Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Bernie 4 Prez anybody? - Page 3







Post#51 at 07-06-2015 03:28 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
07-06-2015, 03:28 PM #51
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
No, Obama is FDR three years too early.
Or he could be Al Smith.







Post#52 at 07-06-2015 03:35 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-06-2015, 03:35 PM #52
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Or he could be Al Smith.
Well no. Smith was never president.

But Obama took over after only a few months of depression, and pulled us out of it. Not enough suffering on the part of the people to convince them that things needed to change, that Obama needed to do more; not less; and that electing a Republican congress was not the way to bring this change about.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#53 at 07-06-2015 03:40 PM by Teacher in Exile [at Prescott, AZ joined Sep 2014 #posts 271]
---
07-06-2015, 03:40 PM #53
Join Date
Sep 2014
Location
Prescott, AZ
Posts
271

There's been some excellent rebuttals to my views on Bernie Sanders. Let it be known that in the Democratic primary in Arizona, I would cast my vote for him because he's a far better choice than Hillary Clinton. However, unless 2016 shapes up as a wave election with ever more members of the Progressive Caucus firmly in control of the Democratic Party, I will be resigned once again to casting my vote for the Green Party. Having said that, I would like to steer the discussion of his candidacy in a different direction if I could. Assuming you like his stance on the issues, let's ask ourselves what are the odds that he not only secures the nomination but prevails in the general election as well? I look to the history as a guide, and history is not on his side in either case.

As to his chances of winning the Democratic nomination, I turn to a recent article in the FiveThirtyEight blog entitled "What to Make of the Bernie Sanders Surge." In it Harry Enten writes, "If Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont wins the Democratic nomination, then everything we know about presidential primaries can be thrown out the window....Consider the top five candidates in early polling in modern primary history: Republican Ronald Reagan for the 1980 nomination, Republican George H.W. Bush for 1988, Republican George W. Bush for 2000, Republican Bob Dole for 1996 and Democrat Al Gore for 2000. All went on to win at least 59 percent of the national primary vote and easily take the nomination. All were polling at 35 percent or better in Iowa, New Hampshire and national primary polls at this point in their campaigns....Clinton looks as strong as — or stronger than — any of these past front-runners. She is near 60 percent in Iowa and nationally, and above 40 percent in New Hampshire. It shouldn’t be too surprising that Sanders is doing well in New Hampshire, Vermont’s neighbor....it’s difficult to imagine why someone who has described himself as a socialist, has never competed for minority voters and has no roots within the Democratic Party should worry Clinton much. She might actually be relieved to be challenged by someone who has so little chance at winning the nomination. Let’s imagine a case where Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire. In that world, you’d likely see the Democratic establishment rush in to try to squash Sanders, much as Republicans did to Newt Gingrich in 2012 after he won South Carolina....Sanders has very little establishment backing: Of the 111 governors, senators and members of the House to have endorsed a Democratic candidate, 100 percent have endorsed Clinton. Only Gore in 2000 came close to winning this large a percentage of the endorsements at this point in the campaign. Clinton’s support comes from north, south, east, west, black, Latino and white....If Sanders makes a real run, Clinton is likely to respond the way past nominees have. She’s going to recast her message when necessary and rely upon the overwhelming support of those within the party. We’re already seeing it with regard to her positioning on trade and surrogate attacks on Sanders for his views on immigration....But don’t be surprised if Clinton loses in a few contests. (Do be surprised if Clinton loses the nomination.)"

For the full article, click on this link: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/w...sanders-surge/

Now, supposing he secures the nomination, what does history say about his chances of becoming the 45th President of the United States? To answer this question I examined U.S. presidential elections going all the way back to 1900. The proper analog would be a general election in which a new Democratic candidate for president had hoped to keep the White House in Democratic hands even though his predecessor had surrendered control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans in the mid-term election(s). Only two examples come to mind. Woodrow Wilson saw his Congressional majority evaporate in the 1918 mid-term election (a similar fate suffered by Obama in 2010 and 2014). Wilson's aspiring successor was a Democratic dark-horse candidate, James M. Cox, who lost out to Warren G. Harding in 1920, ushering in twelve years of Republican administrations. More recently, after Bill Clinton's two terms in office, Al Gore lost the White House in 2000 to George W. Bush, the Republicans having seized control of Congress in the 1994 mid-term election.

So, however much you may like Bernie Sanders on the issues, he is bucking history--and some real long odds...







Post#54 at 07-06-2015 03:42 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
07-06-2015, 03:42 PM #54
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
The all-important moderates that elected Bill Clinton in the 1990s simply don't exist anymore.
They never did. The moderates have always been Dem or Rep-leaning. They seem to be gone because Dem and Rep are now farther apart. Was Clinton a moderate Democrat, or actually a moderate Republican? I think deep down Bill and Hillary's political views (when they had them) are a lot further to the left than the way they governed. And you can be sure than George Sr. is, ideologically just as right-wing as his son. It's just that the elder Bush came from a time when you didn't wear your ideology on your sleeve. And Clintons views had to be moderated to fit the political reality.

Both Clintons were forged in the political fires of the 1980's and 1990's, and that affects one's views of what is politically possible. You know FDR was transformed by a shattering personal experience after his stint in the Wilson administration. That may be why he was different than his mentor Al Smith.







Post#55 at 07-06-2015 04:35 PM by millennialX [at Gotham City, USA joined Oct 2010 #posts 6,597]
---
07-06-2015, 04:35 PM #55
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Gotham City, USA
Posts
6,597

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
No, Obama is FDR three years too early.
I'll stick with my thought but will say that Bush put us into a 4T mode earlier than we were supposed to be. Everyone looks at some event as the 4T catalyst and I believe it wasn't an event, but a who.

The Bush administration put us into a 4T.

I can also see how Obama should have waited to be our neo Ike in the next 1T.
Born in 1981 and INFJ Gen Yer







Post#56 at 07-06-2015 05:28 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
07-06-2015, 05:28 PM #56
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Yes, but no.

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
I'll stick with my thought but will say that Bush put us into a 4T mode earlier than we were supposed to be. Everyone looks at some event as the 4T catalyst and I believe it wasn't an event, but a who.

The Bush administration put us into a 4T.
I am inclined to agree that between Bush 43 and 911 we ended up in a 4T mood for a time. His doctrine of unilateral preemptive invasion was radically new, controversial and divisive. The country was briefly united, decisive and focused, if only we were given a task other than 'go shopping' to sustain said mood. There was a time of trying new stuff and changing on the fly if it didn't work. The result is a new military doctrine, a new awareness of the limits of how much we can do and the cost of doing it. This has informed Middle Eastern policy during the Obama years.

But when the economic collapse came, neither party pushed for transformation. They did band aids and return to status quo. At this point the mood and tactics are that of 3T, obstruction, stagnation and at best compromise. The mood is not all out effort to meet an emergency 4T. It is not rigidly enforce the current values 1T. It is dither and be damned 3T.

There has been no regeneracy. There is no united government capable of or interested in transforming the country to solve critical problems.

I am not at this point a fan of an inevitable four cycle turning sequence: high, awakening, unraveling, crisis. That pattern was good for the Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age. Four cycle theory isn't much good anywhere or any when else. Thus, I'm not going to try to force fit it when it doesn't work.

So I can agree that Bush 43 put us into a 4T, but deny that we're still there.

This being the case, the game of comparing recent presidents to those of the prior 3T 4T cups might not work very well. At one point I was trying to fit Bush 43 into Hoover's slot. Both messed up big time on the economic side. I just can't get it to fit clean at this point.
Last edited by B Butler; 07-06-2015 at 05:32 PM.







Post#57 at 07-06-2015 05:31 PM by Teacher in Exile [at Prescott, AZ joined Sep 2014 #posts 271]
---
07-06-2015, 05:31 PM #57
Join Date
Sep 2014
Location
Prescott, AZ
Posts
271

As a follow-up to my previous post, I could also cite the 2008 general election on the Republican side of the ledger. George W. Bush saw his party lose majority control in the 2006 mid-term election. And when John McCain tried to keep the White House for Republicans, he lost badly to Barack Obama. So, in the last 114 years, not once has the incumbent party in the White House held onto the executive branch after a sitting President has lost his Congressional majority in both houses in the mid-terms. And you can hardly say that either Gore or McCain were dark-horse candidates. Bernie Sanders definitely is.







Post#58 at 07-06-2015 05:32 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-06-2015, 05:32 PM #58
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
I'll stick with my thought but will say that Bush put us into a 4T mode earlier than we were supposed to be. Everyone looks at some event as the 4T catalyst and I believe it wasn't an event, but a who.
Yes indeed. But earlier? That's an unusual point of view on this site.
The Bush administration put us into a 4T.
Yes indeed
I can also see how Obama should have waited to be our neo Ike in the next 1T.
That would have been too long a wait for an ambitious dude like him. He should have run in 2036, then, eh? That would have made him 75 years old; even older than Ike.

But maybe McCain should have won in 2008 (unlikely as that would have been), and then a Democrat like Obama could have really made some changes starting in 2012, with a compliant congress that would have allowed him to make them.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#59 at 07-06-2015 05:37 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-06-2015, 05:37 PM #59
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
I am inclined to agree that between Bush 43 and 911 we ended up in a 4T mood for a time. His doctrine of unilateral preemptive invasion was radically new, controversial and divisive. The country was briefly united, decisive and focused, if only we were given a task other than 'go shopping' to sustain said mood. There was a time of trying new stuff and changing on the fly if it didn't work. The result is a new military doctrine, a new awareness of the limits of how much we can do and the cost of doing it. This has informed Middle Eastern policy during the Obama years.
Bush 43 foreign policy was business as usual.

But when the economic collapse came, neither party pushed for transformation. They did band aids and return to status quo. At this point the mood and tactics are that of 3T, obstruction, stagnation and at best compromise. The mood is not all out effort to meet an emergency 4T. It is not rigidly enforce the current values 1T. It is dither and be damned 3T.

There has been no regeneracy. There is no united government capable of or interested in transforming the country to solve critical problems.

I am not at this point a fan of an inevitable four cycle turning sequence: high, awakening, unraveling, crisis. That pattern was good for the Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age. Four cycle theory isn't much good anywhere or any when else. Thus, I'm not going to try to force fit it when it doesn't work.

So I can agree that Bush 43 put us into a 4T, but deny that we're still there.

This being the case, the game of comparing recent presidents to those of the prior 3T 4T cups might not work very well. At one point I was trying to fit Bush 43 into Hoover's slot. Both messed up big time on the economic side. I just can't get it to fit clean at this point.
again, again, again; we are 1850s redux. redux redux.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#60 at 07-06-2015 05:44 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
07-06-2015, 05:44 PM #60
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile View Post
As a follow-up to my previous post, I could also cite the 2008 general election on the Republican side of the ledger. George W. Bush saw his party lose majority control in the 2006 mid-term election. And when John McCain tried to keep the White House for Republicans, he lost badly to Barack Obama. So, in the last 114 years, not once has the incumbent party in the White House held onto the executive branch after a sitting President has lost his Congressional majority in both houses in the mid-terms. And you can hardly say that either Gore or McCain were dark-horse candidates. Bernie Sanders definitely is.
Bill Clinton lost his Congressional majority in both houses in 1994. I thought he was a one-termer at that point (although it might have been hormones -- I had given birth three days before that election.) I was wrong; he won very comfortably in 1996.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#61 at 07-06-2015 06:11 PM by Teacher in Exile [at Prescott, AZ joined Sep 2014 #posts 271]
---
07-06-2015, 06:11 PM #61
Join Date
Sep 2014
Location
Prescott, AZ
Posts
271

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
I am inclined to agree that between Bush 43 and 911 we ended up in a 4T mood for a time. His doctrine of unilateral preemptive invasion was radically new, controversial and divisive. The country was briefly united, decisive and focused, if only we were given a task other than 'go shopping' to sustain said mood. There was a time of trying new stuff and changing on the fly if it didn't work. The result is a new military doctrine, a new awareness of the limits of how much we can do and the cost of doing it. This has informed Middle Eastern policy during the Obama years.

But when the economic collapse came, neither party pushed for transformation. They did band aids and return to status quo. At this point the mood and tactics are that of 3T, obstruction, stagnation and at best compromise. The mood is not all out effort to meet an emergency 4T. It is not rigidly enforce the current values 1T. It is dither and be damned 3T.

There has been no regeneracy. There is no united government capable of or interested in transforming the country to solve critical problems.

I am not at this point a fan of an inevitable four cycle turning sequence: high, awakening, unraveling, crisis. That pattern was good for the Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age. Four cycle theory isn't much good anywhere or any when else. Thus, I'm not going to try to force fit it when it doesn't work.

So I can agree that Bush 43 put us into a 4T, but deny that we're still there.

This being the case, the game of comparing recent presidents to those of the prior 3T 4T cups might not work very well. At one point I was trying to fit Bush 43 into Hoover's slot. Both messed up big time on the economic side. I just can't get it to fit clean at this point.
Bob, with only some niggling differences with your characterization of events, I couldn't agree with you more. Any theory, even a generational theory as intriguing as S & H, is only as good as its ability to explain the past and predict the future. I, too, have nagging doubts about the theory, mainly because it is distinctly Anglo-centric in nature. However, it may still have merit, especially if we don't try to "force fit" the turnings into quadrants of more or less 20-year generational lengths or 80-year lifetime speculums. I wish you had made your post a separate thread. I thinks it's high time to call the theory itself into question.







Post#62 at 07-06-2015 06:18 PM by Teacher in Exile [at Prescott, AZ joined Sep 2014 #posts 271]
---
07-06-2015, 06:18 PM #62
Join Date
Sep 2014
Location
Prescott, AZ
Posts
271

Quote Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile View Post
Bob, with only some niggling differences with your characterization of events, I couldn't agree with you more. Any theory, even a generational theory as intriguing as S & H, is only as good as its ability to explain the past and predict the future. I, too, have nagging doubts about the theory, mainly because it is distinctly Anglo-centric in nature. However, it may still have merit, especially if we don't try to "force fit" the turnings into quadrants of more or less 20-year generational lengths or 80-year lifetime speculums. I wish you had made your post a separate thread. I thinks it's high time to call the theory itself into question.
Correction: I meant "saeculum" not "speculum"!







Post#63 at 07-06-2015 06:26 PM by Bronco80 [at Boise joined Nov 2013 #posts 964]
---
07-06-2015, 06:26 PM #63
Join Date
Nov 2013
Location
Boise
Posts
964

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Bill Clinton lost his Congressional majority in both houses in 1994. I thought he was a one-termer at that point (although it might have been hormones -- I had given birth three days before that election.) I was wrong; he won very comfortably in 1996.
Pretty much everyone thought Clinton's goose was cooked in 1994. Then Newt Gingrich happened.







Post#64 at 07-06-2015 06:31 PM by Teacher in Exile [at Prescott, AZ joined Sep 2014 #posts 271]
---
07-06-2015, 06:31 PM #64
Join Date
Sep 2014
Location
Prescott, AZ
Posts
271

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Bill Clinton lost his Congressional majority in both houses in 1994. I thought he was a one-termer at that point (although it might have been hormones -- I had given birth three days before that election.) I was wrong; he won very comfortably in 1996.
I think you misread my post. Yes, I did say that Bill Clinton lost his Congressional majority in the 1994 mid-term. What I didn't say was that an incumbent President loses when running for re-election after losing his Congressional majority in the mid-terms. It's his successor who loses. In this case, Al Gore.







Post#65 at 07-06-2015 06:48 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
07-06-2015, 06:48 PM #65
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Harumph

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Bush 43 foreign policy was business as usual.
We went from being totally unwilling to commit boots on the ground to preemptive unilateral serial invasion. Clinton 42 had to bomb from 30,000 feet. The loss of one helicopter in the 'Blackhawk Down' incident resulted in a traumatic popular demand for retreat. Before 911, there was no willingness to use force or risk US lives for any reason whatsoever.

That all changed big time, though people's memories of the extreme values change seem nonexistent.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
again, again, again; we are 1850s redux. redux redux.
The 1850s and 1860s was a single issue unravelling to crisis era, or at least the two issues were fought in parallel. At the elite level, it was the agricultural plantation owners against the early Robber Barons. At the moral level it was slavery against freedom. The two were opposite sides of the same coin with Buchanan as the conservative last 3T president remembered as a failure and Lincoln as the clear Grey Champion.

I perceive our current sequence as a double security - economic crisis, though many here do not seem to think the military aspect of it important.

In the military aspect, Bush 43 was a failed 4T president riding a mandate for major policy change, introducing a non traditional invade and occupy policy, seeing it fail, and beginning a Nixon style 'peace with honor' process of getting the hell out of Dodge without admitting one has made a mistake in starting a war and has lost a war.

In the economic aspect, Bush 43 was a pro capitalist president unwilling to pay for his wars and thus bringing the country to the brink of collapse. However, he doesn't quite fit the Hoover slot. His successor didn't go for a total transformation, so he is less apt to be remembered as the great failure who immediately precedes and sets up the Grey Champion.

As there were many pro slavery presidents before the Civil War, none of whom are remembered fondly, there were several voodoo economic presidents in the Reagan tradition. Bush 43 is one of them, hopefully the last of them, but he wasn't at the helm when the ship hit the iceberg, and didn't transfer command to the Great Hero. This might be more Obama's choice than 43's. While Obama promised change, he couldn't or didn't deliver. ScotusCare is a very good thing, and I'd rate Obama positively over all, but Obama's name isn't going to be eternally linked with Washington's, Lincoln's and Franklin Roosevelt's.

Of course, if this doesn't match the story you read in the stars, I doubt reality would matter to you. To me, it does.







Post#66 at 07-06-2015 07:14 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
07-06-2015, 07:14 PM #66
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Clockwork Four Cycle?

Quote Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile View Post
Bob, with only some niggling differences with your characterization of events, I couldn't agree with you more. Any theory, even a generational theory as intriguing as S & H, is only as good as its ability to explain the past and predict the future. I, too, have nagging doubts about the theory, mainly because it is distinctly Anglo-centric in nature. However, it may still have merit, especially if we don't try to "force fit" the turnings into quadrants of more or less 20-year generational lengths or 80-year lifetime speculums. I wish you had made your post a separate thread. I thinks it's high time to call the theory itself into question.
I definitely think there is merit in the theory. The language of it alone is a great thing. When talking to a community that is familiar with S&H's works, I can describe fairly cleanly a perspective on what is happening and why that is very difficult when speaking to those don't know the words or the perspective that goes with them. The recent notes above are examples. How does one say stuff like that to people unaware of the theory?

Mikebert is another who has become dubious about many aspects of the theory.

Perhaps a new thread would be worth trying. I have been repeating my doubts from time to time, but seldom get the sort of agreement you just gave. A lot of folk are still buying in to the clockwork four cycle.

I believe this forum attracts people who want to believe in transformation. A lot of us have visions of what the future might become, and a theory that suggests big time transformation on a regular basis is attractive to such people. It is pleasant to think that everyone might some day come to recognize the wisdom of one's own values and remake the world to such an image.

Weakening the power of the Four Cycles might not be desired by many.







Post#67 at 07-06-2015 07:15 PM by Alioth68 [at Minnesota joined Apr 2010 #posts 693]
---
07-06-2015, 07:15 PM #67
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Minnesota
Posts
693

Quote Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile View Post
Now, supposing he secures the nomination, what does history say about his chances of becoming the 45th President of the United States? To answer this question I examined U.S. presidential elections going all the way back to 1900. The proper analog would be a general election in which a new Democratic candidate for president had hoped to keep the White House in Democratic hands even though his predecessor had surrendered control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans in the mid-term election(s). Only two examples come to mind. Woodrow Wilson saw his Congressional majority evaporate in the 1918 mid-term election (a similar fate suffered by Obama in 2010 and 2014). Wilson's aspiring successor was a Democratic dark-horse candidate, James M. Cox, who lost out to Warren G. Harding in 1920, ushering in twelve years of Republican administrations. More recently, after Bill Clinton's two terms in office, Al Gore lost the White House in 2000 to George W. Bush, the Republicans having seized control of Congress in the 1994 mid-term election.

So, however much you may like Bernie Sanders on the issues, he is bucking history--and some real long odds...
Then again, there's the old saying that "fortune favors the bold"--especially in a 4T, when agonized overcaution and overthinking, and mundane "political calculus", cease to resonate with anyone. People want to get 'er done, inside or outside the box, blow the box up if necessary. Fuck all the hemming and hawing. More and more people are looking for something different--they don't all know what exactly, but if Sanders can skillfully bring his message home enough to win the nomination (that would be the hard part), I think he has as good as any shot in the general. (The one who could give him his greatest challenge might be Rand Paul, another one who can potentially resonate with people disgusted with "business as usual"--but to tell the truth, even though I would favor Sanders over Paul like I would against any other Republican, I'd love that matchup because either result, many of the tired old ways will be on their way out.)

The two presidential race examples were both in 3Ts. A 4T could be quite different. I'll admit the odds could be very long. But maybe they're not as long as conventional "political calculus" (man I hate that cowardly Beltway phrase) would lead us to think.
Last edited by Alioth68; 07-06-2015 at 07:23 PM.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan

"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut

"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky







Post#68 at 07-06-2015 07:21 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
07-06-2015, 07:21 PM #68
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Bill Clinton lost his Congressional majority in both houses in 1994. I thought he was a one-termer at that point
I did too. I expected Dole to be elected in '96....At least until i saw Dole campaign.







Post#69 at 07-06-2015 07:21 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-06-2015, 07:21 PM #69
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
We went from being totally unwilling to commit boots on the ground to preemptive unilateral serial invasion. Clinton 42 had to bomb from 30,000 feet. The loss of one helicopter in the 'Blackhawk Down' incident resulted in a traumatic popular demand for retreat. Before 911, there was no willingness to use force or risk US lives for any reason whatsoever.

That all changed big time, though people's memories of the extreme values change seem nonexistent.
Because there was none. It was the same business as usual from FDR onward. True, the "Vietnam syndrome" did have some resonance, at least when Democrats were in the White House, but it only lasted from 1975 to 1991.

The 1850s and 1860s was a single issue unravelling to crisis era, or at least the two issues were fought in parallel. At the elite level, it was the agricultural plantation owners against the early Robber Barons. At the moral level it was slavery against freedom. The two were opposite sides of the same coin with Buchanan as the conservative last 3T president remembered as a failure and Lincoln as the clear Grey Champion.

I perceive our current sequence as a double security - economic crisis, though many here do not seem to think the military aspect of it important.
That's true; all of the above. The 1850s are quite like today in the level of polarization, stalemate, inadequate leadership, the racial issues whether overt or covert, and (including the parallels to 1848) the revolutions abroad AND a war of invasion that are having some effect at home; we are in fact only in the early 1850s in this parallel.

When you remember that the 1850s were famous for the same hemming and hawing and avoidance of confronting looming issues that is occuring today, and you understand the double rhythm (a much-better revision to the theory than the dreaded mega-saeculum concept), there's no excuse for doubting the four-phase 80-plus year cycle. It is repeating so clearly that it is scary. We are right on track indeed.

And the hemming and hawing will end right on schedule, just when I say it will; no sooner and no later. You know this too, so there's no excuse for doubting the theory on that basis either. The 4T has just begun, and we ain't seen nuthin' yet! There's no "reality" of any kind that can contradict this prediction, and much from "reality" that argues in its favor. Remember that; don't forget that.

The 4T came exactly when I said it would (and in the forms I said it would); not a month sooner or later. 9-11 came on the schedule I predicted too. I don't get every detail right every time, but when I am as confident in a prediction as I am about this one, you can take it to the bank.

In the military aspect, Bush 43 was a failed 4T president riding a mandate for major policy change, introducing a non traditional invade and occupy policy, seeing it fail, and beginning a Nixon style 'peace with honor' process of getting the hell out of Dodge without admitting one has made a mistake in starting a war and has lost a war.
Again; Korea, Vietnam, the interventions between and after them, the two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan;
https://youtu.be/fSZSbIAZlpQ?t=3m41s
business as usual, man
In the economic aspect, Bush 43 was a pro capitalist president unwilling to pay for his wars and thus bringing the country to the brink of collapse. However, he doesn't quite fit the Hoover slot. His successor didn't go for a total transformation, so he is less apt to be remembered as the great failure who immediately precedes and sets up the Grey Champion.
Remember, Strauss and Howe did not predict a new FDR. That's just the interpretation of liberals here, that there should have been one. S&H on the other hand expected "reforms" that would weaken entitlement programs.
As there were many pro slavery presidents before the Civil War, none of whom are remembered fondly, there were several voodoo economic presidents in the Reagan tradition. Bush 43 is one of them, hopefully the last of them, but he wasn't at the helm when the ship hit the iceberg, and didn't transfer command to the Great Hero. This might be more Obama's choice than 43's. While Obama promised change, he couldn't or didn't deliver. ScotusCare is a very good thing, and I'd rate Obama positively over all, but Obama's name isn't going to be eternally linked with Washington's, Lincoln's and Franklin Roosevelt's.

Of course, if this doesn't match the story you read in the stars, I doubt reality would matter to you. To me, it does.
The stars reflect reality, that's the point.

Bush 43 was in the voodoo economics tradition, and he certainly was at the helm when the ship hit the iceberg; that is certainly well-accepted reality. The only reason, as I have said, that Obama was not FDR, is that he took over too soon after the disaster. Already explained.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-06-2015 at 07:46 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#70 at 07-06-2015 07:41 PM by marypoza [at joined Jun 2015 #posts 374]
---
07-06-2015, 07:41 PM #70
Join Date
Jun 2015
Posts
374

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Well no. Smith was never president.

But Obama took over after only a few months of depression, and pulled us out of it. Not enough suffering on the part of the people to convince them that things needed to change, that Obama needed to do more; not less; and that electing a Republican congress was not the way to bring this change about.
-Eric stop drinking the koolaid. O'bummer is not another FDR. When did Depression 2.0 end? Too many ppl are still unemployed or underemployed, or even if working 40hrs living from paycheck to paycheck. That's why Bernie's resonating with so many folx. My homeboy Dennis was saying the same stuff back in 2004 & 2008 when he ran for Prez. Nobody wanted to hear it. Then Lehman Bros happened. Ppl's homes went underwater. Instead of helping out these folx O'bummer & his Congress bailed out the banksters. Then they forced an insurance ponzi scam on all of us. In 1930 Congress passed the highest tariff in our history in order to protect jobs & workers. Even Hoover was smart enough to sign that bill. Roosevelt pushed thru the WPA & other job creation programs to put ppl to work. Bam-bam not only has done none of this, but recently signed a TPP bill that will send jobs out of this country. As it is now there are only 7 jobs for every 10 ppl that want one. This is why ppl are glomming onto Bernie. He's saying pretty much the same stuff Roosevelt said back in 1932







Post#71 at 07-06-2015 07:50 PM by marypoza [at joined Jun 2015 #posts 374]
---
07-06-2015, 07:50 PM #71
Join Date
Jun 2015
Posts
374

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
No, Obama is FDR three years too early.
Eric you said it right here.

But that's OK you corrected yourself







Post#72 at 07-06-2015 07:59 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-06-2015, 07:59 PM #72
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by marypoza View Post
-Eric stop drinking the koolaid. O'bummer is not another FDR.
The point is, we'll never know. He could have been, but his term started too soon. The public was not ready; they had not suffered enough. It was the people who determined whether Obama would be another FDR, and NOT Obama. Whether 3 more years of depression would have changed the people, and thus their president, is impossible to know. It could have happened that way. On the other hand, Strauss and Howe did not create any such expectation. They were more in the "New Democrat" and "Moderate Republican" camp that is largely disappearing now. They expected reforms that would weaken entitlement programs because of the baby boom and the national debt.

When did Depression 2.0 end? Too many ppl are still unemployed or underemployed, or even if working 40hrs living from paycheck to paycheck. That's why Bernie's resonating with so many folx. My homeboy Dennis was saying the same stuff back in 2004 & 2008 when he ran for Prez. Nobody wanted to hear it. Then Lehman Bros happened. Ppl's homes went underwater. Instead of helping out these folx O'bummer & his Congress bailed out the banksters. Then they forced an insurance ponzi scam on all of us. In 1930 Congress passed the highest tariff in our history in order to protect jobs & workers. Even Hoover was smart enough to sign that bill. Roosevelt pushed thru the WPA & other job creation programs to put ppl to work. Bam-bam not only has done none of this, but recently signed a TPP bill that will send jobs out of this country. As it is now there are only 7 jobs for every 10 ppl that want one. This is why ppl are glomming onto Bernie. He's saying pretty much the same stuff Roosevelt said back in 1932
I don't disagree with most of this; however, his stimulus did help to create a modest recovery. Financial reforms were made that, if the Republicans haven't weakened it, could prevent another bank collapse and bail-out. The people deserted him in Nov.2010, for no reason, and the Senate did not pass many of his reforms even before that. Roosevelt could not have done what he did with so little support as this. He needed events and the people to push him. He said so. The people got exactly what they deserved with Obama.

I'm not ready to predict a Bernie victory; in this case Butler's "reality" may trump the "stars," which give Bernie high marks. I will predict that a victory for Hillary or Bernie in the Fall is more likely than not. That's not a firm prediction either, though. When the signs are clear, I am definite. When they are not, then I can't be definite about them.

If Bernie wins, he may not be able to carry a congress with him. That seems unlikely, in fact. In which case, he and Hillary alike would accomplish very little anyway. Gerrymandering and filibusters are in place, and young and non-white voters don't vote in midterms. The opposition cannot be reached. So, the Bernie Buzz is probably a lot of sound and fury that signifies nothing.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-06-2015 at 08:04 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#73 at 07-06-2015 08:04 PM by marypoza [at joined Jun 2015 #posts 374]
---
07-06-2015, 08:04 PM #73
Join Date
Jun 2015
Posts
374

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Yeah, some people should have taken mine instead:
Interesting video. Sound quality wasn't all that great, may have to go to you tube & hear it again. I will say the last time Pluto was in Capricorn the Revolution happened. This Crisis should be a doozy







Post#74 at 07-06-2015 08:15 PM by Teacher in Exile [at Prescott, AZ joined Sep 2014 #posts 271]
---
07-06-2015, 08:15 PM #74
Join Date
Sep 2014
Location
Prescott, AZ
Posts
271

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
I definitely think there is merit in the theory. The language of it alone is a great thing. When talking to a community that is familiar with S&H's works, I can describe fairly cleanly a perspective on what is happening and why that is very difficult when speaking to those don't know the words or the perspective that goes with them. The recent notes above are examples. How does one say stuff like that to people unaware of the theory?

Mikebert is another who has become dubious about many aspects of the theory.

Perhaps a new thread would be worth trying. I have been repeating my doubts from time to time, but seldom get the sort of agreement you just gave. A lot of folk are still buying in to the clockwork four cycle.

I believe this forum attracts people who want to believe in transformation. A lot of us have visions of what the future might become, and a theory that suggests big time transformation on a regular basis is attractive to such people. It is pleasant to think that everyone might some day come to recognize the wisdom of one's own values and remake the world to such an image.

Weakening the power of the Four Cycles might not be desired by many.
Yes, the theory has much merit, but I believe that too many members of this forum are in thrall to it. Among other things, I seriously question whether we have passed the threshold into a new Fourth Turning. I have much respect for the co-author Neil Howe, but just because he declares in no uncertain terms that the financial crisis of 2008 (which I see more as "crisis interruptus") marked the beginning of the 4T, doesn't necessarily make it so. I've watched and read a number of his interviews since then, and I haven't found one print or broadcast analyst that refutes him on this very important point. I'm not even sure I agree with his generational markers that divide one turning from the next in this saeculum. I'd love to see a YouTube debate between Howe and someone of his stature, who pushes back on some of the finer points of S & H theory. Failing that, then either you, or Mikebert, or I should start a new thread that accomplishes the same objective. That's especially important if other members of this forum believe that the theory no longer holds, or that it's been misapplied in current times.







Post#75 at 07-06-2015 08:23 PM by marypoza [at joined Jun 2015 #posts 374]
---
07-06-2015, 08:23 PM #75
Join Date
Jun 2015
Posts
374

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The point is, we'll never know. He could have been, but his term started too soon. The public was not ready; they had not suffered enough. It was the people who determined whether Obama would be another FDR, and NOT Obama. Whether 3 more years of depression would have changed the people, and thus their president, is impossible to know. It could have happened that way. On the other hand, Strauss and Howe did not create any such expectation. They were more in the "New Democrat" and "Moderate Republican" camp that is largely disappearing now. They expected reforms that would weaken entitlement programs because of the baby boom and the national debt.
-- looks like they were right

The people deserted him in Nov.2010, for no reason
--the reason was obamacrap


the Senate did not pass many of his reforms even before that.
--they set the bar too high. Why insist on a 60 Senator majority when all they needed was 51

Roosevelt could not have done what he did with so little support as this. He needed events and the people to push him. He said so.
I'm not ready to predict a Bernie victory; in this case Butler's "reality" may trump the "stars," which give Bernie high marks. I will predict that a victory for Hillary or Bernie in the Fall is more likely than not. That's not a firm prediction either, though. When the signs are clear, I am definite. When they are not, then I can't be definite about them.

If Bernie wins, he may not be able to carry a congress with him. That seems unlikely, in fact. In which case, he and Hillary alike would accomplish very little anyway. Gerrymandering and filibusters are in place, and young and non-white voters don't vote in midterms. The opposition cannot be reached. So, the Bernie Buzz is probably a lot of sound and fury that signifies nothing.
-- I'm not ready to predict a Bernie victory either. I will admit that it would be cool. I started this thread to see if ppl thought it could happen
Last edited by marypoza; 07-06-2015 at 08:26 PM.
-----------------------------------------