Below is an article published five years ago. I have left out the name of the "greatest intellectual," which is a matter of opinion, of course, and I have omitted parts of his comments so as to strip out any hint of ideology. The boldface is my own emphasis, not his.

__________ is America’s greatest intellectual...He curtly dismisses our two-party system as a mirage orchestrated by the corporate state, excoriates the liberal intelligentsia for being fops and courtiers and describes the drivel of the commercial media as a form of “brainwashing.” And as our nation’s most prescient critic of unregulated capitalism, globalization and the poison of empire, he enters his 81st year warning us that we have little time left to save our anemic democracy.

“It is very similar to late Weimar Germany...The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over.

“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen. Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself...If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists...I don’t think all this is very far away...

“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime...I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope...There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way..."

Now I could never hold my own in a debate with this man, as he is a towering intellect. Having said that, though, I've read many books on the subject of fascism in recent years. Most are scholarly works. Some are political screeds, which I read solely to understand the specious arguments of the left and right that level that epithet at their political rivals. I must admit, though, that the Bush administration prompted my deep study of this subject, but he was no fascist in the end.

To those who would draw a precise parallel between the US and Weimar Germany, that simplistic analog is a serious misreading of a complex history. My study began with Fritz Stern because he is a native-born German of Jewish heritage, whose family fled to America in 1938, and that despite them having converted to Lutheran Protestant Christianity long before Hitler arrived on the scene. Stern is a historian with the lived experience of a Western democracy trampled under the jackboot of a uniquely Germanic ideology. The Politics of Cultural Despair is an excellent study of the origins of Nazism, one that goes back further in time than most scholars. It's why he can claim, “In Germany there was a yearning for fascism before fascism was invented.”

It is that yearning that I see glimmers of today in the US. It is why I started the thread "If the Center Cannot Hold, Who Wins?" I did not have the 2016 election in mind; I'm looking much further down the road. What happens when the next existential crisis runs pell mell into the hyper-partisanship of our political elites, the dysfunction in Washington, the polarization of Americans around a wide range of issues? The center melts, along with it any semblance of civility, and a door opens wide to an extremism no one thinks possible. A stealth force is stalking our country (call it whatever -ism you will), one that feeds on the growing frustration and desperation of many Americans. Chris Hedges, as repugnant as I find his rigid application of socialist ideology, rightly says, "If we do not swiftly reincorporate the unemployed and the poor back into the economy, giving them jobs and relief from crippling debt, then the nascent racism and violence that are leaping up around the edges of American society will become a full-blown conflagration."

Political passions are at a boiling point, passions that now underlie the rival candidacies of two populists well outside the mainstream. The fact that the article cited above appeared five years ago attests to the patience of the American people. Our democracy won't yield as easily as the Weimar Republic to a dark impulse. Its republic was only 14 years old when it succumbed to the idealistic promise of the Third Reich, a fragile republic born in military "defeat," saddled with crippling and humiliating reparations, and so on. A republic not at all accustomed to the challenges we have faced--and faced down--in our more mature democracy.

But patience has its limits. Protest movements have sprung up all around us. First the Tea Party, then Occupy Wall Street, and now Black Lives Matter. If we ring fence the import of their message, tune them out because we don't like their party affiliation or their tone or tactics, then the wolf now howling at the door gets in. And don't call this thinking nihilism. Nihilism is what comes after the Cassandras, like ______, are ignored for too long.

So, go ahead, root for Hillary or Trump or Sanders or whatever Presidential Savior you think can fix this hot mess. Just don't be surprised if it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory...

The "false equivalency" B.S. (complete with accusations of nihilism) is a strawman argument. Of course there are differences between the two major political parties. But neither one works in the public interest.
I think I know who the "greatest intellectual" is. I'll have to Google that. Thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Below is an article published five years ago. I have left out the name of the "greatest intellectual," which is a matter of opinion, of course, and I have omitted parts of his comments so as to strip out any hint of ideology. The boldface is my own emphasis, not his.

__________ is America’s greatest intellectual...He curtly dismisses our two-party system as a mirage orchestrated by the corporate state, excoriates the liberal intelligentsia for being fops and courtiers and describes the drivel of the commercial media as a form of “brainwashing.” And as our nation’s most prescient critic of unregulated capitalism, globalization and the poison of empire, he enters his 81st year warning us that we have little time left to save our anemic democracy.

“It is very similar to late Weimar Germany...The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over.

“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen. Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself...If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists...I don’t think all this is very far away...

“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime...I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope...There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way..."

Now I could never hold my own in a debate with this man, as he is a towering intellect. Having said that, though, I've read many books on the subject of fascism in recent years. Most are scholarly works. Some are political screeds, which I read solely to understand the specious arguments of the left and right that level that epithet at their political rivals. I must admit, though, that the Bush administration prompted my deep study of this subject, but he was no fascist in the end.

To those who would draw a precise parallel between the US and Weimar Germany, that simplistic analog is a serious misreading of a complex history. My study began with Fritz Stern because he is a native-born German of Jewish heritage, whose family fled to America in 1938, and that despite them having converted to Lutheran Protestant Christianity long before Hitler arrived on the scene. Stern is a historian with the lived experience of a Western democracy trampled under the jackboot of a uniquely Germanic ideology. The Politics of Cultural Despair is an excellent study of the origins of Nazism, one that goes back further in time than most scholars. It's why he can claim, “In Germany there was a yearning for fascism before fascism was invented.”

It is that yearning that I see glimmers of today in the US. It is why I started the thread "If the Center Cannot Hold, Who Wins?" I did not have the 2016 election in mind; I'm looking much further down the road. What happens when the next existential crisis runs pell mell into the hyper-partisanship of our political elites, the dysfunction in Washington, the polarization of Americans around a wide range of issues? The center melts, along with it any semblance of civility, and a door opens wide to an extremism no one thinks possible. A stealth force is stalking our country (call it whatever -ism you will), one that feeds on the growing frustration and desperation of many Americans. Chris Hedges, as repugnant as I find his rigid application of socialist ideology, rightly says, "If we do not swiftly reincorporate the unemployed and the poor back into the economy, giving them jobs and relief from crippling debt, then the nascent racism and violence that are leaping up around the edges of American society will become a full-blown conflagration."

Political passions are at a boiling point, passions that now underlie the rival candidacies of two populists well outside the mainstream. The fact that the article cited above appeared five years ago attests to the patience of the American people. Our democracy won't yield as easily as the Weimar Republic to a dark impulse. Its republic was only 14 years old when it succumbed to the idealistic promise of the Third Reich, a fragile republic born in military "defeat," saddled with crippling and humiliating reparations, and so on. A republic not at all accustomed to the challenges we have faced--and faced down--in our more mature democracy.

But patience has its limits. Protest movements have sprung up all around us. First the Tea Party, then Occupy Wall Street, and now Black Lives Matter. If we ring fence the import of their message, tune them out because we don't like their party affiliation or their tone or tactics, then the wolf now howling at the door gets in. And don't call this thinking nihilism. Nihilism is what comes after the Cassandras, like ______, are ignored for too long.

So, go ahead, root for Hillary or Trump or Sanders or whatever Presidential Savior you think can fix this hot mess. Just don't be surprised if it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory...

Those whom I see yearning for something totalitarian strike me as being more Stalinist than Fascist. Shades of gray in the end. But truthfully, the American psyche, in spite of the best efforts of various apparent Europhiles, does not seem capable of having a frame of mind similar to Continental Europeans. That frame of mind was and remains a key ingredient for something like a Stalin or a Hitler to gain power. There is also, BTW, a similar but differently hatched Asian version. In any case, the Continental outlook is like oil to the water of the American psyche.

If ever Americans were to embrace totalitarianism it might have a Latin American or African flavor. Even that is a stretch.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Those whom I see yearning for something totalitarian strike me as being more Stalinist than Fascist. Shades of gray in the end. But truthfully, the American psyche, in spite of the best efforts of various apparent Europhiles, does not seem capable of having a frame of mind similar to Continental Europeans. That frame of mind was and remains a key ingredient for something like a Stalin or a Hitler to gain power. There is also, BTW, a similar but differently hatched Asian version. In any case, the Continental outlook is like oil to the water of the American psyche.

If ever Americans were to embrace totalitarianism it might have a Latin American or African flavor. Even that is a stretch.

Can't help but comment on the charismatic quote, regarding them being crooks. Nixon, perhaps the biggest crook to occupy the White House, at least the only one officially caught at it so far, was far from charismatic. The disenchantment with the Vietnam War was what put him in office.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Those whom I see yearning for something totalitarian strike me as being more Stalinist than Fascist. Shades of gray in the end. But truthfully, the American psyche, in spite of the best efforts of various apparent Europhiles, does not seem capable of having a frame of mind similar to Continental Europeans. That frame of mind was and remains a key ingredient for something like a Stalin or a Hitler to gain power. There is also, BTW, a similar but differently hatched Asian version. In any case, the Continental outlook is like oil to the water of the American psyche.

If ever Americans were to embrace totalitarianism it might have a Latin American or African flavor. Even that is a stretch.

The evolution of Russia into a society where the political culture favors absolute submission to the state is ironic when you read Russian history prior to roughly the time of Ivan the terrible. Before that era the average commoner actually had more freedom than a commoner did in most of central and eastern Europe. When the Tsarist state apparatus was constructed, the czars basically purged first the nobility and then passed a series of laws that tied the peasantry to state controlled farms where they were basically declared to be the property of the Czar. Even today an internal passport is required for rural Russians if they intend to relocate to a different region.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The evolution of Russia into a society where the political culture favors absolute submission to the state is ironic when you read Russian history prior to roughly the time of Ivan the terrible. Before that era the average commoner actually had more freedom than a commoner did in most of central and eastern Europe

Ummmn, no. I took Russian history in college and I'm calling you out on this.
From the time The Golden Horde rode into Russia in the 13th century until Ivan the Great ''Gathered the Russias'' Russia was divided into many states. Some like the Hanseatic League affiliated Lord Novgorod the Great were in a condition not too unlike western Europe. But most of Russia was under the direct sway of the Mongols. And even Novgorod paid tribute to the Mongols So the freedom was quite limited. Actualy, if there ever was a restoration state it was the Khan's Mongols. . But that's another issue for another time.

When the Tsarist state apparatus was constructed, the czars basically purged first the nobility and then passed a series of laws that tied the peasantry to state controlled farms where they were basically declared to be the property of the Czar.

So why do you have a problem with this?

Even today an internal passport is required for rural Russians if they intend to relocate to a different region.

That's also true in China and a lot of states where the idea of meritocracy has led to the kind of a crushing of the individual that you advocate here almost everyday. Again, why should this truth about restorationism bother you?

I'm still seeing him as a clown. If a republican candidate for president can't maintain decent diplomatic relations with Fox News, he isn't qualified for the job. I have trouble thinking he can get the backing of even Republicans. While I can seem him holding onto or slightly improving his current numbers, as the minor but serious republican candidates drop out, I suspect most of their following will go to other serious candidates.

Or... more serious clowns?

I'm not entirely sure I have enough sympathy with the Red world view to be a good clown critic.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The evolution of Russia into a society where the political culture favors absolute submission to the state is ironic when you read Russian history prior to roughly the time of Ivan the terrible. Before that era the average commoner actually had more freedom than a commoner did in most of central and eastern Europe.

Before the Mongols, maybe... but certainly not under the "Mongol yoke".

When the Tsarist state apparatus was constructed, the czars basically purged first the nobility and then passed a series of laws that tied the peasantry to state controlled farms where they were basically declared to be the property of the Czar.

Which sounds like what Lenin did in baby steps and Stalin did to completion, except that instead of the Tsar was the apparatus of the Communist Party. It is ironic that Karl Marx had little optimism about his idea of socialism taking root in Russia -- it did to some extent, but with no component of liberty and pervasive militarism. Soviet Communism and its imitators are best described as "barracks socialism" -- much like your "Reconstructionism".

Even today an internal passport is required for rural Russians if they intend to relocate to a different region.

If one needs an internal passport just to travel from rural Michigan to Chicago, then one really needs an exit visa for any possibility of real happiness in life unless one is one of the takers or enforcers. Right?

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

....
To those who would draw a precise parallel between the US and Weimar Germany, that simplistic analog is a serious misreading of a complex history...

I can agree with this, but would add the key condition of an economic depression. Thanks to decades of inflationisties' propaganda, most people equate Weimar with hyperinflation which did occur 1919-1923, but it was their experiencing the Great Depression a decade later that proved to actually be the government's downfall. Their experience with the 1930s depression, by nearly every measure, was much worse than what the US experienced. Our experience with the 2008 contraction/meltdown pales in comparison, and the likelihood of even something like 2007/08 occurring again in our lifetime is pretty remote. The absence of an economic driver of that magnitude makes it highly unlikely dissatisfaction gets anywhere close to being sufficient to drive a 330 million people, highly-complex, extremely-productive society toward a Big Fix/Man solution, particularly when the dissatisfaction is actually not only a multitude of varied elements but, more often than not, organically in complete opposition to one another.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

It is that yearning that I see glimmers of today in the US.

A yearning for what exactly? Do you really think that what today's Right yearns for is the same as that on the Left? Do you think those differences are so tedious that a "third way" can emerge and we sit down to a rousing round of Kumbaya? That would seem to defeat your entire thesis of dissatisfaction possible growing to the point of some major societal calamity.

I understand that you recognize there are these differences; simply summed up here -

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

....Political passions are at a boiling point, passions that now underlie the rival candidacies of two populists well outside the mainstream....

- and likely see them as the source of your concern of at least an uncivil society if not the cause of the rise of the Big Fix/Man. But the flaw in your thesis (or, it simply being very incomplete) is that you simply add the energy of those differences into some combined "stealth force" or "many Americans" and apply it against some etherical "center," or "system" or "Presidential Savior."

It's akin to you seeing two cars, each going down the road at 25 MPH. If they each hit a tree, sure some damage but probable not a loss of life or even a major injury to either party. But take those same cars into a head-on collision, and now you're talking about enough power to kill. The important question is not why are they each going 25 MPH, the question is why are the angry people in the cars aiming at each other.

Again, are their differences trivial or easily resolved? My sense is that today's issue(s) are not as blatantly obvious as in the 1860s 4T but they are no more nuanced or stealthy as those addressed in the last 4T of the 1930s. If you want to avoid the head-on collision or at least slow the cars down, doesn't one have to start with what is driving the drivers? Who knows, maybe you'll decide to hop in the car and hit the accelerator.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

But patience has its limits. Protest movements have sprung up all around us. First the Tea Party, then Occupy Wall Street, and now Black Lives Matter. If we ring fence the import of their message, tune them out because we don't like their party affiliation or their tone or tactics, then the wolf now howling at the door gets in.

Here, again, you're packaging all those divergent voices into one wolf against some common door (i.e., center, system, or my favorite, "Pyrrhic victory"). I guess that could also be the "head-on collision" and you are joining the chorus that the collision will be too high a price to pay. But have you done the research to support that conclusion? Is the collision going to be that severe? You and I both have ruled out a Weimar pathway as being likely; so how do we go from fighting over, for example, two male figures on a wedding cake or how long to build a wall at the border to a future where we have collectively decided to require goose-stepping parades and the building of concentration camps???

Also, have you've done enough research on the issues driving the cars? Are they truly trivial compared to the collision? Or, are they resolvable without the collision? Is only one side going to get hurt; is their getting politically hurt a bad or a good thing? And most pragmatic, will the car occupants want to even listen to you?

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

And don't call this thinking nihilism. Nihilism is what comes after the Cassandras, like ______, are ignored for too long.

No, you are not being a nihilist - a nihilist would tell you whether you get in the car or not, or whether the cars crash or not, doesn't matter, we're all going to die. On a day when they're not too depress, they may even suggest you go out and enjoy the sun... they will of course, point out that will cause you to die from skin cancer but that doesn't really matter either.

I could say that maybe you're a bit pollyannaish in believing the differences are trivial, resolvable without collision, or that anyone is going to slow down and listen to your prediction of woe. But I could also say that you are pretty pessimistic that the collision is going to be that severe.

On the whole, I guess instead I would lean toward you being Cassandra, BUT not my Cassandra. Politically and figuratively, I'm in the car and trying to speed up. I see the opposition as eventually exiting their clown bus and laying prone on the road awaiting their fate as road kill. And when I think what that would mean for the future, that puts a big smile on my face.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm still seeing him as a clown. If a republican candidate for president can't maintain decent diplomatic relations with Fox News, he isn't qualified for the job.

He is completely unqualified to be President. I have been attacking Scott Walker for his dictatorial style as Governor of Wisconsin, but at least Walker sees objects of service (the Koch dynasty/syndicate). Donald Trump is one of the most blatant narcissists that I have ever seen or read about, and the history of politics is full of narcissists. (Most politicians are narcissists). He is loyal only to himself; he is much like an artist who sees the People as the brushstrokes and a nation as the canvas for his dreams.

I have trouble thinking he can get the backing of even Republicans. While I can seem him holding onto or slightly improving his current numbers, as the minor but serious republican candidates drop out, I suspect most of their following will go to other serious candidates.

Most Republicans will support anyone to the Right of the Democratic nominee. More significantly, seriousness seems to be of little significance in contrast to ideology.

I'm not entirely sure I have enough sympathy with the Red world view to be a good clown critic.

Neither would I be a good critic of the lunatic fringe.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I can agree with this, but would add the key condition of an economic depression. Thanks to decades of inflationisties' propaganda, most people equate Weimar with hyperinflation which did occur 1919-1923, but it was their experiencing the Great Depression a decade later that proved to actually be the government's downfall. Their experience with the 1930s depression, by nearly every measure, was much worse than what the US experienced. Our experience with the 2008 contraction/meltdown pales in comparison, and the likelihood of even something like 2007/08 occurring again in our lifetime is pretty remote. The absence of an economic driver of that magnitude makes it highly unlikely dissatisfaction gets anywhere close to being sufficient to drive a 330 million people, highly-complex, extremely-productive society toward a Big Fix/Man solution, particularly when the dissatisfaction is actually not only a multitude of varied elements but, more often than not, organically in complete opposition to one another.



A yearning for what exactly? Do you really think that what today's Right yearns for is the same as that on the Left? Do you think those differences are so tedious that a "third way" can emerge and we sit down to a rousing round of Kumbaya? That would seem to defeat your entire thesis of dissatisfaction possible growing to the point of some major societal calamity.

I understand that you recognize there are these differences; simply summed up here -



- and likely see them as the source of your concern of at least an uncivil society if not the cause of the rise of the Big Fix/Man. But the flaw in your thesis (or, it simply being very incomplete) is that you simply add the energy of those differences into some combined "stealth force" or "many Americans" and apply it against some etherical "center," or "system" or "Presidential Savior."

It's akin to you seeing two cars, each going down the road at 25 MPH. If they each hit a tree, sure some damage but probable not a loss of life or even a major injury to either party. But take those same cars into a head-on collision, and now you're talking about enough power to kill. The important question is not why are they each going 25 MPH, the question is why are the angry people in the cars aiming at each other.

Again, are their differences trivial or easily resolved? My sense is that today's issue(s) are not as blatantly obvious as in the 1860s 4T but they are no more nuanced or stealthy as those addressed in the last 4T of the 1930s. If you want to avoid the head-on collision or at least slow the cars down, doesn't one have to start with what is driving the drivers? Who knows, maybe you'll decide to hop in the car and hit the accelerator.



Here, again, you're packaging all those divergent voices into one wolf against some common door (i.e., center, system, or my favorite, "Pyrrhic victory"). I guess that could also be the "head-on collision" and you are joining the chorus that the collision will be too high a price to pay. But have you done the research to support that conclusion? Is the collision going to be that severe? You and I both have ruled out a Weimar pathway as being likely; so how do we go from fighting over, for example, two male figures on a wedding cake or how long to build a wall at the border to a future where we have collectively decided to require goose-stepping parades and the building of concentration camps???

Also, have you've done enough research on the issues driving the cars? Are they truly trivial compared to the collision? Or, are they resolvable without the collision? Is only one side going to get hurt; is their getting politically hurt a bad or a good thing? And most pragmatic, will the car occupants want to even listen to you?



No, you are not being a nihilist - a nihilist would tell you whether you get in the car or not, or whether the cars crash or not, doesn't matter, we're all going to die. On a day when they're not too depress, they may even suggest you go out and enjoy the sun... they will of course, point out that will cause you to die from skin cancer but that doesn't really matter either.

I could say that maybe you're a bit pollyannaish in believing the differences are trivial, resolvable without collision, or that anyone is going to slow down and listen to your prediction of woe. But I could also say that you are pretty pessimistic that the collision is going to be that severe.

On the whole, I guess instead I would lean toward you being Cassandra, BUT not my Cassandra. Politically and figuratively, I'm in the car and trying to speed up. I see the opposition as eventually exiting their clown bus and laying prone on the road awaiting their fate as road kill. And when I think what that would mean for the future, that puts a big smile on my face.

We are butting heads, are we not? Nothing wrong with that, of course. There are members of this forum who, though I may disagree with them or them with me, have shown me that their minds can entertain two competing thoughts. Truthfully, it's only with them that I wish to engage. You certainly don't need my imprimatur any more than I need yours, but I count you among those posters who I'd like to sit down with over a cup of coffee or a glass of beer, and hash things out, as did the intellectuals in the salons of old. (I'm no intellectual, just well read like many others posting here.) Unfortunately, members of this forum are geographically dispersed, so we're stuck with the obvious limitations of a digital forum, which are---

- A tendency to "snark." (I'm not accusing anyone, by the way.) Too many on social media today love lobbing grenades at people and then retreating behind their anonymity: digital asymmetrical warfare. The frequent vitriol on this message board is just one reason I waited ten years after reading The Fourth Turning before wading into the muck.

- We are not the least bit acquainted with each other. I can't presume to know anyone who posts opinions here. Is he a West Point grad who served in combat? Vietnam? Persian Gulf? Iraq/Afghanistan? Naturally, it matters. Did she once manage millions of dollars, only to chuck it all for a more spiritually fulfilling pursuit? Hell, I don't even know the gender of any given poster, not that it matters to me. (In fact, I rather prefer it that way.) That's why it was a good thing that one member recently traced the chronology of his/her evolution in political philosophy. He/she made an excellent point about ideological rigidity, and in a deeply personal way.

- Miscommunication is more prone to happen on social media. Look at all the back-and-forth on some threads, all to clear up a simple misunderstanding. On the other hand, if we can just sit down face to face, maybe I say something and you misinterpret it. But then I can reply in a Prufrockian manner, "No, that's not what I meant at all.." And then explain what I meant.

Anyway, playwrite, by way of clarification, I'm not some Manchurian Candidate subverting liberals, progressives, Democrats, what have you. (A joke, I know.) My politics skews well to the left of Obama (Didn't vote for him, though I rejoiced in his victory as a forlorn hope for a post-racial society). I'm even slightly to the left of Bernie Sanders. But I'm not left-leaning because of any ideology or party affiliation but rather because the party of Lincoln has been taken over by radical conservatives who, over time, have unmoored themselves from true conservatism and become reactionaries. There has to be a counterforce to that extremism. I'm drawn to "democratic socialism"--and thus to Bernie Sanders--because it's a "Third Way": capitalism with a strong social compact, one that apparently works for Scandinavians, if nothing else as indicated by measures of happiness that far overtop our own. Too many unhappy "lone wolves" taking out their personal misery on innocents with guns: surely a sign of a partly sick society.

As to your "false equivalency meme," I assure you that I see no "equivalency" whatsoever in the upstart candidacies of Sanders and Trump. They could not be more different. Much the same goes for their supporters. But it is simply without question that they are both populists addressing a general frustration with mainstream politics as usual and its failure to resolve the economic malaise of our country. Obviously, the specific grievances, aspirations and sought-after remedies of their respective constituencies varies widely. That is indisputable. We cannot rule out, however, some overlap in their audiences. Swing voters, if you please.

Perhaps the public reaction to the bank bailout in 2008 might better illustrate the point I'm trying to make. That being that voters on the left and right share not only a frustration/anger about the state of American politics in general, but much the same feelings about policy responses to a specific crisis, though for very different reasons.

Consider a headline from the FoxBusiness website: "Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party Movements Both Born of Bank Bailouts." [boldface added]

Conversations with protesters confirm the diffuse nature of their [Occupy Wall Street] grievances...A twenty-something from upstate New York is angry that he’s five-figures in debt to student loans yet he can’t find a job, let alone one in his chosen field. A California-retiree in her 60s has flown in to join the protest because, she said, too many friends and family members are losing their homes to foreclosure. A bunch of union guys are there because they feel unions are being “scapegoated,” citing as proof numerous examples of state legislatures across the country demanding that public employee unions renegotiate contracts and scale back their pension benefits...

On the other hand, I was watching CNBC live the day of the Rick Santelli rant, later characterized as "The Shot Heard 'Round the World."

The government is promoting bad behavior! How is this, president and new administration, why didn't you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages; or, would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give 'em to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water. This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (boos) President Obama, are you listening? ...We're thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up at Lake Michigan, I'm going to start organizing...

You may have noticed that the shared public rage wasn't over "bank bailouts," per se. Santelli was raving against the government bailing out the "loser" homeowners. Occupy Wall Street, by contrast, was mad that the government came to the rescue of greedy bankers, who largely caused the crisis in the first place, but not to the aid of the 99% of people who may have suffered the consequences in various and sundry ways.

In short, there are pressing issues that demand a rational policy response, sooner rather than later. Some festering problems, like racial injustice as it relates to law enforcement, have already sparked violent protests on our streets. That situation is already in a state of emergency, one that might not wait for the next election for resolution. One more unjustified police shooting of a black man in a bigger city--say, in South Central LA--and Ferguson may look like a Sunday School picnic in retrospect. Most of us remember the Rodney King riots, fewer still the Watts riots, which among other things gave Nixon's "law and order" platform real traction in 1968. And we all know where that led.

A few among the uber-rich have issued stern warnings about the potential for income inequality to likewise lead to social unrest, not necessarily limited to poor urban neighborhoods. There is a palpable sense that we are running out of time to fix things. If you can deny that, then by all means make your case.

Meanwhile, I will address some of your excellent counterpoints to my thesis of the Big Fix/Big Man in my next post...

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

We are butting heads, are we not? Nothing wrong with that, of course. There are members of this forum who, though I may disagree with them or them with me, have shown me that their minds can entertain two competing thoughts. Truthfully, it's only with them that I wish to engage. You certainly don't need my imprimatur any more than I need yours, but I count you among those posters who I'd like to sit down with over a cup of coffee or a glass of beer, and hash things out, as did the intellectuals in the salons of old. (I'm no intellectual, just well read like many others posting here.) Unfortunately, members of this forum are geographically dispersed, so we're stuck with the obvious limitations of a digital forum, which are---

- A tendency to "snark." (I'm not accusing anyone, by the way.) Too many on social media today love lobbing grenades at people and then retreating behind their anonymity: digital asymmetrical warfare. The frequent vitriol on this message board is just one reason I waited ten years after reading The Fourth Turning before wading into the muck.

- We are not the least bit acquainted with each other. I can't presume to know anyone who posts opinions here. Is he a West Point grad who served in combat? Vietnam? Persian Gulf? Iraq/Afghanistan? Naturally, it matters. Did she once manage millions of dollars, only to chuck it all for a more spiritually fulfilling pursuit? Hell, I don't even know the gender of any given poster, not that it matters to me. (In fact, I rather prefer it that way.) That's why it was a good thing that one member recently traced the chronology of his/her evolution in political philosophy. He/she made an excellent point about ideological rigidity, and in a deeply personal way.

- Miscommunication is more prone to happen on social media. Look at all the back-and-forth on some threads, all to clear up a simple misunderstanding. On the other hand, if we can just sit down face to face, maybe I say something and you misinterpret it. But then I can reply in a Prufrockian manner, "No, that's not what I meant at all.." And then explain what I meant.

Anyway, playwrite, by way of clarification, I'm not some Manchurian Candidate subverting liberals, progressives, Democrats, what have you. (A joke, I know.) My politics skews well to the left of Obama (Didn't vote for him, though I rejoiced in his victory as a forlorn hope for a post-racial society). I'm even slightly to the left of Bernie Sanders. But I'm not left-leaning because of any ideology or party affiliation but rather because the party of Lincoln has been taken over by radical conservatives who, over time, have unmoored themselves from true conservatism and become reactionaries. There has to be a counterforce to that extremism. I'm drawn to "democratic socialism"--and thus to Bernie Sanders--because it's a "Third Way": capitalism with a strong social compact, one that apparently works for Scandinavians, if nothing else as indicated by measures of happiness that far overtop our own. Too many unhappy "lone wolves" taking out their personal misery on innocents with guns: surely a sign of a partly sick society.

As to your "false equivalency meme," I assure you that I see no "equivalency" whatsoever in the upstart candidacies of Sanders and Trump. They could not be more different. Much the same goes for their supporters. But it is simply without question that they are both populists addressing a general frustration with mainstream politics as usual and its failure to resolve the economic malaise of our country. Obviously, the specific grievances, aspirations and sought-after remedies of their respective constituencies varies widely. That is indisputable. We cannot rule out, however, some overlap in their audiences. Swing voters, if you please.

Perhaps the public reaction to the bank bailout in 2008 might better illustrate the point I'm trying to make. That being that voters on the left and right share not only a frustration/anger about the state of American politics in general, but much the same feelings about policy responses to a specific crisis, though for very different reasons.

Consider a headline from the FoxBusiness website: "Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party Movements Both Born of Bank Bailouts." [boldface added]

Conversations with protesters confirm the diffuse nature of their [Occupy Wall Street] grievances...A twenty-something from upstate New York is angry that he’s five-figures in debt to student loans yet he can’t find a job, let alone one in his chosen field. A California-retiree in her 60s has flown in to join the protest because, she said, too many friends and family members are losing their homes to foreclosure. A bunch of union guys are there because they feel unions are being “scapegoated,” citing as proof numerous examples of state legislatures across the country demanding that public employee unions renegotiate contracts and scale back their pension benefits...

On the other hand, I was watching CNBC live the day of the Rick Santelli rant, later characterized as "The Shot Heard 'Round the World."

The government is promoting bad behavior! How is this, president and new administration, why didn't you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages; or, would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give 'em to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water. This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (boos) President Obama, are you listening? ...We're thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up at Lake Michigan, I'm going to start organizing...

You may have noticed that the shared public rage wasn't over "bank bailouts," per se. Santelli was raving against the government bailing out the "loser" homeowners. Occupy Wall Street, by contrast, was mad that the government came to the rescue of greedy bankers, who largely caused the crisis in the first place, but not to the aid of the 99% of people who may have suffered the consequences in various and sundry ways.

In short, there are pressing issues that demand a rational policy response, sooner rather than later. Some festering problems, like racial injustice as it relates to law enforcement, have already sparked violent protests on our streets. That situation is already in a state of emergency, one that might not wait for the next election for resolution. One more unjustified police shooting of a black man in a bigger city--say, in South Central LA--and Ferguson may look like a Sunday School picnic in retrospect. Most of us remember the Rodney King riots, fewer still the Watts riots, which among other things gave Nixon's "law and order" platform real traction in 1968. And we all know where that led.

A few among the uber-rich have issued stern warnings about the potential for income inequality to likewise lead to social unrest, not necessarily limited to poor urban neighborhoods. There is a palpable sense that we are running out of time to fix things. If you can deny that, then by all means make your case.

Meanwhile, I will address some of your excellent counterpoints to my thesis of the Big Fix/Big Man in my next post...

Thank you for a very thoughtful reply and apologies for where I may have gotten too personal and negative.

Looking forward to your next post on these issues.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Thank you for a very thoughtful reply and apologies for where I may have gotten too personal and negative.

Looking forward to your next post on these issues.

You're most welcome, and I look forward to your rebuttals as well. In the interval...an olive branch.

I've a question for you, Playwrite, asked in respect: How long do you think "the center", as it is, can or will hold?

I agree with Teacher that Sanders and Trump, while most certainly not "equivalent" by any stretch of the word, are nonetheless manifestations of growing discontent with "the center" (mainstream politics, status quo) as exhibited by those who are inclined to the Left and Right respectively. I.e. Sanders represents how many a Leftist feel about "the center" and its dysfunctions, while Trump represents how many a Rightist feel about same. They are divergent, naturally.

I can see where there can still be a sort of comfort in "the center"--it doesn't feel risky (so long as it still seems to work), status quo never feels that way, that is until the ultimate moment when its failure proves complete to everyone. More and more of us see that that's where it's headed though--it's already not working but a fraction of how it did work once, and for the benefit of fewer and fewer of us. It is not the future. Change is an inevitable force, and per Generational Theory the 4Ts are where it comes inexorably after the huge constipation of the 3Ts. And yes, it can be jarring, even scary. Whole paradigms you've been more or less comfortable with your whole life (and even an older Xer like me can feel that way, a little) become upended. But I doubt seriously that there can be any other choice.

So, from the standpoint of knowing (maybe still ahead of a shrinking majority of other people--such are we who are in the know about 4Ts) that the status quo will not, cannot, be the future: which way of change will you prefer? That which the Left is seeking through Sanders (and/or the growing movement he represents), or that which the Right is seeking through Trump (and/or the movement he represents)? I certainly know what I would prefer, and I'm joining the effort (maybe 2016 is still too early yet for Sanders to prevail over Hillary, but the movement will grow) with that (not so) long view in mind. Yes, I will certainly vote for Hillary over Trump (or any other Republican--save maybe Paul * , though I doubt he'll be nominated) if they are the two nominees. No question, though I won't be that happy about it, because she does not represent the future, but the status quo that is dying. But if I have to vote for Hillary (to hold off the mad hordes, if you will), I will still be part of the movement that the Sanders campaign started, and I will do my part to remind her every day that it exists, and is growing. If she can come around and accept the inevitable future that the status quo, business as usual, must go, then I will certainly sing her praises if she listens to us and takes some of the bold steps we require and press upon her (and dammit, those in Congress as well--but she needs to use the bully pulpit too and not make excuses). But we shall see, shan't we.

One thing to take note of: Sanders, while certainly differentiating himself from Hillary and standing true to his principles, has not gone negative on her, has actually defended her on occasion. I think he understands that the time may not be ripe for him to outright win the nomination (but the time for someone like him is still near), but win or not, his candidacy is growing the progressive left movement. I think he's seriously trying not to damage Hillary in case she does prevail, but he's not going to be a doormat either. In a way, he manifests the best of his Silent generation, while excoriating the worst. But if Hillary prevails, there will still be a very energized Left, and we'll make sure that Hillary knows we exist and we are holding her feet to the fire. By God, I for one will do whatever it takes to make sure that we do, and I think, hope, pray, God willing, that This Time we will know not to be complacent but to do the work for the cause of that which inspired us to get behind Sanders to begin with. To do the work that this 4T is increasingly demanding that we do, because this is the time for change and fortune favoring the bold. If we don't do it, woe to us if the Right successfully takes their turn at biting the apple--with someone far more clever than Trump--in 2020 or 2024. And that apple will be bit, sooner or later, but soon.

I admit that I worry that a President Hillary Clinton, in trying to hopelessly navigate for the status quo, the politics that she knows, might catalyze the Right to successfully bite that apple as "the center" she represents fails, as it will, as it inevitably must. There's a part of me that perversely sees the point that Mikebert (and I think also Marx and Lennon to lesser extent) has made here before (does he still stand by it) that if the moment of complete failure of "the center" (status quo) happens between 2016 and 2020, it may very well be better if a Republican President bears the brunt of the inevitable wrath of the people. I do not think I could stomach voting for any Republican at this point (except maybe Paul * ), though. I think a strong progessive Left movement, grown by the candidacy of Sanders even if he does not get nominated, will be the most solid hope for real 4T change, and Hillary would still be more receptive to that movement than any Republican, so I would vote for her. But if she blows the opportunity to really make change with our tide, she will risk giving the Right a turn to make their own 4T change (and we don't want that, do we Playwrite).

Another question: who do you think would be more open to MMT thinking, or at least charting a course that would be opportune for it to prove itself (whether he/she believes in it or not)--Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Anyway, I do welcome your thoughts on these matters.

(*) Make no mistake, even if I were to vote for Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton should they be the two nominees--and this isn't a certainty mind you--I will still be part of the progressive left movement formed from Sanders' candidacy. So if Paul were to win the general, while I would welcome (or hold Paul to, lest he weasel out of) his measures to slash the security/surveillance state, end the War on Drugs and the Prison-Industrial complex, etc.--issues I deeply care about and am highly skeptical of Hillary on, to say the least--I will certainly do my part to make it known that the Progressive Left still exists as far as economic issues as well. He will represent one half of the new paradigm, while we will represent the other half.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I've a question for you, Playwrite, asked in respect: How long do you think "the center", as it is, can or will hold?

I agree with Teacher that Sanders and Trump, while most certainly not "equivalent" by any stretch of the word, are nonetheless manifestations of growing discontent with "the center" (mainstream politics, status quo) as exhibited by those who are inclined to the Left and Right respectively. I.e. Sanders represents how many a Leftist feel about "the center" and its dysfunctions, while Trump represents how many a Rightist feel about same. They are divergent, naturally.

I can see where there can still be a sort of comfort in "the center"--it doesn't feel risky (so long as it still seems to work), status quo never feels that way, that is until the ultimate moment when its failure proves complete to everyone. More and more of us see that that's where it's headed though--it's already not working but a fraction of how it did work once, and for the benefit of fewer and fewer of us. It is not the future. Change is an inevitable force, and per Generational Theory the 4Ts are where it comes inexorably after the huge constipation of the 3Ts. And yes, it can be jarring, even scary. Whole paradigms you've been more or less comfortable with your whole life (and even an older Xer like me can feel that way, a little) become upended. But I doubt seriously that there can be any other choice.

So, from the standpoint of knowing (maybe still ahead of a shrinking majority of other people--such are we who are in the know about 4Ts) that the status quo will not, cannot, be the future: which way of change will you prefer? That which the Left is seeking through Sanders (and/or the growing movement he represents), or that which the Right is seeking through Trump (and/or the movement he represents)? I certainly know what I would prefer, and I'm joining the effort (maybe 2016 is still too early yet for Sanders to prevail over Hillary, but the movement will grow) with that (not so) long view in mind. Yes, I will certainly vote for Hillary over Trump (or any other Republican--save maybe Paul * , though I doubt he'll be nominated) if they are the two nominees. No question, though I won't be that happy about it, because she does not represent the future, but the status quo that is dying. But if I have to vote for Hillary (to hold off the mad hordes, if you will), I will still be part of the movement that the Sanders campaign started, and I will do my part to remind her every day that it exists, and is growing. If she can come around and accept the inevitable future that the status quo, business as usual, must go, then I will certainly sing her praises if she listens to us and takes some of the bold steps we require and press upon her (and dammit, those in Congress as well--but she needs to use the bully pulpit too and not make excuses). But we shall see, shan't we.

One thing to take note of: Sanders, while certainly differentiating himself from Hillary and standing true to his principles, has not gone negative on her, has actually defended her on occasion. I think he understands that the time may not be ripe for him to outright win the nomination (but the time for someone like him is still near), but win or not, his candidacy is growing the progressive left movement. I think he's seriously trying not to damage Hillary in case she does prevail, but he's not going to be a doormat either. In a way, he manifests the best of his Silent generation, while excoriating the worst. But if Hillary prevails, there will still be a very energized Left, and we'll make sure that Hillary knows we exist and we are holding her feet to the fire. By God, I for one will do whatever it takes to make sure that we do, and I think, hope, pray, God willing, that This Time we will know not to be complacent but to do the work for the cause of that which inspired us to get behind Sanders to begin with. To do the work that this 4T is increasingly demanding that we do, because this is the time for change and fortune favoring the bold. If we don't do it, woe to us if the Right successfully takes their turn at biting the apple--with someone far more clever than Trump--in 2020 or 2024. And that apple will be bit, sooner or later, but soon.

I admit that I worry that a President Hillary Clinton, in trying to hopelessly navigate for the status quo, the politics that she knows, might catalyze the Right to successfully bite that apple as "the center" she represents fails, as it will, as it inevitably must. There's a part of me that perversely sees the point that Mikebert (and I think also Marx and Lennon to lesser extent) has made here before (does he still stand by it) that if the moment of complete failure of "the center" (status quo) happens between 2016 and 2020, it may very well be better if a Republican President bears the brunt of the inevitable wrath of the people. I do not think I could stomach voting for any Republican at this point (except maybe Paul * ), though. I think a strong progessive Left movement, grown by the candidacy of Sanders even if he does not get nominated, will be the most solid hope for real 4T change, and Hillary would still be more receptive to that movement than any Republican, so I would vote for her. But if she blows the opportunity to really make change with our tide, she will risk giving the Right a turn to make their own 4T change (and we don't want that, do we Playwrite).

Another question: who do you think would be more open to MMT thinking, or at least charting a course that would be opportune for it to prove itself (whether he/she believes in it or not)--Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Anyway, I do welcome your thoughts on these matters.

(*) Make no mistake, even if I were to vote for Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton should they be the two nominees--and this isn't a certainty mind you--I will still be part of the progressive left movement formed from Sanders' candidacy. So if Paul were to win the general, while I would welcome (or hold Paul to, lest he weasel out of) his measures to slash the security/surveillance state, end the War on Drugs and the Prison-Industrial complex, etc.--issues I deeply care about and am highly skeptical of Hillary on, to say the least--I will certainly do my part to make it known that the Progressive Left still exists as far as economic issues as well. He will represent one half of the new paradigm, while we will represent the other half.

It depends on what is meant by "the center," "the status quo," "the system," "the govmint," "da man," boogeyman, or whatever term you want to use to label this thing that all dissatisfaction in the country is aimed against.

If, by "center," you are talking about our system of government as laid out in the Constitution and further expanded on by 200+ years of cannon of law - sorry, it aint' gonna happen. It's not just that the scale of inertia is beyond the human capacity to fully grasp (note - this is why every apocalyptic story told has to bring the calamity down to an isolated, relatively extremely small-scale setting otherwise the suspension of disbelief falls flat on its face), but that inertia has also been very purposefully designed from the beginning and continually reinforced to mitigate even a pathway for its dismemberment. For example, even in the highly unlikely event of a "Big Man" getting in, the odds of that person staying in beyond four years is even more remote; a caricature of the "Big Man," like Trump, even less so.

If instead, by "'center," you mean the current gridlock and acrimony at the political level of the national government, you are confusing a well-established GOP fondness for gridlock government that is seconded only by their orgasmic pleasure of "drowning the government in the bathtub." Gridlock and acrimony may be the current "status quo" but its not the preferred position by the Democratic Party (although it may be a governing tactic to mitigate the worse of what the GOP has to offer, e.g., letting the GOP shut down government operations to keep them from removing health care for 2.7 million people per year by defunding Planned Parenthood). If gridlock is the "center" you are speaking about, then hopefully a majority of the electorate agrees with the need to destroy it - and that is simply done by not voting for the GOP that adores the gridlock. The problem, however, is the GOP has become very adept of shifting the blame to being (a) some fundamental flaw with government so that they can gain further support from their morons on the Right (e.g., "keep the govt's socialis hands off my Medicare!!!") or (b) some false equivalency where Dems just don't want to be bipartisan (regardless of the insanity they would have to sign on to) so that they can discourage, how to say this, the intellectually distracted on the Left.

That leaves us with a third choice of center simply being the candidates that appear to be more 'moderate' than others in the two parties, e.g., Bush more 'moderate' than Cruz and Hillary more moderate than Sanders. But how is voting for "less moderate" any different than what is going on as typical with every election cycle? If eventually a less moderated is elected doesn't that shift the center? And if that new "center" doesn't sufficiently placate the dissatisfaction isn't that just the context for the next election?

And are we sure of the equivalency of the consequences of electing a moderate from either Party? How much of 2000-2008 was predicated on Bush's election as opposed to Gore - would Gore have ignored Richard Clarke's al Qaeda warnings; would there have been laissez fare oversight of the big banks, brokers and insurers; would we have invaded Iraq; SCOTUS appointments that upheld Citizens United; etc.??? Maybe one or two of these would have had the same "equivalent center" outcome but it is ridiculous to believe that all of these and many many other issues/outcomes would have remained the same.

The problem I have with this theme of 'all sides against the middle' is that it both (a) overblows the likelihood of all sides coalescing to extract some earth shattering outcome of a zombie horde equivalent and (b) fully underestimates the potential for profoundly different outcomes within the existing system. One of the consequences of that is that it appears we need to elect a GW Bush or maybe a Trump on an occasion to remind ourselves in a very visceral manner - it tends to come with a very high cost.

As to timing, I see the center shifting, away from gridlock and toward a Progressive agenda, to be 10 years. The path is a Dem in the WH during all those years, a Dem Senate majority, and a resulting 2-3 person shift in the SCOTUS with profound consequences. The election of another GOP to the WH and Senate majority will profoundly delay that timeline but it will not prevent the eventual outcome - the GOP has both a dying electorate and philosophy.

-------------------
Regarding MMT - Sanders put Prof. Stephanie Kelton, one of the biggest names in MMT, as the as Chief Economist for the Democratic Minority Staff of the Senate Budget Committee - Elizabeth Warren is also on this Committee. I'm sure Sanders talks to her on economic policy issues for his campaign, but in his actual stomping, he pretty much stays well within the false non-MMT paradigm - still a little too soon to tell people there's actually no dollars in their SS Trust Funds.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/10/7521819/sanders-mmt-kelton
-------------------
Regarding Rand Paul - just like with any other Presidential candidate, once you voted, he will not give a shit if you exist or not. If you throw your vote away, you've thrown away whatever power you had, and you get what you deserve - remember that when Paul sacrifices your economic well-being on his Libertarian alter.

No. But we are Louisiana - and Trump is Huey Long, with his every-man-a-king tax-cuts-for-all tax plan, and the exploding wages that would emanate from his immigration plan.

Beware of Rand Paul. I applaud his passionate defense of our rights against invasion by the NSA. But beyond that relatively small aspect of policy, he is as reactionary as they come. A libertarian conservative is as ideologically-blind as any religious right preacher-politician; or more so. He is virtually-all Tea Party and reactionary nitwit. He is the opposite of Bernie on virtually all policies. He would be a captive of the corporate state and the Republican right and would compromise away all of his good policies. Say no to Rand Paul. Hillary is light-years better.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I've a question for you, Playwrite, asked in respect: How long do you think "the center", as it is, can or will hold?

I agree with Teacher that Sanders and Trump, while most certainly not "equivalent" by any stretch of the word, are nonetheless manifestations of growing discontent with "the center" (mainstream politics, status quo) as exhibited by those who are inclined to the Left and Right respectively. I.e. Sanders represents how many a Leftist feel about "the center" and its dysfunctions, while Trump represents how many a Rightist feel about same. They are divergent, naturally.

I can see where there can still be a sort of comfort in "the center"--it doesn't feel risky (so long as it still seems to work), status quo never feels that way, that is until the ultimate moment when its failure proves complete to everyone. More and more of us see that that's where it's headed though--it's already not working but a fraction of how it did work once, and for the benefit of fewer and fewer of us. It is not the future. Change is an inevitable force, and per Generational Theory the 4Ts are where it comes inexorably after the huge constipation of the 3Ts. And yes, it can be jarring, even scary. Whole paradigms you've been more or less comfortable with your whole life (and even an older Xer like me can feel that way, a little) become upended. But I doubt seriously that there can be any other choice.

So, from the standpoint of knowing (maybe still ahead of a shrinking majority of other people--such are we who are in the know about 4Ts) that the status quo will not, cannot, be the future: which way of change will you prefer? That which the Left is seeking through Sanders (and/or the growing movement he represents), or that which the Right is seeking through Trump (and/or the movement he represents)? I certainly know what I would prefer, and I'm joining the effort (maybe 2016 is still too early yet for Sanders to prevail over Hillary, but the movement will grow) with that (not so) long view in mind. Yes, I will certainly vote for Hillary over Trump (or any other Republican--save maybe Paul * , though I doubt he'll be nominated) if they are the two nominees. No question, though I won't be that happy about it, because she does not represent the future, but the status quo that is dying. But if I have to vote for Hillary (to hold off the mad hordes, if you will), I will still be part of the movement that the Sanders campaign started, and I will do my part to remind her every day that it exists, and is growing. If she can come around and accept the inevitable future that the status quo, business as usual, must go, then I will certainly sing her praises if she listens to us and takes some of the bold steps we require and press upon her (and dammit, those in Congress as well--but she needs to use the bully pulpit too and not make excuses). But we shall see, shan't we.

One thing to take note of: Sanders, while certainly differentiating himself from Hillary and standing true to his principles, has not gone negative on her, has actually defended her on occasion. I think he understands that the time may not be ripe for him to outright win the nomination (but the time for someone like him is still near), but win or not, his candidacy is growing the progressive left movement. I think he's seriously trying not to damage Hillary in case she does prevail, but he's not going to be a doormat either. In a way, he manifests the best of his Silent generation, while excoriating the worst. But if Hillary prevails, there will still be a very energized Left, and we'll make sure that Hillary knows we exist and we are holding her feet to the fire. By God, I for one will do whatever it takes to make sure that we do, and I think, hope, pray, God willing, that This Time we will know not to be complacent but to do the work for the cause of that which inspired us to get behind Sanders to begin with. To do the work that this 4T is increasingly demanding that we do, because this is the time for change and fortune favoring the bold. If we don't do it, woe to us if the Right successfully takes their turn at biting the apple--with someone far more clever than Trump--in 2020 or 2024. And that apple will be bit, sooner or later, but soon.

I admit that I worry that a President Hillary Clinton, in trying to hopelessly navigate for the status quo, the politics that she knows, might catalyze the Right to successfully bite that apple as "the center" she represents fails, as it will, as it inevitably must. There's a part of me that perversely sees the point that Mikebert (and I think also Marx and Lennon to lesser extent) has made here before (does he still stand by it) that if the moment of complete failure of "the center" (status quo) happens between 2016 and 2020, it may very well be better if a Republican President bears the brunt of the inevitable wrath of the people. I do not think I could stomach voting for any Republican at this point (except maybe Paul * ), though. I think a strong progessive Left movement, grown by the candidacy of Sanders even if he does not get nominated, will be the most solid hope for real 4T change, and Hillary would still be more receptive to that movement than any Republican, so I would vote for her. But if she blows the opportunity to really make change with our tide, she will risk giving the Right a turn to make their own 4T change (and we don't want that, do we Playwrite).

Another question: who do you think would be more open to MMT thinking, or at least charting a course that would be opportune for it to prove itself (whether he/she believes in it or not)--Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

Anyway, I do welcome your thoughts on these matters.

(*) Make no mistake, even if I were to vote for Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton should they be the two nominees--and this isn't a certainty mind you--I will still be part of the progressive left movement formed from Sanders' candidacy. So if Paul were to win the general, while I would welcome (or hold Paul to, lest he weasel out of) his measures to slash the security/surveillance state, end the War on Drugs and the Prison-Industrial complex, etc.--issues I deeply care about and am highly skeptical of Hillary on, to say the least--I will certainly do my part to make it known that the Progressive Left still exists as far as economic issues as well. He will represent one half of the new paradigm, while we will represent the other half.

Once meeting the age requirement (tick, tock, tick, tock ... ) a Millie version of Sanders will probably win in a landslide. The Millie version will speak to people of color and will be "hip" enough to have a cool factor with fellow Millies. If we are talking the 2024 election Homies will also be an emergent factor.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Beware of Rand Paul. I applaud his passionate defense of our rights against invasion by the NSA. But beyond that relatively small aspect of policy, he is as reactionary as they come. A libertarian conservative is as ideologically-blind as any religious right preacher-politician; or more so. He is virtually-all Tea Party and reactionary nitwit. He is the opposite of Bernie on virtually all policies. Say no to Rand Paul.

But as I pointed out earlier, Trump is pursuing Rand Paul's vote; by calling Pamela Geller an "obnoxious blowhard," Trump is clearly going after the Pat Buchanan/Ron & Rand Paul paleoconservative vote.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If, by "center," you are talking about our system of government as laid out in the Constitution and further expanded on by 200+ years of cannon of law - sorry, it aint' gonna happen. It's not just that the scale of inertia is beyond the human capacity to fully grasp (note - this is why every apocalyptic story told has to bring the calamity down to an isolated, relatively extremely small-scale setting otherwise the suspension of disbelief falls flat on its face), but that inertia has also been very purposefully designed from the beginning and continually reinforced to mitigate even a pathway for its dismemberment. For example, even in the highly unlikely event of a "Big Man" getting in, the odds of that person staying in beyond four years is even more remote; a caricature of the "Big Man," like Trump, even less so.

If instead, by "'center," you mean the current gridlock and acrimony at the political level of the national government, you are confusing a well-established GOP fondness for gridlock government that is seconded only by their orgasmic pleasure of "drowning the government in the bathtub." Gridlock and acrimony may be the current "status quo" but its not the preferred position by the Democratic Party (although it may be a governing tactic to mitigate the worse of what the GOP has to offer, e.g., letting the GOP shut down government operations to keep them from removing health care for 2.7 million people per year by defunding Planned Parenthood). If gridlock is the "center" you are speaking about, then hopefully a majority of the electorate agrees with the need to destroy it - and that is simply done by not voting for the GOP that adores the gridlock. The problem, however, is the GOP has become very adept of shifting the blame to being (a) some fundamental flaw with government so that they can gain further support from their morons on the Right (e.g., "keep the govt's socialis hands off my Medicare!!!") or (b) some false equivalency where Dems just don't want to be bipartisan (regardless of the insanity they would have to sign on to) so that they can discourage, how to say this, the intellectually distracted on the Left.

That leaves us with a third choice of center simply being the candidates that appear to be more 'moderate' than others in the two parties, e.g., Bush more 'moderate' than Cruz and Hillary more moderate than Sanders. But how is voting for "less moderate" any different than what is going on as typical with every election cycle? If eventually a less moderated is elected doesn't that shift the center? And if that new "center" doesn't sufficiently placate the dissatisfaction isn't that just the context for the next election?

Thanks for the reply. For clarification, I mean none of those three things by "center" (or "status quo", "business as usual", however one would phrase it). What I mean is, politics involving big money made through plutocrat "contributions"/bribes which continues their de facto veto power against any serious erosion to their plutocracy.

Sanders avoids that by only accepting small contributions (from large numbers of ordinary people) and rejecting corporate donations--and making that an item of appeal to voters.

Trump is (disingenuously, I'd say) appealing to the same idea by claiming he doesn't need such big donors, because he can fund his campaign all by himself, and thus won't be so beholden. (I say this latter is disingenuous, because he himself is a member of the plutocratic class, and unlike Sanders there is no indication he'd enact policy to seriously undermine the power of his own plutocratic class--i.e. he can say "he can't be bought", but if he already agrees with plutocracy and the policies that keep it in power, he wouldn't need to be anyway.)

In a nutshell, the "left" version of a workaround/end-run around Citizens United-type politicking would be voluntarily rejecting corporate money so that they can effectively run against plutocracy and be clear about it; the "right" version of such a workaround/end-run would be to run a plutocrat who can say he can't be bought, but is still a plutocrat--but since the right generally doesn't mind plutocracy (they're the "best of America", "great makers", American demigods, etc.), and/or generally hates/fears anything with the remote label of "socialism" (even the benign Scandinavian variety, "social democracy") over "plutocracy", this fits them.

Note that this rejection of big-money politics doesn't fall under "upending the Constitution"--it (however grudgingly) acknlowledges that per SCOTUS interpretation, such big and unlimited corporate money in politics is constitutional. But these two approaches are really the only two ways CU can be overcome (short of Constitutional Amendment, or new justices that will go past general stare decisis custom to overturn it): either you voluntarily reject that big money (and go for enough numbers of small donations to still be able to effectively run), or you run as someone rich enough that you can pay for a big campaign yourself. I prefer the former as a general rule--or more precisely, I prefer that the former proves effective, because that will mean that a person of any class can potentially run (not just the rich) without being bought by big money. Sanders is the prototype for this latter--and I'll support that prototype as far as I can. God willing, he won't just be the prototype, but the first of his kind actually in the White House. But even if he doesn't make it, a movement of grassroots small-donor progressive politics has begun, and God willing will represent the future, rather than the alternative.

Note that where I say that this current status quo of big money politicking cannot last at any rate: I believe that the current limits on ideas and approaches that are imposed by the plutocratic veto, are limiting us to conventional approaches that are proving dysfunctional for the well-being of more and more of the people. We need to find more ideas outside the box--but of course which "side" of that box can be very significant as well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... As to timing, I see the center shifting, away from gridlock and toward a Progressive agenda, to be 10 years. The path is a Dem in the WH during all those years, a Dem Senate majority, and a resulting 2-3 person shift in the SCOTUS with profound consequences. The election of another GOP to the WH and Senate majority will profoundly delay that timeline but it will not prevent the eventual outcome - the GOP has both a dying electorate and philosophy...

Wherein comes the rub. Just like cornering a wounded animal, a failing party is most dangerous just before it "dies". If the future of the GOP is that dim, and it may be, then the transition period is fraught with danger of all sorts. Assume that every trick in the book will be tried at least once. Which brings us to the balance in Congress.

If the GOP has enough strength left to keep Congress red after the 2020 elections, then all bets are off. To do that, they need to keep enough states red, and use the gerrymander to its fullest. So far, they've been pretty successful.

So that's the window. If 2020 provides no relief, then the 4T may be the muddle that kills your 10-year plan. It's that thin.

But if you believe that not only this saeculum, but also the acquisitive age, and hence the Tertiary (modern) epoch, ends with this 4T, then you believe that it is highly likely that at least one of the current major parties, or maybe even both, will not survive it.

And my personal prediction is that if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, that non-surviving party will be the Democrats; otherwise, my "money" is on it being the Republicans.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Thanks for the reply. For clarification, I mean none of those three things by "center" (or "status quo", "business as usual", however one would phrase it). What I mean is, politics involving big money made through plutocrat "contributions"/bribes which continues their de facto veto power against any serious erosion to their plutocracy.

Sanders avoids that by only accepting small contributions (from large numbers of ordinary people) and rejecting corporate donations--and making that an item of appeal to voters.

Trump is (disingenuously, I'd say) appealing to the same idea by claiming he doesn't need such big donors, because he can fund his campaign all by himself, and thus won't be so beholden. (I say this latter is disingenuous, because he himself is a member of the plutocratic class, and unlike Sanders there is no indication he'd enact policy to seriously undermine the power of his own plutocratic class--i.e. he can say "he can't be bought", but if he already agrees with plutocracy and the policies that keep it in power, he wouldn't need to be anyway.)

In a nutshell, the "left" version of a workaround/end-run around Citizens United-type politicking would be voluntarily rejecting corporate money so that they can effectively run against plutocracy and be clear about it; the "right" version of such a workaround/end-run would be to run a plutocrat who can say he can't be bought, but is still a plutocrat--but since the right generally doesn't mind plutocracy (they're the "best of America", "great makers", American demigods, etc.), and/or generally hates/fears anything with the remote label of "socialism" (even the benign Scandinavian variety, "social democracy") over "plutocracy", this fits them.

Note that this rejection of big-money politics doesn't fall under "upending the Constitution"--it (however grudgingly) acknlowledges that per SCOTUS interpretation, such big and unlimited corporate money in politics is constitutional. But these two approaches are really the only two ways CU can be overcome (short of Constitutional Amendment, or new justices that will go past general stare decisis custom to overturn it): either you voluntarily reject that big money (and go for enough numbers of small donations to still be able to effectively run), or you run as someone rich enough that you can pay for a big campaign yourself. I prefer the former as a general rule--or more precisely, I prefer that the former proves effective, because that will mean that a person of any class can potentially run (not just the rich) without being bought by big money. Sanders is the prototype for this latter--and I'll support that prototype as far as I can. God willing, he won't just be the prototype, but the first of his kind actually in the White House. But even if he doesn't make it, a movement of grassroots small-donor progressive politics has begun, and God willing will represent the future, rather than the alternative.

Note that where I say that this current status quo of big money politicking cannot last at any rate: I believe that the current limits on ideas and approaches that are imposed by the plutocratic veto, are limiting us to conventional approaches that are proving dysfunctional for the well-being of more and more of the people. We need to find more ideas outside the box--but of course which "side" of that box can be very significant as well.

That may be the current status quo, obtained by one side both (1) winning (i.e., the 2000 Florida chads) and further stacking the SCOTUS deck and (2) creating their desired gridlock. But, it is NOT the political center - I don't know of a single Democrat that supports the Citizen United decision and no Dem Congressional critter that hasn't worked to overturn it -

http://www.thenation.com/article/sen...-stopped-them/

The Senate Tried to Overturn ‘Citizens United’ Today. Guess What Stopped Them?

Hillary Clinton has stated overturning Citizen United would be THE Litmus Test for her nomination to the SCOTUS -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...rt-picks/?_r=0

Today in Politics: Hillary Clinton Says Citizens United Would Guide Supreme Court Picks

- for those unaware, stating a "Litmus Test" for any Presidential nomination, but in particular for a SCOTUS nomination, is considered an in-your-face to the opposition and cannot be backed down from even if later you say you are - the opposition will not believe you and still attack the nominee for his/her positive "Test" so there's no point to backing down from it. Everyone knows this, and that is why it can be assumed to be fundamental to HC's values.

BUT it would be insane for the Dem nominee to forgo the big monies prior to outlawing it. That would essentially be surrendering the election before it got really started and thereby preclude, by forfeit, any chance whatsoever to do anything about the issues you raise.

The monies now in the campaigns make Obama's 2008 and 2012 highly-successful small donor totals pale in comparison. The naivety can be forgiven even for someone living in Iowa or New Hampshire because the onslaught of campaign marketing hasn't even ramped up yet. But why most people don't understand the power of money is that they have never worked on a major campaign at the level where money decisions are being made - money is THE discussion of every day when such campaigns are actually fully underway.

You and I may want to ban big money guns as soon as possible, but in the meantime, let's not bring a knife to the gunfight.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Wherein comes the rub. Just like cornering a wounded animal, a failing party is most dangerous just before it "dies". If the future of the GOP is that dim, and it may be, then the transition period is fraught with danger of all sorts. Assume that every trick in the book will be tried at least once. Which brings us to the balance in Congress.

If the GOP has enough strength left to keep Congress red after the 2020 elections, then all bets are off. To do that, they need to keep enough states red, and use the gerrymander to its fullest. So far, they've been pretty successful.

So that's the window. If 2020 provides no relief, then the 4T may be the muddle that kills your 10-year plan. It's that thin.

Yep, that would delay it.

But inevitably, the political gridlock of a House GOP majority holding up the vast and growing majority of people from dealing with real problems will eventually lead to the political power demise I envision for them. I see waves of challenges to the gerrymandering resulting from the 2020 scenario you lay out and a judicial system, starting with a DEM-nominated SCOTUS, increasingly proactive in making those districts more representative to the changing demographics that will keep the pressure on regardless of the GOP's last ditch rear guard efforts - something akin to what's going on right now in your Commonwealth.

If I don't see that eventuality before my own demise, I will at least see that it's on the inevitable path. Fingers crossed.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But as I pointed out earlier, Trump is pursuing Rand Paul's vote; by calling Pamela Geller an "obnoxious blowhard," Trump is clearly going after the Pat Buchanan/Ron & Rand Paul paleoconservative vote.

Those are two different factions. Calling someone (Pamela Geller? Who the bleep is she?) a blowhard does not establish an electoral strategy. Trump's main targets are immigration and free trade; plus the usual Republican nonsense about overspending and opposition to taxes. As libertarians, the Pauls are less concerned with immigration and free trade, because Trump's policies require more government. Buchanan OTOH is very concerned with both of those things. Trump is thus aligned with Buchanan, not so much with Paul. But almost all the Republicans including Buchanan and Paul want to reduce taxes and government spending (trickle-down economics).

One thing Buchanan and Paul DO have in common is a less-interventionist foreign policy. But Trump is different from both of them on that; Trump wants more intervention. He is quite militaristic, and he could get lots more American boys killed in fights with Muslims.