolution. The abolitionists had been preaching during the lead up to the US Civil War. The progressive platform was there at least from Teddy Roosevelt's time, well before the New Deal.

The arrow of progress is not so clear these days. Conservative ideologues heap scorn on this period's progressive agenda as "yesderday's war" and view progressives as "assholes". Well, perhaps that isn't too different. I'm sure the Royalists, slaveholders and robber barons had similar opinions of the patriots, abolitionists and New Deal progressives.

But if the Blue agenda isn't the true 4T agenda there is no true 4T agenda. Yes, the 4T brings about large changes far beyond what is anticipated. Still, the flaws in the society and the vague direction of what should be done to fix them are generally fairly clear. They have been talked to death in the 3T. What absolutely and positively has to be done is perfectly clear to everyone except the conservatives, who remain willfully blind.

Of course, the current Blue agenda has also been talked to death in this 3T too. It has also been scorned to death in this 3T. As usual, the Conservatives refuse to see the flaws in their society and deny the need for change.

I'm just not seeing things building to a crescendo as of now. My intuitive feel is that the 4T is overdue. There ought to be rabble rousers building up their message to the point where it is finally accepted by enough of a majority to build a motivated and purposeful Congress.

Such a Congress remains a fanciful dream. It is just not happening yet. A lot of folk will declare with great faith that of course their own common sense ideology* is about to triumph. I'd like to think that might happen with mine. However, when looking for an S&H 4T, I'm looking for a spiral of rhetoric building towards a potential spiral of violence. Nothing like that is happening.

Edit

* Would "common sense ideology" be an oxymoron like "friendly fire"? If one think's one's own concept of political values and doctrine are clear common sense, does it follow that one is an ideologue?

Originally Posted by B Butler

This is classic S&H, of course. I think this is a common hope for all the ideologues contributing to these forums is that everyone will unite behind their particular ideology. Of course they would think so. Each ideologue thinks his own ideology is common sense and common sense triumphs in a 4T.

But there is usually a presumptive ideology that is pushed during the 3T. Enlightenment philosophy was big before the Revolution. The abolitionists had been preaching during the lead up to the US Civil War. The progressive platform was there at least from Teddy Roosevelt's time, well before the New Deal.

The arrow of progress is not so clear these days. Conservative ideologues heap scorn on this period's progressive agenda as "yesderday's war" and view progressives as "assholes". Well, perhaps that isn't too different. I'm sure the Royalists, slaveholders and robber barons had similar opinions of the patriots, abolitionists and New Deal progressives.

But if the Blue agenda isn't the true 4T agenda there is no true 4T agenda. Yes, the 4T brings about large changes far beyond what is anticipated. Still, the flaws in the society and the vague direction of what should be done to fix them are generally fairly clear. They have been talked to death in the 3T. What absolutely and positively has to be done is perfectly clear to everyone except the conservatives, who remain willfully blind.

Of course, the current Blue agenda has also been talked to death in this 3T too. It has also been scorned to death in this 3T. As usual, the Conservatives refuse to see the flaws in their society and deny the need for change.

I'm just not seeing things building to a crescendo as of now. My intuitive feel is that the 4T is overdue. There ought to be rabble rousers building up their message to the point where it is finally accepted by enough of a majority to build a motivated and purposeful Congress.

Such a Congress remains a fanciful dream. It is just not happening yet. A lot of folk will declare with great faith that of course their own common sense ideology* is about to triumph. I'd like to think that might happen with mine. However, when looking for an S&H 4T, I'm looking for a spiral of rhetoric building towards a potential spiral of violence. Nothing like that is happening.

Edit

* Would "common sense ideology" be an oxymoron like "friendly fire"? If one think's one's own concept of political values and doctrine are clear common sense, does it follow that one is an ideologue?

I don't see either 4T option emerging: cohesion or taking sides. Yes, ideological sides are being taken, but that's just the norm for politics. Even there, the intensity is lacking for the political struggle to grow into something larger. Yet the need to move the country away from a neutral and barren center is obvious to everyone. It's just not happening!

So we can have another triggering event, and this time may be the charm, or the 4T might melt away to insignificance. Since I don't see the trigger, I'm voting for a mild or even a failed 4T.

I wish David Kaiser would make an appearance.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, no. Among many other things, one of FDR's dreams was to reduce armaments to the point where the troubles of his time could never happen again. FDR would find... militarization and aggression abhorrent.

The United States was the last country to militarize in any way. It was still the most dangerous enemy that the Axis Powers could face.

But I am troubled by both the conservative and liberal nonsense, or the ritual distrust and stagnation. Those advocating either the Red or Blue perspective are doing little better than we are at communicating.

At the least I see one consequence of a Blue victory as the return of conservatism to some principles that many of us found less troublesome. I would like to see conservatives again promote rational thought, community, integrity, thrift, and investment instead of some pipe dream of irresponsible elites getting whatever they want in the hope that those elites will generously allow something to trickle down.

Bad national habits that hurt almost everyone must die in a 4T. The militarism, sex-charged culture, crony capitalism, devil-take-the-hindmost economics, depraved mass culture, and pseudoscience associated with the Red Side must die. If we do not disenthrall ourselves of these, then someone else might. After all, the United States disenthralled Germany and Japan of some very bad national habits at the end of World War II... would that the Germans and Japanese delivered themselves!

I can see the goals of either world view as making sense. A smaller government demanding less taxation would be nice. So would affordable health care. To me both a world without guns and a continued ability to defend one's self can be rational goals, though both can be pursued with irrational fervor.

Less fluff and more service? That's the old bromide of political candidates promising that they can deliver finance more and better government services by eliminating waste and corruption.

The arguments themselves are interesting in themselves, though tainted by denialism. Many a scientific progressive will be dismayed by rejection of evolution, global warming, or claims that lowering the tax rate can generate additional revenue for the government. I label this as values lock. If one's values are threatened, reason and evidence are twisted or lost rather than an individual re-evaluating their core beliefs. This happens a lot. This happens continuously.

There really are ignoramuses -- even people who deny the Holocaust. If I dissent with someone who denies the Holocaust, do I show values lock? The Laffer Curve often cited as evidence that government can collect more revenue by cutting tax rates has no empirical evidence behind it. There is no rational rejection of evolution on any scientific basis. If someone has an argument that the acceptance of evolution makes a people more vicious -- begin the argument. Science is amoral. Science can tell us what happens to someone compelled to breathe in fumes of hydrogen cyanide; morals can tell us that subjecting people to death from breathing hydrogen cyanide is murder.

If evolution is true, then do we lose our 'special' role in nature because we are just another animal? It's up to us to make ourselves special.

It would seem that both progressives and conservatives find reevaluating their boilerplate positions to be world view threatening. The lack of communications on most political issues is blatant. Both sides have ritual counter arguments that in their minds demolish the worth of the other faction's perspective. The core of the discussion centers on each faction repeating stereotypes of how the other side thinks (or is unable to think). It seems more important to insult and mischaracterize the opposing way of thought than to really seek a solution to the problem, or at least reach a common understanding of the problem.

Pseudoscience has solved anything only by pure chance, as with alchemists stumbling onto new knowledge.

Yes, less taxes would be nice. Affordable health care for the bulk of Americans isn't just 'nice.' It is life essential and critical to those in need. One can walk though any given issue gap and discover a similar clash between vaguely rational goals. What one can't find is a willingness to respect the other and talk about things with an open mind. At bottom, people don't have open minds. At bottom, one has heard the other guy's rants and daydreams so often that listening to their nonsense isn't worth one's time.

We will have to make some trade-offs.

Anyway, I have a vague notion that I ought to chastise you for ranting and raving, not listening, not communicating, for repeating an implausible scheme that could never work, that has nothing to do with logic, evidence or even tradition. Alas, I have a similar vague notion that I ought to be doing the same to everybody.

We need the means of sorting out sense from nonsense. We need some ground rules. But even in opposition we had better act with some empathy.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is nothing moral about take from the poor to give to the rich. It's pure greed.

There is nothing moral about take from the rich to give to the poor either. It's greedy as well.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I am more concerned about the political statements of American politicians, including Senator Tom Cotton, who would support a condition in which Iran would be tempted to use a nuclear weapon (to defend itself against American aggression against Iran) than I am about Iran having nukes.

I will gladly sacrifice the rights of criminals, lunatics, and abusive spouses to bear arms so that we can have less violent crime and thus have more freedom.

The problem with the Republican party is that it offers me nothing but greater economic insecurity, lower pay, lesser government services, more danger on the job, environmental ruin, more waste of natural resources, more possibility of pointless and destructive war, more sexual repression, more promotion of a religious heritage that I find ludicrous to abominable, and more inequality...

Same-sex marriage is a losing proposition for the GOP.

Makes sense. You're a Democrat.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

There is nothing moral about take from the rich to give to the poor either. It's greedy as well.

Towards the end of FDR's life he began specifying exactly what "Freedom from want" meant. Many of his ideas found their way into Eleanor's and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Part of the impetus behind this was idealistic, but it also shaped the Cold War. If a man can't feed his family, if he can't provide them shelter, if decent medical care is out of reach, if it is impossible to prepare for retirement, then the society is not a stable one.

Some conservatives don't get it, cannot distinguish between a rich guy being forced to build a somewhat smaller yacht and a poor guy sending his child to school hungry and sick. There is a difference between greed and wanting to provide the basics. Government safety nets and economic policies should be designed that the bulk of the population can achieve needs, not to maximize mega yacht size. If the basic economy is tuned well and inclusive, the rich will do just fine. If the rich are allowed to push their greed unhindered, not everything is fine.

But some conservatives just don't get it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Towards the end of FDR's life he began specifying exactly what "Freedom from want" meant. Many of his ideas found their way into Eleanor's and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Part of the impetus behind this was idealistic, but it also shaped the Cold War. If a man can't feed his family, if he can't provide them shelter, if decent medical care is out of reach, if it is impossible to prepare for retirement, then the society is not a stable one.

Some conservatives don't get it, cannot distinguish between a rich guy being forced to build a somewhat smaller yacht and a poor guy sending his child to school hungry and sick. There is a difference between greed and wanting to provide the basics. Government safety nets and economic policies should be designed that the bulk of the population can achieve needs, not to maximize mega yacht size. If the basic economy is tuned well and inclusive, the rich will do just fine. If the rich are allowed to push their greed unhindered, not everything is fine.

But some conservatives just don't get it.

Conservatives don't care about the size of a rich man's yacht. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being dependent on the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate with the feeling of being entitled to receiving the rich man's money. Conservatives don't associate themselves as being direct recipients of the rich man's money. BTW, there is no moral difference between taking money away from one group to give to another group. Morally and objectively speaking, taking away money from people to give to other people is wrong. Some liberals just don't get it.