On 2001-09-18 19:20, Tom1971 wrote:
I know that Hayek liked to think of himself as an "Old Whig" that may fit me as well. I just try to read a lot of different opinions from Marx and Hagel from Hayek, Locke, Adam Smith and try to keep an open mind and be guided by common sense (I hope)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom1971 on 2001-09-18 19:57 ]</font>

Might I suggest you look at the writings of Mr. Joseph deMaistre and Mr. Louis De Bonald if you would like to expand your view to the non-progressive horizon where all does not go higher and higher, better and better. It is not quite so optimistic a view...perhaps the Americans Mr. John Taylor of Caroline, Mr. John Randolph of Roanoke, James Fenimore Cooper's The American Democrat, or Mr. John Calhoun would temper. These are all "old hat" but this an history site. HTH

On 2001-09-18 23:07, Lydia_James wrote:


And what about the voters themselves? Will voters of all gens have confidence enough in X'rs to vote for us in the time of a crisis?

I can only speak for myself as a '49 Boomer but I have never voted for an Xer nor have I ever voted for a Boomer [Mr. Ventura is a Silent/Boomer cusper; on the outside he is all Boomer public persona, but, his government is all Silent in quality]. The childlike quality of the latter has been most off putting and the Xers here in NE Minnesota seem to have all run away to Minneapolis-St. Paul. I can see myself voting for an Xer as they are more closely tied to reality...the Boomers: Bill, Dubya, Al, Newt lack a certain gravity that I have found off-putting if not ill-making. HTH

Virgil:

Thank you for the suggestions. I am, of course, more familiar with the American authors like James Fenimore Cooper and John Calhoun. I have never read the French authors that you mentioned, but I have a pretty good idea of where they stand on the power of the state over the individual. I will try, if I can find the time, to look into them.

Lydia: I think simple aging will bring more Xers into political leadership.

There'll be plenty of dirty work to go around, I suspect, but I think that its nature and the nature of a person's response to it will be perceived differently depending on generation. And anyway we're only talking about general trends, so you'll be able to find all the exceptions you like.

As far as people having confidence in our generation . . . yes and no. What happens from turning to turning, often, is that a different segment (not an age segment) of each generation gains prominence. Look at the Boomers who were prominent in the late '60s and early '70s - nobody's looking to them to be Gray Champions. We've got a different type of Boomer for that. Similarly, nobody's going to elect Pauly Shore to high office; they're going to find somebody who seems reliable without stopping to think that he or she is the same generation as Pauly Shore. Hope these were the types of answers you were looking for.

Kiki, to answer your question, no, learning that we lose such wars is not the lesson. The lesson is that we cannot fight wars in the old WWII style any more because the character of the enemy has changed.

Lydia, I appreciate the fact that you've asked the questions you did. Thank you. I suppose what I want most from my Reps is more looking to what's best for the many rather than what's best for the few, and then some cutting to the chase to get those things done efficiently. It will require both Boomers and Xers, because action taken rashly without thought or wisdom is often erroneous action, and all the thought and wisdom in the world are wasted if no action is ever taken. Our two generations need each other. We are complimentary generations and now is a time for us to put the past behind us.

To whoever it was that said Boomers envy GIs, you are very wrong. They were gods to us when we were kids. When we grew up we learned (thanks to the Silents) that they were flawed gods and reacted the same way anyone does when he finds out his god isn't perfect. Now, at the end, we've learned they were human beings with real human emotions after all. It's not envy you see. It's understanding, finally.

Some have speculated about signs that things have changed. I see evidence all around me that people are behaving better, being nicer, more polite to each other. If that can permeate everything from the streets to sporting events to the movies to the media, it will be a sure sign.

In yesterday's Washington Post, humor guy Gene Weingarten (who edits the Washington Post's infamous "Style Invitational" contest, for those of you who follow it) notes the lack of black humor about 911. The only example of humor he notes is the new design for the WWT with five towers, the middle one being much higher than the other four (use your imagination). And that's more anger than black humor.

He compares it to other national tragedies and events such as the Challenger explosion, the Gulf War, the impeachment, and Y2K, when all sorts of jokes began circulating within hours of the events.

There was a recent post noting that some Gen-Xers have some Challenger-type black humor. However, that's the only black humor I've heard. This does indicate a significant change of national mood.

I'm going to continue following the Post's Style Invitational contest to see if the mood of this irreverent 3T institution changes.

I was interested to see that last Sunday's Washington Post published the Style Invitational. It appears to have been written BEFORE 911 -- a last gasp of 3T. I'll be watching to see what October's Style Invitationals will look like.

See below for some late 3T humor.

it would appear that you are confusing wars and economic events. the 84 year cycle identifies crises that are wars and not economic events such as market crashes. that is an entirely different phenomenon and fits into the long cycle in an entirely different manner.

my interest in this came not after reading generations or the fourth turning but before. i began formulating the basis for this model shortly after the 1987 stock market crash which i was fortunate enough to be short in. i, like many others at the time, was concerned that we were about to enter into a full fledged 1930s style depression. but when that did not occur i then began a multi year research project into "why." it was at the beginning of 1990 when i finally put everything together in my own mind and began talking to colleagues about it. shortly afterward the gulf war broke out and gave my theory its first real test as i advised colleages at the time that this would be a popular war and that after the normal post war recession would be followed by a technology boom period that would send stock prices soaring. this was in the period between 1990 and the beginning of 1993.


the paired cycle theory in long inflationary and disinflationary cycles was first postulated, to the best of my knowledge, by robert degersdorff in a 1979 issue of cycles magazine based on an earlier symposium he had conducted. his research was based on cycles found in english wheat cycles going back to the early 13th century and then comparing them with other data. you should check it out. its fascinating reading.

i find it difficult to rationalize the "tech boom" beginning in the 80s. it makes no sense. that period followed the typical pattern. after the normal post war recession after the vietnam war ended, 1973-74, which is also normally the worst recession since the last depression, this was followed by the inflation of the 70s. again this fits the pattern perfectly. then the monetary contraction of the early 80s and then the speculation and excess period leading up into the liquidation of the 87 crash. the subsequent liquidity infusion after the 87 crash gave the necessary monetary expansion to steady the economy and lead it into the stage 2 popular war that was the gulf war. after the normal post war recession after this popular war, which is relatively mild compared to recessions after unpopular wars. we began the great tech boom that is now in its "lull" period now, although it seems like a lot more than a lull to some because of the bubble in internet stocks and the excess liquidity pumped into the system by the fed due to fears over y2k. the fed's draining of liquidity after that was enough to put an end to that bubble. now, however, we have seen a compete reversal as far as liquidity goes and it is rapidly reaching pre-y2k stages and is, i suggest, setting the stage for another period of relative prosperity.

i do agree with harry dent as far as his projections for how long this tech boom should last. but after that we differ markedly. dent sees risks for deflation in the future while i completely disagree with that. the inflation cycle we are in the process of completing over the next few decades is extremely powerful, like no inflation cycle we have ever seen before. and i believe that is because it began with roosevelt's removal of the u.s. from the gold standard and nixon's later complete eradication of it through the closure of the gold window in the 70s. the gold standard, i would suggest, acted as a weight in previous depression periods making these periods longer and more deflationary. without it events that would normally have caused deflation simply caused a mild disinflation. i believe this is why there was no real "depression" after the 87 crash and why the aftermath, while containing all of the normal characteristics of a depression, was short lived and produced no real deflation.

but in the future, probably in the next decade, when we enter the next inflation stage, it will be at a period where there is no country anywhere in the world with a metallic standard and will likely be at a period when the u.s is at its most vulnerable economically and possibly militarily as well. i believe that the risks of even a hyperinflationary scenario in the u.s are far more than anyone realizes at the moment.

the ultimate test of "bullishness" or "bearishness", or any theory of how the future should pan out, is ultimately in reality.... what actually happens. i have been fortunate enough to see two key events in the model i propose actually take place and have been able to profit from it as well as advise others to do the same. now, that being said, this could just as easily have been from good fortune rather than solid knowledge. but we shall see what actually happens. if real events begin to differ from the model i have outlined then, like any good trader/investor, i will adapt with the times.

but i stick to my earlier statement that the 911 tragedy is but a foreshadowing of the real war to come in the early part of the next decade and that the "great devaluation" is not due until sometime in the 2020s.

Sorry, I pressed "send" instead of control C for copy. Lets try again. I've edited out the very lewd jokes and I think that Gene Weingarden needs to reconsider his choice of first prize for the winner of the next contest. Anyway, skip this if you're not in the mood for late-3T humor.

The Style Invitational Week LXXXVI: Don't
Sunday, September 16, 2001; Page F02

I tell you, I don't get no respect.

Even lepers won't shake my hand.

I tell you, with my doctor, I don't get no respect. I told him I swallowed a bottle of sleeping pills. He told me to have a few drinks and get some rest.

When I was a kid I got no respect. One time I was kidnapped, and the kidnappers sent my parents a note: "We want five thousand dollars or you'll see your kid again."

This Week's Contest was proposed by Bruce W. Alter of Fairfax Station. Bruce lifted the lines above from Rodney Dangerfield's Web site. Your challenge this week is to come up with other indications that one might not be getting no respect. First-prize winner gets two books: "The Worst-Case Scenario Travel Survival Handbook," featuring advice on such things as how to escape from the trunk of a car, how to jump from rooftop to rooftop, how to cross a piranha-infested river, and how to control a runaway camel. The second book is "Welcome to Your Facelift," c. 1997, by socialite Helen Bransford. Helen discloses that she decided on this surgery shortly after her husband, the famous twit novelist Jay McInerney, interviewed Julia Roberts, and she (Helen) felt threatened. Not long after she had her face sheared off, stretched out and sewn back on to please him, Jay and Helen split up.

First runner-up wins the tacky but estimable Style Invitational Loser Pen. Other runners-up win the coveted Style Invitational Loser T-shirt. Honorable mentions get the mildly sought-after Style Invitational bumper sticker. Send your entries via fax to 202-334-4312, by e-mail to losers@washpost.com or by U.S. mail to The Style Invitational, Week LXXXVI, c/o The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071. Deadline is Monday, Sept. 24. All entries must include the week number of the contest and your name, postal address and telephone number. E-mail entries must include the week number in the subject field. Contests will be judged on the basis of humor and originality. All entries become the property of The Washington Post.

Entries may be edited for taste or content. Results will be published in four weeks. No purchase required for entry. Employees of The Washington Post, and their immediate relatives, are not eligible for prizes. Pseudonymous entries will be disqualified. The revised title for next week's contest is by Russell Beland of Springfield.

REPORT FROM WEEK LXXXII, in which we asked you to take any line appearing in that day's Post, and invent a question that it answers. We offer no apologies for the imbalance in the distribution of winning entries. There is a reason for it. You will find more books by Charles Dickens in the library than books by you. There's a reason for that, too.

Fourth Runner-Up -- Line from The Post: Does this guy club baby seals?
Question it answers: What is thought to be the litmus test for a political appointment in Bush's Interior Department? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

Third Runner-Up -- Line from The Post: I don't need that long.
Question it answers: What is a poor response to give when your date claims it is too late to invite you up to her apartment? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

Second Runner-Up -- Line from The Post: Our first courses were artfully composed salads, including Stilton cheese and roasted apricots.
Question it answers: Dear Post food critic, what gave it away that you were receiving preferential treatment while trying to review the F Street Popeye's? (Drew Knoblauch, Falls Church)

First Runner-Up -- Line from The Post: It is way over.
Question it answers:How does Monica describe her relationship with the former president? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

And the winner of the plate with terrible likenesses of the presidents: Line from The Post: We gain information, via photons, of distant objects.
Question it answers: How does Al Gore challenge the notion that he is too wooden and remote, and that he lacks vision? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

Honorable Mentions:

For about three days I kept expecting to have convulsions and then suddenly explode. How did you feel when you ate your new wife's first home-cooked meal? (Penny Barker, Alexandria)

Leesburg is considering building a second. Is it true that many rural towns don't have flush toilets? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

According to the 2000 Census, Latinos made up 2.8 percent of its population. How did the small town of Latinos, Ga., attempt to increase the amount of federal aid it received? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

The appalling Sidney Farte, owner of the local bait store, has perfected the use of projectile vomiting as a weapon. What would be a great sentence to find in Book World the week The Style Invitational runs its "Sentence Us to Death" contest? (Dave Zarrow, Herndon)

. . . Thomas Jefferson looks like Mamie Eisenhower. Recently there has been some surprising news about Thomas Jefferson's descendants. Can you cite some evidence for some even more unexpected ancestral connection? (Carolyn Bassing, Takoma Park)

The infestation runs almost up to Dallas. Where do most Garth Brooks fans live? (G. Daly, Dallas)

The snowball has already started to roll, and unless he can do some fancy dancing, he doesn't stand much chance . . . What are Frosty the Snowman's chances in the National Downhill Skiing Championship? (Frank Calogero, Jefferson, Ga.)

Included in his country estate are cathedral windows and an indoor pool. Describe the house Bill Gates built for his dog. (Jennifer Hart, Arlington)

We cleared the bottleneck at Springfield. What is the new, updated version of the expression "We cleaned the Augean stables"? (Jennifer Hart, Arlington)

Florence Henderson was riddled with bullets as she cooked and sang in a sitcom kitchen. Describe a good day in Hell. (Kelli Midgley-Biggs, Columbia)

Your haircut is free if we speak first. What is a sign on the wall of the Ellen Jamesian barbershop? (Chuck Smith, Woodbridge)

We put beers in it to stay cold -- a mysteriously satisfying way to store beverages. If Dr. Laura has a heart, what purpose could it possibly serve? (Drew Knoblauch, Falls Church)

Today was a great day for scoring. What was Bill Clinton's take on Hillary's first day of campaigning? (Steve Fahey, Kensington)

I've told my mom, but do I need to call the police, or what? What did George W. Bush ask Dick Cheney when Jenna told him she had used a fake ID to get drinks at a bar? (Sally Fasman, Washington)

What hurts most is having to keep it all inside. What is the worst part of a barium enema? (Frank Calogero, Jefferson, Ga.)

I'm not trying to jump to conclusions. What code phrase does a writer use to indicate he is about to jump to a conclusion? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

I'm with that. What would be a good slogan for a T-shirt worn by a companion of Gary Condit? (Russell Beland, Springfield)

? 2001 The Washington Post Company

If Dan Rather openly weeping on Letterman the other night(Fox showed it last night at 5:00) isn't a sign of change, I don't know what is.

I have a question about the terrorist attacks of last week.

What do we know for sure about the identity of the people responsible?

I mean, everybody's talking about bin Laden and the Taliban and so on, but what do we know for sure?

I realize that the authorities almost certainly know a lot of stuff that isn't available for public consumption. I'm also reasonably confident that the U.S. government won't just pick out a plausible culprit for the sake of satisfying the public.

But I was looking at a transcript of a Taliban broadcast in which they said that bin Laden didn't have anything to do with the attacks. I'm not so naive as to take their word for it, but, you know, what if he really didn't?

This is not something we want to get wrong. So I was just wondering, what do we know for sure?

I went back to my copy of T4T to check on what it said about wars across the saeculum, having been impelled to do so by repeated attempts to say that a war on terrorism would be a "second Vietnam".

What immediately struck me is that we need to be aware of the difference between events and the response to events. Wars and their perceived outcomes - indeed, even the style in which they are fought - are influenced by the time and the turning in which they are fought. S&H succinctly characterize the moods of the different turnings in this way in the chart on page 105 of T4T. 1T wars: restorative, 2T wars: controversial, 3T wars: inconclusive, 4T wars: total.

What doomed Vietnam to its infamous status was the fact that it was fought in an Awakening, not specifically that it was a war against guerillas or against a developing country. The national response to the war was fragmented and increasingly negative, the young soldiers who fought the war had no trust in the institutions sending them, and the national view of "sacrifice for one's country" was at a cyclical nadir. I don't think we're seeing anything remotely like that - or will - among the people of post-911 America.

The comparisons to WWI, as a 3T-fought war, carry more weight, but one also needs to keep in mind that it came almost exactly halfway through the Unraveling - 10 years in. Given the current Unraveling, Desert Storm is a much closer comparison to WWI, in terms of time frame, than the 911 terrorist attacks.

The indicators of the type of conflict that may be at the boiling point clearly seem to indicate a sense of "total" war, in a true 4T sense. Several articles and analyses that I have read indicate the militant "Islamist" faction of which Osama bin Laden is just one part has been gearing for a total war of the Islamic world against the "Great Satan" of the West. As one commentator pointed out, they don't want anything from us - what they want is to reestablish the Golden Age of Muslim world power that hasn't been seen since the Middle Ages.

If the Islamists are indeed popularly supported in most of the Islamic world, this could spell out a world war on unprecedented scale. (Doesn't Pakistan have nuclear capability? Am I mistaken?) It might even become the epic Malthusian struggle of the Third World against the West. If this were to result, we would see "total war" indeed. Even if, initially, as Americans we don't take an extremely bloodthirsty approach, we might be pushed into it.

I'm not saying I'm sure this will happen, but many of the indicators are there, and the fact that this has been mentioned in more than one place is telling.

Incidentally, when the Nimda virus hit and disabled us yesterday, I noticed amidst the articles on it a somewhat 4T-like reaction: this must be related to the greater whole - the terrorist attacks - and we have even more of a national security risk on our hands.

Matthew, if you're asking what we the general population knows, we know as much as you do. If you're asking what we as in every government which has vowed to fight and win a war against terrorist, then probably a lot. The evidence collecting will probably go on for some time, perhaps months before any kind of shooting occurs. The fact that we didn't immediately start lobbing cruise missiles at hillsides in Afghanistan convinces me that the people in charge are looking into all possibilities. As for bin Laden himself, whether or not he was directly responsible for this particular attack or not, he is still a known terrorism sponser and organizer, so it would not be an error to eliminate him and his ilk regardless.

Here is a link to the article about "Islamists" that I cited earlier:

http://slate.msn.com/Assessment/01-09-13/Assessment.asp

My apologies if this is a rookie post -- I've been lurking for awhile but this is my first post.

As an Atari-wave Xer, I know we're at the beginning of the 4T. I can *feel* it. I know it's not scientific, but consider:

- Did anyone catch Crosby Stills and Nash on Leno last night? I don't typically watch that show, but I wanted to see what others were thinking. CSN (I thought they'd broken up and weren't speaking to each other, which adds to the drama. Also, I'm *not* a fan of theirs -- I always thought they were old buffoons) came out onstage, amidst plenty of Red, White and Blue. The guitar to "For What It's Worth" (the Awakening anthem) was playing, with all the feelings and thoughts that stirs up. David Crosby opened his mouth and instead of "Something's happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear" he sang:

My country 'tis of thee
sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing
Land where our fathers died
Land of the Pilgrims' pride
from every mountainside
Let freedom ring

It was, chilling, and empowering. Very 4T moment.

-- Things just feel, well *different* than they did even last year. I've seen many posts talking on one side about the dearth of musical trends, and replies talking about how gansta rap is still just as violent, Limp Bizkit is still, well, Limp Bizkit, etc. I'm reminded of the S&H comment that the flagpole sitters of the 20's came down not becuase they felt like it, but becuase no one was paying attention. Now that we're entering 4T, the 3T seems so easy to spot in retrospect. I remember 1982/83 when traditional radio was still rejecting punk/new wave, and suddenly the styles exploded, not only in popularity, but in diversity themselves! Suddenly you had a thousand musical styles, each of them strange, unusual, retro, reactions to one another, reactions to themselves! For example The 70's revival was actually a reaction to the neo-Psychedilic 60's revival of 1983, itself a reaction to punk's influence on mainstream rock. I don't see anything like that on the horizon, and I've been looking. Musical styles are, well, not changing anymore. Techno, rap, pop n' punk, electronica, neo-ambient, what have you; I don't see significant change.

There's more, but that's enough for now.

I know things are changing .... I can taste it.

Too many statements to respond to for my usual cut-and-paste to work, so I'll have to do it by memory. Apologies to those whose names I missed.


Regarding libertarian economics and whether a regulated economy is a good thing:


We have a change of circumstances from the 1920s to the 1950s and 1960s, i.e., from the Great Power to the Millennial Saeculum. It's appropriate to skip the G.P. Crisis, as the Great Depression unfairly skews perceptions of what the G.P. economy was like. But even without that biasing factor, it's obvious that the MilSaec has been an economic golden age by comparison. Good times have been much better for more people, and recessions have been far, far less devastating.


This change must be attributed to causal factors that also changed. Therefore, it cannot be attributed, as one poster suggested, to industrialization. The country was fully industrialized by the 1920s. The significant changes that occurred between that decade and the 1950s were a shift in government policy from one that favored capital to one that balanced the interests of capital against those of labor. With wealth more equitably shared (due to higher wages and government programs to help ensure financial security), the consumer base of the economy became broader, stronger, and capable of supporting a more vigorous economy.


Unfortunately, that is only true on a national scale in the U.S. and other countries where similar regimens obtain. Globally, it is not true, and we are heading for another comeuppance similar to what struck in the 1930s.


Regarding the red zone/blue zone division: the point I was trying to make earlier was that one should not confuse the vote received by George W. Bush with support for the moral regimen of the red zone. George W. Bush was not a religious-right candidate. He campaigned as a moderate Republican. (Whether he has governed like one is a separate question.) Thus, he gained the votes of many people who do not belong to the cultural red zone, whether or not they live there. (And many of them don't.)


The cultural red zone represents, at most, 30 percent of the U.S. population. While not insignificant, that is a far cry from "essentially half" as was claimed earlier.


Looking at things by county is, of course, even more misleading, since most of those counties in the red are sparsely inhabited and almost none of them include the most populous areas of the country. Counties don't vote. Nor do they have opinions on politics or the culture. Citizens do.


Regarding the desirability of getting independent confirmation of what I say about extinctions, I respond that one should get independent confirmation of what I say about anything, and the same goes for the poster who made that comment. However, that poster should not himself be trusted for confirmation on the subject, at least not unless he has learned that the K/T extinction did not take place overnight.


I find I now have, for the first time since last Tuesday, criticism to level against the president in terms of policy. I see foreign-policy errors of two equal and opposite kinds. On the one hand, he should not have approached nations that are on the list of those who sponsor terrorists to try to include them in the coalition against terrorism. That sends the signal that this is, contrary to what has been asserted, a war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, not against terrorism and the states that support terrorists generally. We thus risk painting ourselves into an ineffectual corner. I can only hope that the Sudan and Iran tell Bush to take a hike.


On the other hand, Bush is wrong not to seek U.N. approval of this action. The only way to get a lasting solution to this problem is to make it a global effort, not merely a national one.


(Sigh.) Screw-ups do seem inevitable in the early days of a 4T. I don't know why that is. But we'd better, in the course of this one, find ourselves a permanent solution to the problem of war and WOMD, or our descendants may not have the luxury of recouping early errors when next this point of the saeculum rolls around.

Brian, the thing I see in favor of including states like Syria, Iran, and Sudan in this coalition is that their agreeing to join with us MAY mean that they have decided that harboring these vermin is counter to their best interests as well. Perhaps this means that they will finally get the balls to throw the bastards out and refuse to tolerate them further. I hold out hope that this is so.

i would suggest that focusing on a war on osama bin laden is actually very good politics. terrorism is a very amorphous target. osama bin laden is not. by capturing bin laden and putting him on trial, or perhaps killing him, the bush administration would be able to quickly declare a victory and at least for now satisfy the lust for revenge coursing through the veins of much of the general populace at the moment. this would then allow the markets to start refocusing on the prospects for recovery over the next few years and the beneficial effects of the massive liquidity infusion that has now been put into the system by the world's central banks.

the problem, though, is not going to go away. radical islam has the same kind appeal for much of the poor and dispossessed people of the muslim world that radical marxism had for poor russians and chinese in the early part of the 20th century. the real opening for these forces will probably come when king fahd finally falls from power in saudi arabia, either through natural causes, a coup of some sort, or an outright revolt.

Brian sighed? Screw-ups do seem inevitable in the early days of a 4T. I don't know why that is. But we'd better, in the course of this one, find ourselves a permanent solution to the problem of war and WOMD, or our descendants may not have the luxury of recouping early errors when next this point of the saeculum rolls around.

As the USS Enterprise?s air wing flew into Pearl Harbor late on Dec 7, 1941, they encountered anti-aircraft fire. Everyone is jumpy and emotional early on. With hindsight, the surviving US old battleships did not really need to defend San Fransico. I suspect it is going to take years to learn the best strategies and tactics to take on this particular enemy. Some of the learning will have to be by trial and error. Some lessons, clear with hindsight, or clear from a 3T civilian?s point of view, are not clear when under fire in a brand new sort of war.

I tend to agree that welcoming terrorist countries into the coalition is a risky move, but not without possible payback. Let?s just say, just fresh out of the unraveling, the population?s perspectives are still widely divergent. To a great degree we will have to learn who is right, who is wrong, the hard way. Dubya has until November 2004 to have it mostly right.

Meanwhile, which name does not belong on this list, and why?

Queen Victoria
Alexander the Great
George W Bush
Genghis Kahn

George W Bush. He has never made a failed attempt to invade Afghanistan.

The problem with a focus on bringing Bin Laden to trial is: What if he really wasn't involved in this attack? Is he really the only source of money and training for radical Muslim terrorists? If brought to trial, he'd obviously be convicted. And if he was convicted and the case was closed, whoever really did it would still be out there.

My cynical (Nomad) view is that Bush and his buddies know how to fight a war against another country, but not against terrorists. Therefore, they want to make this a war against Afghanistan and the Taliban.

My equally cynical Nomad sister pointed out that, if Bin Laden is smart, he's already left Afghanistan, and if things get hot for the Taliban, they'll report that he's been killed.

Robocooper, that wasn't a rookie post. That's all interesting stuff.

Did you see that some company which owns a huge chunk of radio stations circulated a list of songs that would be inappropriate to play right now, including "Stairway to Heaven" and "Imagine." How 4T is that?

Brian:

It's true that counties don't vote, people do -- and that Bush attracted many votes from people who do not agree with the Religious Right (like, ME, for that matter!).

But your backing off throughout your posts from 40% to 30% of the population being "true" Red Zoners (whatever that means) and dismissiveness about the fact that the vast majority of the country's territory is Red Zone (my 75% estimate was probably woefully underestimated, upon second look at the county map -- maybe 90%?) gives the lie to your previous clarification that you don't consider Red Zoners to be a "fringe group." 40% would get you toward a plurality; 30% is below one-third, and heading down toward one-quarter. If I were you, I'd read Michael Barone for some more informed commentary on American politico-demographics before assuming that America is only its big cities.

Also, land area IS important to the debate. Red Zoners are incredibly sensitive to being considered "flyover" territory by Blue Zoners, whose pro-environment politics fail to consider the realities of rural life. And if nothing else, Manifest Destiny has long been an animating force in American politics. (Hardly an unmitigatedly good one, either, as I can personally attest -- being both part-Native American and a former reporter in sprawl-choked suburbs.)

So why is all my point-by-point criticism relevant to a T4T debate? Because you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to SEPARATE the zones. That, in the (itself 3T) lingo of the board, is "so 3T."

Think of the Red Zone anger in Blue Zone New York -- and so many other ordinarily liberal places, as has been noted. (Heck, Barbara Lee has been criticized in BERKELEY for her anti-war vote ...) In turn, I think people in the "heartland"/Red Zone, from the sense I've been able to get, have a bit of Blue Zone caution about the dangers that lie ahead.

The country -- so recently 3T-riven -- is rapidly approaching consensus on the big picture, which is the upcoming war against terrorism, and recognizes that the culture wars (the objects of which, admittedly, still divide America) need to be put aside. That is 4T. But you seem bound and determined to drag us back pre-9/11.

Earlier I stated that I believed that the WTC event would prove to be the catalyst for the fourth turning. Now I am not so sure. First let me include a response I had prepared to the first of S&H's ten points before I reevaluated as I will come back to it at the end:

S&H wrote: 1.A desire to describe the problem in maximalist rather than minimalist terms--in ways that would sweep other problems (fiscal, economic, cultural, moral) into this one big problem.

My response: The administration will pursue the maximalist course. It is quite simple. The forces behind this administration looked at the demographics and concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the Republican Party is doomed unless they can steal various elements of the Democratic coalition -- and quickly. This is the reason for the unprecedented pandering to soccer moms, Hispanics, and other non-Republican groups throughout the campaign and since the election (e.g. education for soccer moms and amnesty for Mexicans). And they are smart enough to know that they cannot achieve a political realignment of this magnitude, on a par with 1860 and 1932, in the absence of a crisis. Therefore they must create a crisis at all costs both to attract Democratic factions through community pride and to blind the Republican base to the fact that they are being sold out on issue after issue, e.g. Clinton crimes, immigration, education, affirmative action, Klamath property rights, etc., etc. Even if the WTC destruction does not warrant a crisis, they will try to create one. And if the media remains cooperative, then that will seal the 4T as masses of dissenters in the general public will be brought around propagandistically to a maximalist response.

END

At first there was a lot of big talk from the administration (and there still is in some respects) which suggested a 4T response to wipe out all terrorists, eliminate the problem, and impose a Carthaginian peace. But the administration's subsequent points of emphasis suggest a 3T response. We have repeatedly heard from analysts that the WTC attack was beyond the means of bin Laden and necessarily was state-sponsored. Israeli intelligence has stated that Saddam Hussein was behind it and that Saddam contracted out to bin Laden and other "specialists." And now someone in US intelligence has leaked to the media that Mohammed Atta, one of the WTC pilots, recently met with "a high-ranking official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service." Additionally, Saddam has a clear motive in exacting revenge on Bush, Cheney, and Powell since he was humiliated ten years ago by, you guessed it, Bush, Cheney, and Powell. There really is a strong suggestion that Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi state apparatus were ultimately behind this. Yet every time there is talk of Hussein in the media, the administration immediately tries to quash it and steer discussion back toward Osama bin Laden, an apparent bit player in the grand scheme. They are swiping a 3T from the jaws of a 4T.

It appears that the administration has a motive for avoiding the problem of terrorism as a whole and concentrating on one man, bin Laden. At this link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1550366.stm, a Pakistani official reveals that, in July, he was made aware of plans of the US government to take military action to remove the Taliban and replace it with a transitional government of moderate Afghans by mid-October. The Pakistani official's claims are possibly validated in the following from the 15 March issue of Jane's Defense Weekly:

Jane's Defense Weekly (15 March 2001)

"India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime... Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support."

In other words, long before the WTC event, the administration had plans to invade Afghanistan and take out the Taliban government by mid-October. They are now using the WTC event as cover for carrying out their pre-existing plans.

It appears that, contrary to any big talk, the administration is ignoring the problem of terrorism generally and concentrating on one particular portion of it, Osama bin Laden. This is a 3T response. If the administration were committed to living up to the rhetoric and responding in a 4T manner to wipe out the problem of terrorism completely, they would not be avoiding the truth that Saddam Hussein was ultimately behind the WTC event. They would be demonizing Saddam night and day and preparing the American people to annihilate him and his regime along with bin Laden and all other bit players. But of course this is not happening and the administration is going to great lengths to prevent it from happening. In substance, they are providing a minimalist response rather than a maximalist one. And it seems kind of foolish when you consider that the only thing preventing them from producing a 4T response may be fear that drawing attention to Saddam's role may lead to embarrassment since the WTC tragedy only came about through the first Bush administration's failure to remove the problem.

The WTC event ultimately may prove not to be the catalyst. But there is no doubt in my mind that, if a crisis does not present itself, this administration will try to generate one by 2004. The forces behind this administration truly do see the world in the manner I described at top in my response to S&H's first point. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Republican Party is finished unless it can quickly achieve a political realignment on a par with 1932 and 1860 before it, and they have demonstrated this fear in their words and actions every day since George W. Bush announced his candidacy in 1999. They know they need a crisis to bring about a realignment of this magnitude, and you can rest assured that we will have a crisis by 2004 when George W. Bush must run for reelection. Fasten your seat belts.

Ummm...what you guys are forgetting is that other "zone" that hasn't voted in 25 years.
Neither candidate in the last several elections has gotten "half" the vote, but rather a third of the eligible vote.

The main point about the map of the red and blue zones (I thought) was to show that people of like political thinking are drifting together and away from those of opposite political thinking. 30-40 years ago, the color divide would not have been between heartland and coasts like it is today; it would have been a divide between age groups.

On 2001-09-19 13:46, doxieman wrote:

[Y]our backing off throughout your posts from 40% to 30% of the population being "true" Red Zoners (whatever that means)

Doxieman, 40% was your figure, not mine. I have never acknowledged it, and therefore have not "backed off" from it.


What I mean by "true" red zoners is the only thing with significant political meaning beyond the results of E2K itself. Technically, the "red zone" represents all those counties that voted for Bush. But that's significant only because it covers so much rural territory and so little urban territory, and that in turn is meaningful because the values of the religious right are stronger in the red zone than they are in the blue.


So what I mean by "true red zoners" is simply the religious right. Those who voted for Bush for some other reason (such as yourself) do not qualify.

40% would get you toward a plurality; 30% is below one-third, and heading down toward one-quarter.

It is also the correct figure.

Also, land area IS important to the debate. Red Zoners are incredibly sensitive to being considered "flyover" territory by Blue Zoners, whose pro-environment politics fail to consider the realities of rural life.

I'm sorry, but that fact, even to the extent that it is one (see below) does not indicate that "land area is important to the debate." Land -- not land area -- is important as a subject for debate. But the fact that the counties that voted for Bush are spread out over a lot of land area in no way changes the numbers of people who did so, nor the numbers of people who hold the core red-zone values. Those numbers are what matter for purposes of future elections.


As to whether "pro-environment politics fail to consider the realities of rural life," I suggest that question could be posed to the residents of California timber country, who are increasingly siding with environmentalists against the timber companies whose clear-cutting policies are ruining the watershed and their property values. Or to those who live near modern pig farms. Or to those who have lost their farmland to the very agribusiness giants who are the chief targets of GM protesters and anti-pesticide activists.


It isn't the "realities" of rural life that environmentalists fail to consider, but the distortion of that reality by propagandists who are in a position to run roughshod over rural residents, and don't want interference on environmental grounds.

So why is all my point-by-point criticism relevant to a T4T debate? Because you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to SEPARATE the zones. That, in the (itself 3T) lingo of the board, is "so 3T."

I don't believe I was the first to make that separation. Everything I've said about the red and blue zones has been in response to someone else trying to argue that the blue zone is somehow morally inferior or insignificant. As, in fact, you do here:

Think of the Red Zone anger in Blue Zone New York -- and so many other ordinarily liberal places, as has been noted. Heck, Barbara Lee has been criticized in BERKELEY for her anti-war vote ...)

WHOA THERE, fella! Exactly what do you mean when you characterize outrage over an act of war, an act of wanton viciousness, as "red zone anger"? Exactly what is a liberal, from Berkeley or elsewhere, to find appealing in Lee's vote? It's one thing (as, in fact, was pointed out at the time of the hullaballoo over Vietnam) to object to war when our government is getting us into one pointlessly and without good justification. It's another thing altogether when war is brought to us by a foreign power. No antiwar activist from the Awakening would have objected for one second to the response to Pearl Harbor.


Well, 911 was a heck of a lot more like Pearl Harbor than it was like the Tonkin Gulf. And there's no reason why a liberal has to give up his leftie card if he wants to get steamed up about it.

The country -- so recently 3T-riven -- is rapidly approaching consensus on the big picture, which is the upcoming war against terrorism

That is PART of the big picture. Other parts include the environmentalism that, despite your dismissal of it, is an issue of the survival of civilization, not a Culture War issue.


OTOH, I think it's pretty obvious that abortion, gay rights, gun control, and capital punishment don't belong in the same room with either the war on terrorism or the coming struggle over resources and sustainability. Those are among the real culture wars issues. And I am quite prepared to declare a cease-fire on all of them. As a matter of fact, I think the entire blue zone would be. And indeed, has been prepared for such a cease-fire for quite a number of years.


Lis:

Ummm...what you guys are forgetting is that other "zone" that hasn't voted in 25 years

Heh. Yeah -- call it the "gray zone," or maybe the "O-zone."