Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The stars reflect reality, that's the point.

The major values lesson coming out of World War II was that you couldn’t let an autocratic military leader start expanding by force. Churchill might have got this going with his Iron Curtain speech. The full manifestation became the Domino Theory. If one let a single country fall, the communists would then go onto the next, then the next. In the aftermath of World War II the Domino Theory had a deep core level values resonance. The GI generation had sacrificed much. They would defend what was won. This was to many unquestionable and unshakable. In one White House recording, LBJ stated an opinion that if he escalated in Vietnam he would never serve a second term, but he believed he had to escalate anyway. I might over use the phrase ‘values lock’ but it applied to the GI attitude on the Domino Theory.

The Boomer peace movement and the Fall of Saigon vastly blunted the Domino Theory’s dominance of US foreign policy. We were no long apt to directly defend tyrants. We never did fight another hot chapter in the Cold War. The fall of the Berlin Wall to a great degree released US foreign policy from Domino dominance. Folk began to ask what a sole superpower ought to be doing. History had ended. What comes after history?

The Bush 43 administration’s motivations for the Iraq invasion are less clear. Find and eliminate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction? Put troops near the oil, as the New American Century documents advised? Spread human rights and democracy at gunpoint? All of the above? Might there been many different mixes of motivations throughout the administration?

Thing is, none of those motivations are extensions of the Cold War Domino Theory. I see turning theory as a means to explore how values and cultures change. I see events like the Blue Awakening and the fall of the Berlin Wall as important. If you cannot distinguish between the Cold War and Gulf War II, we are not working at the same level of detail, we are not caring about the same things.

I also don’t see Bush 43 as being at the helm when the ship hit the iceberg. I have to go into more detail on that. There is a distinction between a catalyst event and a trigger event. There are apt to be many catalyst events in the late 3T and early 4T that build up to a regeneracy and full crisis. The Boston Massacre, Bleeding Kansas or Hurricane Katrina can stand as catalyst examples. They illustrate that problems exist and that certain people at least are dedicated to issues coming to a boil. I see trigger events as more definitive than catalysts. Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor come to mind. Generally, there are enough catalysts preceding the triggers that the issues are well understood and values lines drawn by the time the trigger finally hits. The trigger just says no more excuses, no more delays, time to roll up one’s sleeves and get going. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

The economic collapse of 2007 was not a trigger. A catalyst, sure, but not a trigger. It was not followed immediately by a regeneracy and a united government ready to make big changes to fix problems. If Obama and his majority Congress of 2008 were the crisis, it is a failed crisis, falling well short with loss of Congress in the 2009 mid terms. Obama did not try to remake the world. There are no signs that he is going to attempt anything major in his remaining years. There is much left to be done. Bernie is doing a decent job of stating an agenda which Obama did not achieve, did not seriously attempt.

I understand you have a deep faith in your stars, as others have deep faith in the Bible, and others in science. I can understand a total and absolute commitment to one way of looking at the world. If reality doesn’t agree totally with one’s values, one questions reality. One denies the obvious. This very very human. We’re all in it to some extent. It is far easier to see in others than in one’s self.

It follows that if you predicted Obama would be Grey Champion, he is the Grey Champion, even if he in no way resembles prior champions or S&H’s description of what a champion is. Eric is All Knowing and Speaks Truth and is Not to be Questioned. All bow to the All Wise Sage. Worship his Wisdom.

Sorry. I live in a different reality.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

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.

I agree that "fortune favors the bold," and Bernie Sanders is nothing, if not bold. I'll give him that. I only wish his stance on foreign policy tipped further away from military interventionism. Hell, I wish he'd run on the Vermont Progressive Party platform of his home state, and get his "fellow Democrats" on board to create a wave election that breaks the political gridlock in this country. Again, though, I'm afraid he's the wrong messenger with the right message (at least on domestic policy) at (almost) the right time. See, I don't agree that we're 4T; a strong case can be made (and has been by a few members on this forum) that we're still unraveling. Too many experts say that we've done too little to prevent the next crisis. And if that be true, we have not yet met the Real Crisis. (That bugbear is lurking somewhere in the not-too-distant future.) Personally, I believe it's going to take a financial cataclysm to sweep aside "the old ways" that you and I both detest. Only then will the American people be sufficiently roused to vote for an upstart, like Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul, and for enough legislators backing the presidential victor to get something done.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Personally, I believe it's going to take a financial cataclysm to sweep aside "the old ways" that you and I both detest. Only then will the American people be sufficiently roused to vote for an upstart, like Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul, and for enough legislators backing the presidential victor to get something done.

I'm not sure that it will be a financial cataclysm. If Bush 43 didn't manage to derail the economy to the point that it couldn't be gotten back on course with band aids and really intense wishful thinking, will we see a bigger idiot? Have we conditioned the powers that be to believe that band aids and wishful thinking are enough? I'm not an economic guru. I don't know enough technical stuff to predict whether the next cataclysm will be big enough to start a transforming reform bandwagon. We'll just have to wait and see.

The other oncoming cataclysm is climate change, but I don't have a good feel for how long sufficient denialists can keep their eyes closed to prevent crisis level action.

There is the possibility of another security / terrorist style catalyst, but we've been around that block fairly recently. It would have to be a big one.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The major values lesson coming out of World War II was that you couldn’t let an autocratic military leader start expanding by force. Churchill might have got this going with his Iron Curtain speech. The full manifestation became the Domino Theory. If one let a single country fall, the communists would then go onto the next, then the next. In the aftermath of World War II the Domino Theory had a deep core level values resonance. The GI generation had sacrificed much. They would defend what was won. This was to many unquestionable and unshakable. In one White House recording, LBJ stated an opinion that if he escalated in Vietnam he would never serve a second term, but he believed he had to escalate anyway. I might over use the phrase ‘values lock’ but it applied to the GI attitude on the Domino Theory.

The Boomer peace movement and the Fall of Saigon vastly blunted the Domino Theory’s dominance of US foreign policy. We were no long apt to directly defend tyrants. We never did fight another hot chapter in the Cold War. The fall of the Berlin Wall to a great degree released US foreign policy from Domino dominance. Folk began to ask what a sole superpower ought to be doing. History had ended. What comes after history?

The Bush 43 administration’s motivations for the Iraq invasion are less clear. Find and eliminate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction? Put troops near the oil, as the New American Century documents advised? Spread human rights and democracy at gunpoint? All of the above? Might there been many different mixes of motivations throughout the administration?

Thing is, none of those motivations are extensions of the Cold War Domino Theory. I see turning theory as a means to explore how values and cultures change. I see events like the Blue Awakening and the fall of the Berlin Wall as important. If you cannot distinguish between the Cold War and Gulf War II, we are not working at the same level of detail, we are not caring about the same things.

I also don’t see Bush 43 as being at the helm when the ship hit the iceberg. I have to go into more detail on that. There is a distinction between a catalyst event and a trigger event. There are apt to be many catalyst events in the late 3T and early 4T that build up to a regeneracy and full crisis. The Boston Massacre, Bleeding Kansas or Hurricane Katrina can stand as catalyst examples. They illustrate that problems exist and that certain people at least are dedicated to issues coming to a boil. I see trigger events as more definitive than catalysts. Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor come to mind. Generally, there are enough catalysts preceding the triggers that the issues are well understood and values lines drawn by the time the trigger finally hits. The trigger just says no more excuses, no more delays, time to roll up one’s sleeves and get going. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

The economic collapse of 2007 was not a trigger. A catalyst, sure, but not a trigger. It was not followed immediately by a regeneracy and a united government ready to make big changes to fix problems. If Obama and his majority Congress of 2008 were the crisis, it is a failed crisis, falling well short with loss of Congress in the 2009 mid terms. Obama did not try to remake the world. There are no signs that he is going to attempt anything major in his remaining years. There is much left to be done. Bernie is doing a decent job of stating an agenda which Obama did not achieve, did not seriously attempt.

I understand you have a deep faith in your stars, as others have deep faith in the Bible, and others in science. I can understand a total and absolute commitment to one way of looking at the world. If reality doesn’t agree totally with one’s values, one questions reality. One denies the obvious. This very very human. We’re all in it to some extent. It is far easier to see in others than in one’s self.

It follows that if you predicted Obama would be Grey Champion, he is the Grey Champion, even if he in no way resembles prior champions or S&H’s description of what a champion is. Eric is All Knowing and Speaks Truth and is Not to be Questioned. All bow to the All Wise Sage. Worship his Wisdom.

Sorry. I live in a different reality.

I like the distinction you attempt to draw between a catalyst and a trigger, as well as the examples you provide. I'm much in agreement that Obama is decidedly not the Gray Champion for which many voters (and 4T posters) hungered. He ran as a brand ("Hope and Change"), took the tack of being the Great Healer and Compromiser, and achieved only half-measures with his legislative agenda: an insufficient fiscal stimulus to combat the Great Recession, and Obamacare, which was really a gift to the for-profit health industry--and a license to jack up medical premiums as it turns out. Obama will go down as just another mediocrity in U.S. Presidential history. A cool and articulate dude, to be sure, and a vast improvement on his predecessor. But he's no game-changer, and certainly not to be mentioned in the same breath as Washington, Lincoln or FDR, our previous Gray Champions.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The major values lesson coming out of World War II was that you couldn’t let an autocratic military leader start expanding by force. Churchill might have got this going with his Iron Curtain speech. The full manifestation became the Domino Theory. If one let a single country fall, the communists would then go onto the next, then the next. In the aftermath of World War II the Domino Theory had a deep core level values resonance. The GI generation had sacrificed much. They would defend what was won. This was to many unquestionable and unshakable. In one White House recording, LBJ stated an opinion that if he escalated in Vietnam he would never serve a second term, but he believed he had to escalate anyway. I might over use the phrase ‘values lock’ but it applied to the GI attitude on the Domino Theory.

The Boomer peace movement and the Fall of Saigon vastly blunted the Domino Theory’s dominance of US foreign policy. We were no long apt to directly defend tyrants. We never did fight another hot chapter in the Cold War. The fall of the Berlin Wall to a great degree released US foreign policy from Domino dominance. Folk began to ask what a sole superpower ought to be doing. History had ended. What comes after history?

What came, was more of the same.

The Bush 43 administration’s motivations for the Iraq invasion are less clear. Find and eliminate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction? Put troops near the oil, as the New American Century documents advised? Spread human rights and democracy at gunpoint? All of the above? Might there been many different mixes of motivations throughout the administration?

It was all clearly stated in PNAC. It was a project for a new American Century. American Imperialism, pure and simple.

Thing is, none of those motivations are extensions of the Cold War Domino Theory. I see turning theory as a means to explore how values and cultures change. I see events like the Blue Awakening and the fall of the Berlin Wall as important. If you cannot distinguish between the Cold War and Gulf War II, we are not working at the same level of detail, we are not caring about the same things.

Perhaps not. I don't see any difference worthy of the name. It's the same approach, even with a different enemy. That does not matter. The USA thinks it can dominate the world and bear any burden to support the survival of liberty. So, we invaded Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, Afghanistan; plus Grenada, Nicaragua through surrogates, overthrew governments in Guatemala and Iran, invaded the Dominican Republic. Business as usual for the MIC. If you overcomplicate things, you can't see forests for trees. But that's a natural tendency for an empiricist.

I also don’t see Bush 43 as being at the helm when the ship hit the iceberg. I have to go into more detail on that. There is a distinction between a catalyst event and a trigger event. There are apt to be many catalyst events in the late 3T and early 4T that build up to a regeneracy and full crisis. The Boston Massacre, Bleeding Kansas or Hurricane Katrina can stand as catalyst examples. They illustrate that problems exist and that certain people at least are dedicated to issues coming to a boil. I see trigger events as more definitive than catalysts. Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor come to mind. Generally, there are enough catalysts preceding the triggers that the issues are well understood and values lines drawn by the time the trigger finally hits. The trigger just says no more excuses, no more delays, time to roll up one’s sleeves and get going. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

The economic collapse of 2007 was not a trigger. A catalyst, sure, but not a trigger. It was not followed immediately by a regeneracy and a united government ready to make big changes to fix problems. If Obama and his majority Congress of 2008 were the crisis, it is a failed crisis, falling well short with loss of Congress in the 2009 mid terms. Obama did not try to remake the world. There are no signs that he is going to attempt anything major in his remaining years. There is much left to be done. Bernie is doing a decent job of stating an agenda which Obama did not achieve, did not seriously attempt.

It's pretty clear cut. The 4T crisis turning began in Sept 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Bros. There's a good consensus on that. That was the only ship crashing that there was, or that there will be, in this 4T. It does not matter what happened afterward, a regeneracy for example, for that to be the case. The Crisis of 1846-1850 was not followed by a regeneracy either. But that's where we are; 1850s redux. redux redux redux.

No-one in his right mind would have expected Obama to accomplish a whole lot, if the people took away his congress after only a year, and gave it to a bunch of certifiable lunatics whose only goal is to serve the wealthy and the superstitious and to block anything Obama wanted to do.

I understand you have a deep faith in your stars, as others have deep faith in the Bible, and others in science. I can understand a total and absolute commitment to one way of looking at the world. If reality doesn’t agree totally with one’s values, one questions reality. One denies the obvious. This very very human. We’re all in it to some extent. It is far easier to see in others than in one’s self.

It follows that if you predicted Obama would be Grey Champion, he is the Grey Champion, even if he in no way resembles prior champions or S&H’s description of what a champion is. Eric is All Knowing and Speaks Truth and is Not to be Questioned. All bow to the All Wise Sage. Worship his Wisdom.

Sorry. I live in a different reality.

No, I use astrology because it works, to some extent. Turning theory works too, to an extent. I use whatever works. But, if it conflicts with your values and world view, then it must be merely a matter of faith; even though I have presented reams of evidence here, and made many correct predictions here. You don't get what I am saying; you have a wall up most of the time. You're not alone in that, here.

I never said I predicted Obama would be grey champion. I don't know where you're getting that. I remember many years ago, I posted here a prediction that Hillary Clinton would be. Make of that what you wish.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm not sure that it will be a financial cataclysm. If Bush 43 didn't manage to derail the economy to the point that it couldn't be gotten back on course with band aids and really intense wishful thinking, will we see a bigger idiot? Have we conditioned the powers that be to believe that band aids and wishful thinking are enough? I'm not an economic guru. I don't know enough technical stuff to predict whether the next cataclysm will be big enough to start a transforming reform bandwagon. We'll just have to wait and see.

The other oncoming cataclysm is climate change, but I don't have a good feel for how long sufficient denialists can keep their eyes closed to prevent crisis level action.

There is the possibility of another security / terrorist style catalyst, but we've been around that block fairly recently. It would have to be a big one.

Every evidence and every report I've seen, from those who have studied the matter, says that the economy was headed over a gigantic cliff to complete collapse, had not Secretary Paulson stepped in and taken action, followed by the stimulus by Obama and the new rules. We may think these leaders are inadequate, and not grey champions who deliver the changes we want, but they did act to prevent another Great Depression.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I agree that "fortune favors the bold," and Bernie Sanders is nothing, if not bold. I'll give him that. I only wish his stance on foreign policy tipped further away from military interventionism. Hell, I wish he'd run on the Vermont Progressive Party platform of his home state, and get his "fellow Democrats" on board to create a wave election that breaks the political gridlock in this country. Again, though, I'm afraid he's the wrong messenger with the right message (at least on domestic policy) at (almost) the right time. See, I don't agree that we're 4T; a strong case can be made (and has been by a few members on this forum) that we're still unraveling. Too many experts say that we've done too little to prevent the next crisis. And if that be true, we have not yet met the Real Crisis. (That bugbear is lurking somewhere in the not-too-distant future.) Personally, I believe it's going to take a financial cataclysm to sweep aside "the old ways" that you and I both detest. Only then will the American people be sufficiently roused to vote for an upstart, like Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul, and for enough legislators backing the presidential victor to get something done.

Perhaps you and Butler may be thinking that a 4T crisis era consists of one event. That is not necessarily true, as evidenced by the Depression AND World War Two. Too little was done in the thirties to prevent the war, one could say.

Since the "civil war anomaly" is largely false, and the 1850s were also part 1 of a 4T, centered on an economic depression in the late 40s, you can certainly say too that the Crisis of 1850 did not prevent "the next crisis." It came in 1860. But 1850 was really the early 4T, just like today. And the Revolutionary War did not prevent a constitutional crisis later either.

Again, I remind you of my thesis that we are 1850s redux. I don't know how many times I need to say this to get it across. The 1850s did not seem like a 4T to the authors, so they called it a 3T. That is what you are doing now, Teach. It's totally understandable. But it's the same situation. That is the repeating pattern; it makes perfect sense.

A nation paralyzed by polarization cannot give you enthusiastic soldiers or workers brigades like Butler or enzige envisions. It is not because of a mega-unravelling; it is because of the double rhythm. We are 1850s. The Crisis IS the polarization. The Crisis IS the failure to act. The Crisis IS the fact that a regeneracy is not possible yet.

I don't think another financial crisis is likely. I looked at the possibilities for these times years ago, and I saw the 2008-2012 period as the worst period. We survived it. It appears that we will need to sweep aside some of the old ways without the stimulus of another economic cataclysm. But, a political cataclysm, whether from foreign enemies or domestic disputes, or (more-likely) both at once, likely looms on the horizon in the 2020s.

Rand Paul would take us back to the 18th century, or earlier. He is a virtually-complete reactionary.

People can look at what pundits say, or what seems to be the case from the direction of events; or for what we want to happen, or think must happen in order for what we want to happen. All that does not generally work as prophetic tools. The unexpected, happens! But some astrologers can see better.

The Obama thing is quite simple:

Barack Obama is the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling Crisis. Unravelings are, of their very own nature, divisive and splintering. Why shouldn't the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling have the same effect?

We aren't "still Unraveling"; we're in a MegaUnraveling Crisis. Which is going to have a long Microunraveling within it.

There Will be no equivalent to D-Day or to the Works Progress Administration, and no Lincoln Shouters or Battle of Gettysburg. Things will fracture and fragment until only a core remains in an austere, libertarian High.

This doesn't make this a failed Crisis or Obama a failed President. It's the nature of the Saeculum, and it cannot be denied.

Originally Posted by Einzige

The Obama thing is quite simple:

Barack Obama is the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling Crisis. Unravelings are, of their very own nature, divisive and splintering. Why shouldn't the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling have the same effect?

We aren't "still Unraveling"; we're in a MegaUnraveling Crisis. Which is going to have a long Microunraveling within it.

There Will be no equivalent to D-Day or to the Works Progress Administration, and no Lincoln Shouters or Battle of Gettysburg. Things will fracture and fragment until only a core remains in an austere, libertarian High.

This doesn't make this a failed Crisis or Obama a failed President. It's the nature of the Saeculum, and it cannot be denied.

It is totally denied, and I already explained it.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- looks like they were right

Well, we have the sequester, but there have been no reforms like the Concord Commission or the Simpson-Bowles committee proposed. That is what they wanted; nothing has been done in that direction.

--the reason was obamacrap

Obama did all he could have done, given the reluctance of congress to do more. He had no magic wand to reach these guys; no-one could have had one.

--they set the bar too high. Why insist on a 60 Senator majority when all they needed was 51

Congress was not ready to ditch the filibuster, because the people were not ready to make them do it. Congress has to be pushed, and the right people need to be there to be pushed. Neither was the case. Overturning the filibuster is seen as dangerous; perhaps rightly. What if the Republicans took over, they said. Well... it happened.

-- 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

It would be cool. It will be fun to hope for it for a while. It's a good thread, though it seems to be bringing out the worst in a few of the posters.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is totally denied, and I already explained it.

Of course because repeating yourself, inconsistently, all the time makes whatever you say at the moment the truth. Got it.

Originally Posted by Einzige

The Obama thing is quite simple:

Barack Obama is the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling Crisis. Unravelings are, of their very own nature, divisive and splintering. Why shouldn't the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling have the same effect?

We aren't "still Unraveling"; we're in a MegaUnraveling Crisis. Which is going to have a long Microunraveling within it.

There Will be no equivalent to D-Day or to the Works Progress Administration, and no Lincoln Shouters or Battle of Gettysburg. Things will fracture and fragment until only a core remains in an austere, libertarian High.

This doesn't make this a failed Crisis or Obama a failed President. It's the nature of the Saeculum, and it cannot be denied.

Pretty much this. I'm still rereading the megasaeculum thread to see if I need to write down and post my own hypothesis of the megasaeculum.

Eric

I have oft summarized Bush 43’s approach to Gulf War II and the War on Terror along as “preemptive serial unilateral invasion and nation building.” If we had attempted this approach against the Soviet Union, it would not have been called “The Cold War” but “World War III”. If you cannot distinguish the difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror you just don’t have any comprehension of war, at all, period.

My own slant on things is centered on values and world views, and cultures as the collective values and world views of a group of people. This does slant how I see things. I see people as deeply committed to their perspectives. I see them as unwilling to change values without catastrophic failure of old values. I also see people believe, truly believe, in where they come from. A good part of the commitment to seeing the world in one way only is having lived in that world all their lives. What people see as important has been important to them. The methods people use to solve problems are held as tried and true as they have worked through a person’s life. They will continue to commit to such methods until the methods fail big time.

Thus, on encountering a world view or value set, the correct thing to do is attempt to understand how one can live within it. There is an assumption that it works, that it works very well in the circumstances the owner of the values came from. There is an assumption that world views make sense when one is living inside them, no matter how strange or dysfunctional they might seem from one’s own perspective.

I can see how an oil man might think keeping a supply of oil available at reasonable cost can be important to western civilization, important and central. I can see how someone who has lived in a democracy, who has seen the obvious failures of autocratic government, might think it beneficial to spread democracy and human rights, even by force. I can see how weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a tyrant can be seen as a threat. I can see very easily that many in the Bush 43 administration did not understand how difficult it is to change a culture. From the outside looking in at the Bush 43 administration, I can see two left feet, neither knowing what the other is up to or why, failing to dance together as people with different agendas sought different goals with inadequate coordination. I see them not so much as stupid or evil. I see them as unfocused and uncoordinated, many of them fooled by the propaganda of a leadership lying to its own people. The leadership dared not speak their own true objectives. In repeating their lies they fooled themselves.

As with your view of war, I find your view of the Bush 43 administration very very simplistic. You are not looking at things at a depth I find interesting.

The depth you are at is vile stereotype. You don’t like them, have come up with a short list of reasons to hate them, and refuse to look at them in any greater depth than your short list. This is not your problem alone. Lots of “contributors” to the forum work at this level only, repeatedly venting hate as if this were a constructive exercise. I know you have been told “how all liberals think” by the same people as I. Did you recognize yourself? I know I didn’t. Still, some people absolutely cannot let go of their hate, cannot see anything other than what they want to hate.

You’re one of them.

Anyway, I see no consensus of a start moment for the current crisis. There is an ongoing discussion rather than a settled issue. I see Obama as doing a reasonable job given he was dealt a bad hand. I don’t see the period of his administration being remembered as the equal of the Revolution, Civil War, Great Depression and World War II. I don’t see the changes in the country during his years to date being anywhere near that magnitude. I do see stagnation and bickering in Washington DC that fits the unravelling pattern much much better than the crisis pattern.

There are problems we face as a country worthy of a major transformation. Again, Bernie is doing a decent job of listing the problems and saying where he wants to go with them. His fixes won’t be tried until the People as a whole see the status quo as broken. I suspect the powers that be don’t want that to happen, and will strive to keep things going just well enough that the perception of broken won’t hit critical mass.

How long they can do this, I don’t know, but right now the stagnation is still in place. The ship hasn’t hit the iceberg. No crisis yet.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Barack Obama is the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling Crisis. Unravelings are, of their very own nature, divisive and splintering. Why shouldn't the Grey Champion of a MegaUnraveling have the same effect?

The country is divided by the issues, not by the coming of the Grey Champion. Abe Lincoln did not create the slavery issue, nor did FDR create the capitalist / labor divide. The issues simmer up to a boil through the entire unravelling. What the Grey Champions did do is take charge at the moment the country was ready to solve the problems once and for all.

I described the trigger event as declaring no more delay, no more stagnation, time to roll up sleeves and get it done. This might mean mobilizing the army. It might take a form similar to FDR's 100 days, where decisive legislation indicates that the government is truly serious about fixing stuff.

The country is still divided after the regeneracy, after the Grey Champion takes charge. The conservatives, those thinking no change is necessary or proper, will still exist. They just haven't got enough hands on the levers of power to do anything about it.

One difference this time around is the conservatives aggressively using filibuster and other procedural methods so the progressives need 60% majorities rather than 50%. The definition of "having enough hands on the levers of power to do anything about it" has changed. The threshold of what it takes to enable a Grey Champion is significantly higher.

Indeed, and my point is that MegaUnravelings have no such trigger, no moment that crystallizes into popular memory as the Regeneracy.

Originally Posted by B Butler

But when the economic collapse came, neither party pushed for transformation. They did band aids and return to status quo.

And this is precisely what happened last time. The crisis began in the 1st year of the Hoover administration. They had three years to deal with it, and they applied a lot of band aids. They did not even stem the bleeding. FDR came in an in his first year he applied larger bandages and stopped the bleeding, but could not fix the problem. He did put in some correctives that were thought to make future problems less likely (e.g. Glass-Steagall) and they may have helped. A

After the 1934 and 1936 majorities FDR gained the kind of majority that allowed him to fulfill long standing Democratic and Populist wish lists from the 1896 election (except for civil rights):

Dems: The Money Plank (1933)
Dems: Against National Banks (1913)
Dems: Immigration (1924)
Dems: Trusts and Pools (largely done)
Populist Principles 1-6 (accomplished by ending Gold Standard done in 1933)
Populist: Progressive Income tax (1913)
Populist: In times of depression idle labor should be employed on public works as far as practicable. (WPA 1935)
Populists: Postal Savings banks: Social Security (1935) went beyond this.
Populist: Civil Rights (1964)
Most importantly, the Wagner Act was passed in 1935. This was not on the wish list, but it created a long (and potent) alliance between Democrats and Labor. It was also a key "moving part" in the apparatus for economic equality fabricated during WW II.

After the 1938 election the original New Deal was essential over. FDR was able to fulfill just about all of the long-standing Democratic political wishes, but it failed to solve the problem he was elected to solve: the Depression crisis still raged (unemployment was something like 17%). After 1938 Republicans and conservative Dems form a majority in Congress that blocked anything else FDR wanted to try. So he had to pull an Obama and resort to executive action. The Depression was eventually solved by FDR's administration wonks under the authority of the president's immense power as commander in chief.

Things have not been so different as you might think.

But the future is troubling. Consider the 50ish architects of the solution last 4T. Born in the 1890's, they would be late wave Nomads, who would have been in their early 20's during the teens, a time of increased radicalism and Leftist agitation. Today's 50-somethings were born in the sixties and spend their twenties in the late eighties and early nineties, hardly a time of left-wing radicalism. The fifty-something of the 2020's will have been born in the 1970's and experienced their formative years in the 1990's and early 2000's. Was the tech wreck sufficiently radicalizing? What about military service after 2001?

We might have to wait until the 1980's cohorts are in their 50's to get a solution in which case it may no be until the 2030's. If we denote 1984-2008 as the 3T, a 4T from 2008-2032 would not be out of line, and implementation of the solution could well be considered part of a 1T.

At this point the mood and tactics are that of 3T, obstruction, stagnation and at best compromise.

Would you prefer a civil war?

Originally Posted by B Butler

In the military aspect, Bush 43 was a failed 4T president riding a mandate for major policy change,

Bush ran on a humble foreign policy in 2000. There was no mandate for a large military footprint in the world. When 911 happened the response for the Bush administration was Clintonian. Remember Tora Bora? Bush ruled out going in there ourselves because he was still skittish about casualties, and THAT was going after the guy who was behind 911.

...introducing a non traditional invade and occupy policy,

How is this non traditional? Didn't we invade Panama to get rid of Noreiga? Remember the original plan called for a rapid charge to Baghdad, kill or capture Saddam, hand power over to a general and get out. Saddam was a much harder target than Noreiga, and so more force would be necessary, requiring the use of an elaborate cover story involved WMDs. When it went down, it went sour almost immediately. Somebody had fucked up badly and it's been ass-covering ever since.

Almost all of the growth in the National Security State began as ass-covering for the failure of 911, and the failure to crush al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the cockup in Iraq. In doing all this new bureaucracies have been formed that are now self-perpetuating. Clusterfucks can happen in any turning. They don't mean anything, other than as symbols of decline.

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.

He's more like LBJ without Civil Rights and the great Society.

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.

I too see Obama as a counterfactual two-term Hoover that had suspended the gold standard. He is also like a Democratic Nixon, a liberal who was forced to rule as a moderate conservative.

I don't see the next president as an FDR figure. What made FDR successful politically was his timing. The economy will experience a serious recession during the next presidential term. The present business cycle turns 8 at the end of this year. The longest ever was a bit over 10. That means we are nearly certain to enter recession by 2nd quarter 2018. That means the stock market peaks in 2017 at the latest. The longer the market rises the farther it will have to fall in the subsequent recession and the more chance of another financial crisis.

Whoever is the next president is going to see an economic collapse on their watch.

Originally Posted by B Butler

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.

Yes. For example consider the trend towards rising economic inequality, an issue many here (and elsewhere) think is not a good thing. The idea that inequality goes through cycles give people hope. The cycle that governs inequality is the secular cycle, not the saeculum. However if you consider that the three American saecula, defined as 4T to 4T correspond to Michael Lind's idea of three American republics, one obtains a merger between S&H's generational/cultural cycles and Lind's strictly political cycle. The founding elements of thes republics are from three clear political events (1) the Revolution of 1776 and subsequent state-building lead to the Constitution of 1787, the critical election of 1860 and subsequent war and the critical election of 1932 and subsequent New Deal. Presumably a fourth 4T would involve a political event like a critical election and lead to a fourth republic.

I have been tracking the saeculum for years using an apparent correlation with the economic long wave. Doing this assigns the 2008-9 crisis as equivalent to 1929-32. Neither the economic nor the political aftermath are like the post-1929 period, however. It increasingly looks like 2008 might not be a full bore critical election, but something more like 1968, thought to be one at the time, but later eclipsed by the 1980 election. Nevertheless, if Clinton wins in 2016 then it is more likely to be a critical election since 5 out of six elections beginning periods with 3 or more successive terms in the same party were critical elections (1800,1828,1860,1896,1932,1980--1920 was not).

I now have a time assignment using the secular cycle: 2007=1907. Secular cycles have no fixed length and so cannot be used as rulers. This suggests we are only in the very early stages of dealing with our current economic problems, and the solution could be decades away.

On the other hand, a case can be made for American secular cycles to correspond to the republics, and so to saecula. Whether you do this depends on how you treat the Civil War. In certain ways the Civil War produced a significant, but short-lived drop in economic inequality if you include African Americans. Consider, from 1860 to 1860 about four million people were transformed from assets worth $3.5B that were owned by Southern elites to de jure (if not de facto) American citizens. I estimate that Southern elites lost nearly 60% of their net worth when the slaves were freed. The effect of this was to put a dent in the inequality trend that lasted less than two decades. However including slaves in the definition of inequality makes the inequality trend before the New Deal a more gentle rise with peaks around 1800 and 1860 and troughs in the 1820's and 1870's. Also a plot of government spending as a % of GDP shows a step-like structure corresponding to the republics. The first Republic had federal revenue at about 2% of GDP the 2nd at 3-4% and the third at about 18%. If we interpret these data as indicative of secular cycles corresponding to the republics/saecula than that means inequality is going to be an issue that gets resolved in this 4T.

Since the country has only begun to talk about inequality now, I would think the solution is some time off. This dovetails with the idea of former radicalized youth in their 50's that would be needed to implement some sort of solution.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Eric

I have oft summarized Bush 43’s approach to Gulf War II and the War on Terror along as “preemptive serial unilateral invasion and nation building.” If we had attempted this approach against the Soviet Union, it would not have been called “The Cold War” but “World War III”. If you cannot distinguish the difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror you just don’t have any comprehension of war, at all, period.

I can see differences in things, but we never went to war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War; we went to war in Vietnam and Korea. Those were nation-building wars quite similar to Bush 43's wars. We invaded and tried to impose our version of freedom on a nation. There were other less-massive interventions in those years as well that had the same purpose on a smaller scale.

My own slant on things is centered on values and world views, and cultures as the collective values and world views of a group of people. This does slant how I see things. I see people as deeply committed to their perspectives. I see them as unwilling to change values without catastrophic failure of old values. I also see people believe, truly believe, in where they come from. A good part of the commitment to seeing the world in one way only is having lived in that world all their lives. What people see as important has been important to them. The methods people use to solve problems are held as tried and true as they have worked through a person’s life. They will continue to commit to such methods until the methods fail big time.

I have always said that I think you are right on that.

Thus, on encountering a world view or value set, the correct thing to do is attempt to understand how one can live within it. There is an assumption that it works, that it works very well in the circumstances the owner of the values came from. There is an assumption that world views make sense when one is living inside them, no matter how strange or dysfunctional they might seem from one’s own perspective.

I can see how an oil man might think keeping a supply of oil available at reasonable cost can be important to western civilization, important and central. I can see how someone who has lived in a democracy, who has seen the obvious failures of autocratic government, might think it beneficial to spread democracy and human rights, even by force. I can see how weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a tyrant can be seen as a threat. I can see very easily that many in the Bush 43 administration did not understand how difficult it is to change a culture. From the outside looking in at the Bush 43 administration, I can see two left feet, neither knowing what the other is up to or why, failing to dance together as people with different agendas sought different goals with inadequate coordination. I see them not so much as stupid or evil. I see them as unfocused and uncoordinated, many of them fooled by the propaganda of a leadership lying to its own people. The leadership dared not speak their own true objectives. In repeating their lies they fooled themselves.

As with your view of war, I find your view of the Bush 43 administration very very simplistic. You are not looking at things at a depth I find interesting.

The depth you are at is vile stereotype. You don’t like them, have come up with a short list of reasons to hate them, and refuse to look at them in any greater depth than your short list. This is not your problem alone. Lots of “contributors” to the forum work at this level only, repeatedly venting hate as if this were a constructive exercise. I know you have been told “how all liberals think” by the same people as I. Did you recognize yourself? I know I didn’t. Still, some people absolutely cannot let go of their hate, cannot see anything other than what they want to hate.

You’re one of them.

No, I'm not. But I disagree with Bush 43's approach, and see no reason either to call his wars part of a 4T. That does not mean I am simplistic, just because I may disagree with you on that classification regarding the T4T theory.

Anyway, I see no consensus of a start moment for the current crisis. There is an ongoing discussion rather than a settled issue. I see Obama as doing a reasonable job given he was dealt a bad hand. I don’t see the period of his administration being remembered as the equal of the Revolution, Civil War, Great Depression and World War II. I don’t see the changes in the country during his years to date being anywhere near that magnitude. I do see stagnation and bickering in Washington DC that fits the unravelling pattern much much better than the crisis pattern.

There are problems we face as a country worthy of a major transformation. Again, Bernie is doing a decent job of listing the problems and saying where he wants to go with them. His fixes won’t be tried until the People as a whole see the status quo as broken. I suspect the powers that be don’t want that to happen, and will strive to keep things going just well enough that the perception of broken won’t hit critical mass.

How long they can do this, I don’t know, but right now the stagnation is still in place. The ship hasn’t hit the iceberg. No crisis yet.

We are 1850s redux. We hit the iceberg. We cannot enter a civil war yet. For now, the "Crisis" consists of polarization and stalemate. You are right about the shape of current events you describe. I am just offering an explanation in terms of turnings that I think works. Fix the anomaly, and the turnings theory works just fine to explain where we are.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Bush ran on a humble foreign policy in 2000. There was no mandate for a large military footprint in the world. When 911 happened the response for the Bush administration was Clintonian. Remember Tora Bora? Bush ruled out going in there ourselves because he was still skittish about casualties, and THAT was going after the guy who was behind 911.

I didn't think at the time and still don't think Bush was ever as concerned with Bin Ladin and Al Qaida as with Saddam and Iraq. Bin Ladin didn't control any oil. Sending US troops into Afghanistan wouldn't advance the Rebuilding America's Defenses agenda. I see the heavy use of proxy forces in Afghanistan as way of keeping force available for Iraq. I see Iraq as already being on Bush 43's schedule even as Afghanistan got underway.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How is this non traditional? Didn't we invade Panama to get rid of Noreiga? Remember the original plan called for a rapid charge to Baghdad, kill or capture Saddam, hand power over to a general and get out. Saddam was a much harder target than Noreiga, and so more force would be necessary, requiring the use of an elaborate cover story involved WMDs. When it went down, it went sour almost immediately. Somebody had fucked up badly and it's been ass-covering ever since.

Which original plan? Yes, many of the neocons on the military side wanted a quick in and out. The oil people wanted the oil, which implied a long term stay, permanent basing, a mega embassy complex, etc... The two groups were not on the same page.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Almost all of the growth in the National Security State began as ass-covering for the failure of 911, and the failure to crush al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the cockup in Iraq. In doing all this new bureaucracies have been formed that are now self-perpetuating. Clusterfucks can happen in any turning. They don't mean anything, other than as symbols of decline.

The Bush 43 administration really, genuinely sincerely didn't want a second 911 on their watch. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by ass-covering, but I believe a lot of people were at that time very sincerely "willing to trade essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety". I don't agree with the trade off. I note that Obama campaigned on cutting back on Big Brother, but didn't. I can't argue with the "self-perpetuating" description. While I'd agree "clusterfuck" describes Afghanistan and Iraq well enough, I don't know enough about the new domestic Big Brother effort or its results. The feeling I get is that it is not cost effective, the money could be better used elsewhere, but quite a few potential terrorists have ended up trying to buy bombs from FBI informants. This might imply at some level some good intelligence work.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't see the next president as an FDR figure. What made FDR successful politically was his timing. The economy will experience a serious recession during the next presidential term. The present business cycle turns 8 at the end of this year. The longest ever was a bit over 10. That means we are nearly certain to enter recession by 2nd quarter 2018. That means the stock market peaks in 2017 at the latest. The longer the market rises the farther it will have to fall in the subsequent recession and the more chance of another financial crisis.

Whoever is the next president is going to see an economic collapse on their watch.

What made FDR a Grey Champion was the impression that he was trying, that he was attempting to do what he could. You seem almost dismissive of the 100 days and other New Deal efforts. I'm not going to try to slog it out with you on the details of economic plans and their merits. Still, whatever the real merits of what he did, the People thought he was trying and kept giving him larger majorities. The New Deal kick started the period of tax and spend liberalism that carried the US through the 1950s and 1960s. I am not so ready to dismiss it as you seem to be. I care more about culture and values, less about economic numbers.

Prediction of economic downturn noted. We'll see how the blame game gets played next time around.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

We might have to wait until the 1980's cohorts are in their 50's to get a solution in which case it may no be until the 2030's. If we denote 1984-2008 as the 3T, a 4T from 2008-2032 would not be out of line, and implementation of the solution could well be considered part of a 1T.

Originally Posted by B Butler

At this point the mood and tactics are that of 3T, obstruction, stagnation and at best compromise.

Would you prefer a civil war?

I would prefer that we set dates for periods of unraveling and crisis where the nation is in an unravelling mood during unravellings and crisis mood during crisis. I thought you had strong doubts about turning theory, that you had no blind faith in the four cycle sequence of high, awakening, unraveling, crisis? I thought you were looking for a way of using some aspects of the theory even when overall there are significant problems with it?

I look at Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor and September 11th and think about ducks. Quacks like duck. Swims like duck. Waddles like duck. Trigger. For a brief time we were in a clear 4T mood, ready for decisive action regarding terror. The mood didn't sustain. The people were asked to go shopping. Afghanistan was fought with proxy forces rather than a direct action. The justification for Iraq smelled fishy from the start, the implementation slipping into SNAFU mode quite promptly and thoroughly. I do not see preemptive unilateral serial invasion and nation building as an echo of prior Reagan 40 - Bush 41 - Clinton 42 interventions such as Grenada, Panama, Somalia and the Balkans. None of those places had oil. We didn't occupy and build massive bases and embassies in those places. The interventions by 40, 41 and 42 were clearly intended to be quick in and out affairs rather than the beginnings of a perpetual "War on Terror" which would continue into the indefinite future or longer.

I see a radical new strategy that required a sustained 4T commitment by the People to be sustained. The strategy didn't work on the ground in Iraq, and thus didn't get a sustained commitment by the People.

That's history, though. The more important question is where we are now. Do we have a dominant popular president pushing a strong agenda through a Congress where he enjoys a solid majority? If so, we be post regeneracy 4T. Do we have bickering, stagnation, endless debate and nothing really getting done? If so, we be 3T or perhaps pre regeneracy very early 4T.

I have never been entirely satisfied with the markers used to define the 3T 4T cusp. Using the Civil War as an example, might the Harper's Ferry raid have made an all out conflict inevitable, or was that just another catalyst like Bleeding Kansas? Was Lincoln winning the election decisive, as the South would not tolerate him? Was it Fort Sumter where shots were fired in earnest resulting in wholesale mobilization?

I am open to a discussion on exactly when one might say a 4T has started. I am certainly no authority figure to definitively say. My concern, though, is whether the People have enabled a president and congress to run Forrest run. Lincoln had that. FDR had that. Bush 43 had it in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. Obama hasn't had it. It is possible to redefine "4T" in such a way as we might be considered to be in a 4T. If so, I'll say we are pre-regeneracy and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes. For example consider the trend towards rising economic inequality, an issue many here (and elsewhere) think is not a good thing. The idea that inequality goes through cycles give people hope. The cycle that governs inequality is the secular cycle, not the saeculum. However if you consider that the three American saecula, defined as 4T to 4T correspond to Michael Lind's idea of three American republics, one obtains a merger between S&H's generational/cultural cycles and Lind's strictly political cycle. The founding elements of thes republics are from three clear political events (1) the Revolution of 1776 and subsequent state-building lead to the Constitution of 1787, the critical election of 1860 and subsequent war and the critical election of 1932 and subsequent New Deal. Presumably a fourth 4T would involve a political event like a critical election and lead to a fourth republic.

I have been tracking the saeculum for years using an apparent correlation with the economic long wave. Doing this assigns the 2008-9 crisis as equivalent to 1929-32. Neither the economic nor the political aftermath are like the post-1929 period, however. It increasingly looks like 2008 might not be a full bore critical election, but something more like 1968, thought to be one at the time, but later eclipsed by the 1980 election. Nevertheless, if Clinton wins in 2016 then it is more likely to be a critical election since 5 out of six elections beginning periods with 3 or more successive terms in the same party were critical elections (1800,1828,1860,1896,1932,1980--1920 was not).

I don't see why 1980 eclipses 1968 as a critical election. I see your point about 3 elections in a row by the same party, and if Hillary wins in 2016 that would make 2008 the "critical election" by that definition. But the sixties saw a more significant shift in elections historically. They moved the South from Democrat to Republican, paving the way for the clear ideological split that we have today between the parties.

Edit: I certainly agree that 1980 election was critical though, since it put us on the course of trickle-down economics that we are still on (not now because of the president in office, but because of the congress in office).

Since the country has only begun to talk about inequality now, I would think the solution is some time off. This dovetails with the idea of former radicalized youth in their 50's that would be needed to implement some sort of solution.

Or, maybe some former-radicalized Boomer youth in their 60s and 70s doing it in the 2020s!

"Implementing solutions" happens in 4Ts and to some extent in 2Ts.

I don't see any other generation alive today that has been "radicalized." Occupy does not seem to qualify millennials as "radicalized," and they would have to act in a 1T to fit your idea anyway. Otherwise, you'd have to wait for the next prophets to act in the 2070s, which will be during a 3T, so it would be no better a time to implement solutions either. No, I think prophets in their 60s are what can happen.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Eric

I have oft summarized Bush 43’s approach to Gulf War II and the War on Terror along as “preemptive serial unilateral invasion and nation building.” If we had attempted this approach against the Soviet Union, it would not have been called “The Cold War” but “World War III”. If you cannot distinguish the difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror you just don’t have any comprehension of war, at all, period.

My own slant on things is centered on values and world views, and cultures as the collective values and world views of a group of people. This does slant how I see things. I see people as deeply committed to their perspectives. I see them as unwilling to change values without catastrophic failure of old values. I also see people believe, truly believe, in where they come from. A good part of the commitment to seeing the world in one way only is having lived in that world all their lives. What people see as important has been important to them. The methods people use to solve problems are held as tried and true as they have worked through a person’s life. They will continue to commit to such methods until the methods fail big time.

Thus, on encountering a world view or value set, the correct thing to do is attempt to understand how one can live within it. There is an assumption that it works, that it works very well in the circumstances the owner of the values came from. There is an assumption that world views make sense when one is living inside them, no matter how strange or dysfunctional they might seem from one’s own perspective.

I can see how an oil man might think keeping a supply of oil available at reasonable cost can be important to western civilization, important and central. I can see how someone who has lived in a democracy, who has seen the obvious failures of autocratic government, might think it beneficial to spread democracy and human rights, even by force. I can see how weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a tyrant can be seen as a threat. I can see very easily that many in the Bush 43 administration did not understand how difficult it is to change a culture. From the outside looking in at the Bush 43 administration, I can see two left feet, neither knowing what the other is up to or why, failing to dance together as people with different agendas sought different goals with inadequate coordination. I see them not so much as stupid or evil. I see them as unfocused and uncoordinated, many of them fooled by the propaganda of a leadership lying to its own people. The leadership dared not speak their own true objectives. In repeating their lies they fooled themselves.

As with your view of war, I find your view of the Bush 43 administration very very simplistic. You are not looking at things at a depth I find interesting.

The depth you are at is vile stereotype. You don’t like them, have come up with a short list of reasons to hate them, and refuse to look at them in any greater depth than your short list. This is not your problem alone. Lots of “contributors” to the forum work at this level only, repeatedly venting hate as if this were a constructive exercise. I know you have been told “how all liberals think” by the same people as I. Did you recognize yourself? I know I didn’t. Still, some people absolutely cannot let go of their hate, cannot see anything other than what they want to hate.

You’re one of them.

Anyway, I see no consensus of a start moment for the current crisis. There is an ongoing discussion rather than a settled issue. I see Obama as doing a reasonable job given he was dealt a bad hand. I don’t see the period of his administration being remembered as the equal of the Revolution, Civil War, Great Depression and World War II. I don’t see the changes in the country during his years to date being anywhere near that magnitude. I do see stagnation and bickering in Washington DC that fits the unravelling pattern much much better than the crisis pattern.

There are problems we face as a country worthy of a major transformation. Again, Bernie is doing a decent job of listing the problems and saying where he wants to go with them. His fixes won’t be tried until the People as a whole see the status quo as broken. I suspect the powers that be don’t want that to happen, and will strive to keep things going just well enough that the perception of broken won’t hit critical mass.

How long they can do this, I don’t know, but right now the stagnation is still in place. The ship hasn’t hit the iceberg. No crisis yet.

Well said, especially those last three paragraphs! Your last sentence reminds me that a book came out just last year that sheds new light--and a fresh perspective--on the origins and trajectory of the crisis in neo-liberal capitalism, which the U.S. and most of the developed world have faced since 2008. In Crisis without End: The Unravelling of Western Prosperity, the author Andrew Gamble provides a valuable study of the current political economy. What I particularly liked about the book is that it is apolitical, much like The Fourth Turning. Gamble is a Professor at Cambridge, but hopefully that won't put off anybody interested in reading his book. He lays out three scenarios regarding the current crisis, and provides plenty of support for each. (More on that later in my next thread.) I highly recommend the book as a companion text to S & H theory. I don't know about you, but I've long since given up being too certain about anything. When I find myself getting confused about a previously held conviction, I seek out other sources to provide a broader perspective.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Eric

I have oft summarized Bush 43’s approach to Gulf War II and the War on Terror along as “preemptive serial unilateral invasion and nation building.” If we had attempted this approach against the Soviet Union, it would not have been called “The Cold War” but “World War III”. If you cannot distinguish the difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror you just don’t have any comprehension of war, at all, period.

My own slant on things is centered on values and world views, and cultures as the collective values and world views of a group of people. This does slant how I see things. I see people as deeply committed to their perspectives. I see them as unwilling to change values without catastrophic failure of old values. I also see people believe, truly believe, in where they come from. A good part of the commitment to seeing the world in one way only is having lived in that world all their lives. What people see as important has been important to them. The methods people use to solve problems are held as tried and true as they have worked through a person’s life. They will continue to commit to such methods until the methods fail big time.

Thus, on encountering a world view or value set, the correct thing to do is attempt to understand how one can live within it. There is an assumption that it works, that it works very well in the circumstances the owner of the values came from. There is an assumption that world views make sense when one is living inside them, no matter how strange or dysfunctional they might seem from one’s own perspective.

I can see how an oil man might think keeping a supply of oil available at reasonable cost can be important to western civilization, important and central. I can see how someone who has lived in a democracy, who has seen the obvious failures of autocratic government, might think it beneficial to spread democracy and human rights, even by force. I can see how weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a tyrant can be seen as a threat. I can see very easily that many in the Bush 43 administration did not understand how difficult it is to change a culture. From the outside looking in at the Bush 43 administration, I can see two left feet, neither knowing what the other is up to or why, failing to dance together as people with different agendas sought different goals with inadequate coordination. I see them not so much as stupid or evil. I see them as unfocused and uncoordinated, many of them fooled by the propaganda of a leadership lying to its own people. The leadership dared not speak their own true objectives. In repeating their lies they fooled themselves.

As with your view of war, I find your view of the Bush 43 administration very very simplistic. You are not looking at things at a depth I find interesting.

The depth you are at is vile stereotype. You don’t like them, have come up with a short list of reasons to hate them, and refuse to look at them in any greater depth than your short list. This is not your problem alone. Lots of “contributors” to the forum work at this level only, repeatedly venting hate as if this were a constructive exercise. I know you have been told “how all liberals think” by the same people as I. Did you recognize yourself? I know I didn’t. Still, some people absolutely cannot let go of their hate, cannot see anything other than what they want to hate.

You’re one of them.

Anyway, I see no consensus of a start moment for the current crisis. There is an ongoing discussion rather than a settled issue. I see Obama as doing a reasonable job given he was dealt a bad hand. I don’t see the period of his administration being remembered as the equal of the Revolution, Civil War, Great Depression and World War II. I don’t see the changes in the country during his years to date being anywhere near that magnitude. I do see stagnation and bickering in Washington DC that fits the unravelling pattern much much better than the crisis pattern.

There are problems we face as a country worthy of a major transformation. Again, Bernie is doing a decent job of listing the problems and saying where he wants to go with them. His fixes won’t be tried until the People as a whole see the status quo as broken. I suspect the powers that be don’t want that to happen, and will strive to keep things going just well enough that the perception of broken won’t hit critical mass.

How long they can do this, I don’t know, but right now the stagnation is still in place. The ship hasn’t hit the iceberg. No crisis yet.

I should add that I particularly appreciate your nuanced approach here. I taught Julius Caesar to sophomores for many years, and one of things I tried to get across to the students was the different motivations for killing Caesar that his assassins had. Some bore grudges against him for a perceived slight. Others were jealous that he--not they-wielded absolute power. Some, like the "honorable man" Brutus, feared that he was abusing his power, and thus threatening the very notion of the Roman Republic. In the spring of 2003, I even attempted to draw a (not perfect) parallel between the lead-up to--and launching of--the Iraq War. Some students got it, I think. Never did that timeworn play seem more relevant to current events than it did that year.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

From another thread:



The right wing isn't the only demographic in American politics that is drifting toward more extreme positions.

The all-important moderates that elected Bill Clinton in the 1990s simply don't exist anymore. It's well in to a 4T and the people have taken sides. The people who are on the extremes are the ones who vote, and donate, and call Congress, and write letters.

The shrinking middle hasn't picked a side because they don't really care all that much. Even Hillary, who spent decades carefully calculating a middle road position knows this now - and that's why she's trying to copy her policy prescriptions from Bernie Sanders, and campaign strategies from Obama.

The trick, these days, is getting the base out to vote. The deep base. Squishy moderates don't rally Millennials, and the left can win any election they want if they actually run someone at the left's new median. But like I've been saying for years, the Democrats are just too damn conservative to win big in this electoral environment.

If there were a candidate, from either party, who could speak like Reagan or JFK, was media savvy and yet, had the cajones to call globalism a bunch of bullshit, would challenge American businesses to employ, build and hire American, and stated a simple but well thought out foreign policy and promise of military revitalization, he or she would win in a landslide. Money would possibly prove challenging as this type of candidate would be well hated by the corporate community and other entities of money power. I'd suggest crowd sourcing and crowd funding as the remedy.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Bush ran on a humble foreign policy in 2000. There was no mandate for a large military footprint in the world. When 911 happened the response for the Bush administration was Clintonian. Remember Tora Bora? Bush ruled out going in there ourselves because he was still skittish about casualties, and THAT was going after the guy who was behind 911.


How is this non traditional? Didn't we invade Panama to get rid of Noreiga? Remember the original plan called for a rapid charge to Baghdad, kill or capture Saddam, hand power over to a general and get out. Saddam was a much harder target than Noreiga, and so more force would be necessary, requiring the use of an elaborate cover story involved WMDs. When it went down, it went sour almost immediately. Somebody had fucked up badly and it's been ass-covering ever since.

Almost all of the growth in the National Security State began as ass-covering for the failure of 911, and the failure to crush al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the cockup in Iraq. In doing all this new bureaucracies have been formed that are now self-perpetuating. Clusterfucks can happen in any turning. They don't mean anything, other than as symbols of decline.


He's more like LBJ without Civil Rights and the great Society.


I too see Obama as a counterfactual two-term Hoover that had suspended the gold standard. He is also like a Democratic Nixon, a liberal who was forced to rule as a moderate conservative.

I don't see the next president as an FDR figure. What made FDR successful politically was his timing. The economy will experience a serious recession during the next presidential term. The present business cycle turns 8 at the end of this year. The longest ever was a bit over 10. That means we are nearly certain to enter recession by 2nd quarter 2018. That means the stock market peaks in 2017 at the latest. The longer the market rises the farther it will have to fall in the subsequent recession and the more chance of another financial crisis.

Whoever is the next president is going to see an economic collapse on their watch.

The coming collapse will likely be a one two punch. The first blow will be economic, all that is rotten with the current processes and system cresting and smashing into the shoreline. Then, shortly after that, the final whimper of the post-WW2 order (including the UN and all the other fancy multilateral institutions). NATO may survive in a new format, essentially an unabashed Pro-Western Anglo-American-Nordic Alliance.